Dannyno

Perhaps you misunderstood my point. My point was that if you don't have a television, you don't have to pay for a TV license. Since there is no such thing as a radio license, if you don't have a TV license you can listen to BBC radio for free. Obviously the TV license fee goes towards paying for all BBC services, including TV and Radio.

When? The BBC has always reflected the values of the powerful in society. Watch its political interviewing in the 1950s and 1960s. Balanced? Hardly. ---------- Post added 15-07-2015 at 12:24 ---------- You can listen to BBC radio for free. The license fee is for television. No television = no license fee.

But presumably he doesn't know you, and can only go on what you say here. There's probably a lesson there.

Well, the council have outsourced to Amey, who in turn outsource work to others. Amey and the "others" are all supposed to be experts in doing this kind of work; they're not the council. So since it looks like things aren't going the way you'd expect, and since you'd presume they'd want to minimise disruption (there will always be disruption), it would be good to just ask them what's going on. Then either there will be an explanation that can be understood, or they have cocked up. Either way, it's Amey and not the council.

If they're closing roads but then can't or don't do the work, that's very annoying. I'd suggesting asking them via twitter or wherever what's going on. We all know road works cause disruption, and you'd think they'd want to avoid irritating people unnecessarily.

Sometimes they have to close a road they aren't working on so that heavy machinery can have access to the roads they are working on. Don't know if that's the case in all these instances.

Seeking to improve your wages and conditions collectively is "dealing with it" if anything is. There obviously isn't a "free market" of any kind, let alone a "free market" in human labour. And of course, every time you leave one job and start another, your statutory redundancy rights are reset to the minimum, and for two years you can't even take your employer to tribunal for unfair dismissal. And so on. Obviously sometimes it's best just to leave and find another job, but there are good reasons for collective action to improve terms and conditions and pay - job security is important. The alternative is your defeatist and powerless individualism, tugging the forelock to bullying employers and accepting the logic of cowardice.

It depends Try here: http://www.thetrainline.com/

They probably spend most of their time dealing with people who think their job is to resolve their private issues, such as when they get bumped into in their car. Good call by the CSO, I reckon. ---------- Post added 04-07-2015 at 00:53 ---------- http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/faq-answer?id=Q425

What happened in school asssemblies when you were at school? ---------- Post added 04-07-2015 at 00:34 ---------- Which schools banned "ba ba black sheep"? Tell you what, I'll help you out answering that: no schools banned "ba ba black sheep".

Well... Go to http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk, type in Firth Park on the left, select "ward", search and explore. According to that, from figures in the 2011 census results, there were 14,305 people aged 16-74, of which 8673 were "economically active". 2,129 employed part time 4,315 full time 690 self-employed = 49.8% employed or self-employed. But then there were also: 1,162 unemployed (counted as "economically active") 377 students, either employed or unemployed (ditto) Plus: 1,811 retired 834 students, either not employed or not meeting criteria of being unemployed (i.e. not economically active) 1,123 carers 1,292 long term sick or disabled 572 others. If you take the total and subtract the retired and students, then the employed or self-employed are 63% of the total. If you then also subtract carers and the long term sick/disabled from the total, then the proportion of those employed or self employed reaches 80%. ---------- Post added 30-06-2015 at 18:51 ---------- But that's obviously not just the estate. But you can do the same searches by postcode too.

There are more of these around the city than you'd think, they're not easy to see. See also: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/video-oh-deer-distressed-doe-rescued-from-sheffield-brook-1-7188491 http://www.wildsheffield.com/species/roe-deer

What "should" be done is not necessarily straightforward, because intervention could have a negative effect too. Luckily there are experts around who know what they are doing. They "should" make the call on whether or not to intervene.

There seems to be plenty of money for the council to hand out to Abbeydale Cricket Club, Wisewood Community Keep Fit, Friends of Bolehills Park, Derwent Woodcraft Folk, Greenhill Methodist Church, and Totley Residents Forum... https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/grants.html

They aren't listed on their website: http://www.pottersherbals.co.uk/potters_herbal_product_range.html

He was listed for a preliminary hearing at the Crown Court (case number T20157229) on 1st May, the date that was set back in April when he first appeared before magistrates. He will remain in custody until trial, if he's pleading not guilty.

The idea that the test of teacher commitment is the number of pupils they stay in touch with when they've left is nonsense. The idea that teachers not keeping in touch with pupils is a symptom of not caring about their pupils is nonsense. The idea that teachers can only be effective if they "really care" about their pupils to the extent of maintaining some kind of close personal contact (of the kind discouraged by professional standards) post-school, is nonsense. This expectation is unrealistic. We don't expect it of other professionals, like midwives, doctors, etc. What goes right or wrong in professional work of this type is not dependent on the development of lifelong friendships or even "really caring". "Really caring" is not appropriate and it's not necesary.

Bear in mind that this company was created to run the Sheffield contract. It is jointly owned by a company which is ultimately part of Amey UK PLC, itself ultimately owned by Ferrovial, based in Spain; Uberior, a subsidiary of Lloyds Bank; and Equitix. If you read Amey Hallam's annual accounts, they do say that they expect to make losses in the short term, particularly during what they call the "construction phase". In other words, I'm guessing that the business model is that they put the investment in the infrastructure during these early years, and expect to have to spend less during the remainder of the contract to 2037. And that's where their joint owners will make their money. The December 2013 annual accounts say, "The contract is currently behind the planned construction programme, however a plan has been implemented to bring the construction in line with the concession agreement." ---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 18:46 ---------- Look at the map and see what they've done: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/works/schemes/streetsaheadproject/works-schedules/works-map.html According to the Streets Ahead Contract Data Sheet (Google it): "Payment is based on a number of different factors relating to Amey’s performance, progress against investment programmes and completed non-core services. Amey submit a Payment Report on a monthly basis which is discussed, and the monthly payment agreed, at Management Board." The contract itself can be found on the Council site, albeit only in redacted form: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/dms/scc/management/corporate-communications/documents/transport/streets-ahead/contract/Streets-Ahead-Contract/Streets%20Ahead%20Contract.doc

Which car park?

I've no idea whether there are rules about whether a polling station can be opened late, but if not I wonder how they deal with the security issues?

There's this video uploaded 10 February: https://youtu.be/TgbZuwuBhPg

That could be interpreted two ways. It could mean that it doesn't matter how long you are there for, any visits must be separated by a period longer than 5 hours. Or it could mean that that the two hours resets to zero after a 5 hour gap.

Try making your own?

It is by any normal, everyday, meaning of the word "fine". The actual point is that it's not a council matter and would only be pursued through the civil courts, if at all. ---------- Post added 06-05-2015 at 07:43 ---------- I've had a similar problem elsewhere, I would imagine it's quite common that people make two short visits to a retailer - I did this and received an overstay notice based on the time of my first arrival and the time of my last departure (i.e hours and hours). It's the result of not applying common sense to the camera data. What I did is write to the company pointing out I had visited for a short time on two occasions, and that if they insisted on pursuing the matter I would be requesting all the data they had on me for that day under the Data Protection Act, and also complaining to the Ombudsman about their misuse of that data. They're obviously not going to be able to get anywhere with their charges, if you really were there for less than an hour combined. So appeal or write to them and that will sort it out. If, on the other hand, and having re-read your post, you were actually there for longer than the allowed hour combined, then whether you exceeded the time depends on their small print about multiple visits.

I've always avoided calling these penalties "fines" for the avoidance of misunderstanding, and because people jump down your throat. And it is wrong to pretend or imply that a parking charge levied by a private company is the same as a penalty applied by a local council. Enforcement and punishment is different in each case. The reason they got criticised for calling their letters "penalty charge notices" is not because of the "fine" issue, but because they were pretending to be something they're not. But there's no legal significance to the mere word "fine" so far as I can discover. If a private company wants to call their charge for overstaying a "fine", then as far as I can see there's no reason why they can't: there is nothing to say the word is reserved for a particular purpose. The word "fine" just means a pecuniary penalty (to borrow a Wikipedia phrase), which usually would be a state punishment, but need not be. Everyone knows what a fine is. And anyone can charge a fine. Workplaces do, libraries do, sporting organisations do. What is usually referred to is the Bill of Rights: "That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegal and void.” But the ingenious idea that this constitutionally prevented parking fines (let alone private penalties) was sadly dismissed outright by Justice Collins in 2006 in the de Crittenden case. http://www.lgcplus.com/1689-bill-of-rights-does-not-outlaw-parking-tickets/504694.article So this idea that "fine" has a special reserved meaning, or that fines are unconstitutional, is pseudo-law, so far as I can tell . Unless anyone can correct me with new information.