Dannyno

Yes, I remember the polling station issue, although that may have been more to do with lots of students all turning up at the last minute. The Sheffield University enrolment project (it's been an experimental pilot, it seems, and as far as I can tell they did it by adapting their enrolment system. However, other universities, like Hallam, seem to use different systems which they can't adapt so easily - maybe there needs to be a national approach there). However, accroding to http://appg-students.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Individual-Electoral-Registration-getting-students-registered.pdf, although 63 per cent of Uni students filled in the registration forms, only 22% of students were actually able to complete the registration process (didn't have their NI numbers). That was December, it's probably improved since then. So when it comes to actual votes, what do we expect? I'm making this up now, but... Of those c11500 Hallam constituency students, less than a quarter may actually be registered (less than 2900). And of that quarter, how many will actually vote? Do we think it will be higher or lower than non-students? Shall we say maybe 60% of them? I think that's optimistic, but hey. So in the unlikely event that my speculation is anywhere near right, you're talking about a student active electorate of about 1700. So that's a big block, but it's not as dramatic as the original numbers might make you think. There are other points to take into account. Hallam Uni have done a registration campaign too, but not electronic. So their registration rate must be quite a lot lower (I haven't found a figure yet). This would bring down the Sheffield average. The Uni may have improved their registration rate since December. Some students will already be registered to vote in Sheffield, because they're local. Others may or may not register here, but may choose to vote at home if they're not from Sheffield (you can be registered twice, but of course it's illegal to vote twice in general elections). This survey of 994 students http://www.youthsight.com/media-centre/announcements/student-voter-registration-and-party-preference-february-2015/ found that 78% of students were registered to vote (were they sure?!), but that only 40% will vote in their University town (this includes students where their university town is also their home town). It is suggested there that 10,000 students will be registered to vote in Sheffield, but they are assuming that 78% of Sheffield students will be enrolled, and that seems too high. I wonder if the actual enrolment stats for students are or will be released anywhere? ---------- Post added 15-04-2015 at 00:48 ---------- No they haven't. And it's not self-evident at all. Are we talking about the same thing? Clearly tuition fees have risen, with most unis charging 9K. But this has not led to students' families "incurring greater costs" at all. The 9K tuition fees are not paid up front, and not paid by the student's family/parents. The student themselves pays those fees, and they don't pay anything at all until they've graduated. And then they still don't pay anything until their salary reaches £21K a year. That's why I think you were wrong to say that students' families are incurring "greater costs", if you were talking about the 9K tuition fees. They're not incurring any tuition fee costs whatsoever. This doesn't mean I think fees are a good thing.

According to the 2011 census (figures vary a bit depending which measure you look at): Sheffield Hallam: all usual residents: 89356 population (Aged 16-74): 66181 population (aged 18+): 72508 students: 11555 (c12.9% of usual residents; c17.5% of 16-74 population; c15.9% of 18+ population) Sheffield Central: all usual residents: 115284 population (aged 16-74): 95289 population (aged 18+):98463 students: 36686 (c31.8% of usual residents; c38.5% of 16-74s; c37.3% of 18+ pop) https://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk ---------- Post added 15-04-2015 at 00:08 ---------- If you're talking about the 9K course fees, no they haven't.

A significant number of the population of the constituency are students. But the proportion of the student population who are actually registered to vote will be less significant (but could still make a difference in a close race, agreed).

Perspective? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2242751/Girl-nearly-goes-blind-inadvertently-eating-parasite-dog-mess-travelled-stomach-EYEBALL.html Eye threat to Manchester toddler who fell in dog mess http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-11012044 ---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 23:33 ---------- There are lots of threads about even less important issues than this. And yet you haven't posted this kind of comment in any of those. Get some perspective.

Incorrect. It's a criminal offence. s.67, para 2 of Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/part/4/chapter/2/crossheading/failure-to-comply-with-orders/enacted If you refused to pay the fixed penalty fine, and if the local authority pursued prosecution, then you could end up being convicted of refusing to pay that fine in a magistrate's court, and end up with a larger fine. And if you refuse to pay *that* fine, which is due to the court and not to the local authority, then the court has various options open to it, including getting court bailiffs to pursue the fine, taking money from benefits, wages, etc. Of course, there are lots of steps before getting that far, and even when it does get that far, people do still manage to avoid paying by various means. In fact, the ultimate penalty could potentially be imprisonment, though I'd have thought this would be very rare for a minor offence like this. But it is a criminal offence to breach a public space protection order.

Yes, sorry, you're right; the fixed penalty fines are £100 I meant.

No, it's £100 on the spot; if you don't pay, you could be taken to magistrates court, where the maximum fine would be £1000.

So they'd have to catch you <shrug>. I understand this is all mere rhetoric, it's fine. ---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 13:24 ---------- Wirral are going down the same road, after a period of legal confusion: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/wirral-admits-not-handing-out-8722976

Or so you boast on here. Were you in Daventry, it would presumably be up to Daventry to take whatever action was thought necessary or proportionate in "catching" you. I don't see that it matters much to the point we're discussing.

Refusal to give your name and address when being served a fixed penalty notice is an offence. Government guidance on this suggests that councils work with the police on this, so either council officers will be accompanied on occasion, or at first, or they will in fact be calling on police assistance where necessary.

Section 68, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/section/68/enacted

This is not true. Those authorised to issue fixed penalties also have the legal power to require names and addresses from those they issue the penalties to. Failure to supply correct details is itself an offence, for which you can be fined. And the police may attend to help enforce that requirement.

Yeah, I get that. Perhaps all they need to say for next year is that the timetable of closures is an estimate only, and is subject to change right up to the start of the race. The message people need to hear is, "don't count on being able to drive across the route from early in the morning".

I can understand the irritation, and as you say if you were relying on those times you might get caught out. But I think your expectations were mistaken. They published a timetable, but in saying that they were subject to change I don't think they meant that they would publish new times on the websites up to and including the day itself. I think that's what you seem to have been expecting? I think "subject to change" means exactly that - "subject to change" - i.e. they will be reacting to events on the day and adjusting their plans. You can't keep publishing revised timetables in real time. I mean the times they've published will be the working timetable prior to the event, and they won't need to change those. But come the day of the event, and anything could happen. ---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 22:19 ---------- They've got similar issues in Manchester with residents access in some areas. For example: http://www.greatermanchestermarathon.com/race-info/road-closure-info/area-10/ Similar issues for the London Marathon: https://www.virginmoneylondonmarathon.com/en-gb/event-info/road-closures/ What they've done there is arrange for residents parking in local school grounds. Of course, the London Marathon is a vastly bigger event, which lasts much longer, so more contingencies need building in.

I'm sure people have been taking logs from public parks since forever. And probably without getting stopped by anyone. However, if the question is whether it is legal - no, it probably isn't, unless it's common land. But common land and public land are not the same thing. The question would probably boil down to whether the logs (if we're talking proper logs and not just foliage or branches, which you can probably take if they're lying around) are of value to the landowner. If not, they're not likely to be bothered. But for all you know, the landowner may have been trying to build up a stock of logs for their own reasons, maybe to build a house for their elderly aunt, who is getting increasingly distressed by how long it is taking because people keep nicking the logs. So, you know, think about that. Obviously the council isn't going to be building houses for elderly aunts, though.

There's also the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I don't know enough to know what the procedure is. There's nothing in either Act to say that there has to be an alternative access route.

The Road Closures leaflet here: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/works/roadworks.html includes language like this: It also says the closures times are approximate and subject to change.

Hallamshire tennis club definitely were, they put a note about it on their blog. http://www.hallamshiretennis.co.uk/news

The council website had a leaflet about road closures, was that not circulated to residents? ---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 10:35 ---------- It's done under the Road Traffic Regulation (Special Events) Act 1994, presumably.

This process of improving our knowledge is called learning. Bread is not very nutritious for ducks, and if they come to rely on it then they can become malnourished and diseased. It's "junk food". Also, bread attracts rats and pollutes the water. When it's left uneaten it causes algal blooms and encourages the spread of bacteria. Algae can deprive water of oxygen (it grows quickly and dies off quickly and decays, which uses oxygen), which will kill fish and have a knock on effect on other animals. Some algae is specifically toxic. If you like ducks, feed them something that's good for them and that won't damage the environment. It's not that difficult.

The RMT were not involved in the election of Miliband, because they haven't been affiliated to the Labour Party for over a decade. As has already been said, individual union members affiliated to the Labour Party got a vote. How come we don't say that David Miliband stabbed Ed in the back by standing against him. And anyway, standing in an election isn't any kind of being stabbed in the back, it's a democratic competition.

The Council don't operate in a policy vacuum. Local councils are being "encouraged" by the Government to sell off land for housing development: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13684111 Also see this from the Audit Commission: http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/2014/06/can-local-governments-2-5-billion-surplus-assets-be-put-to-better-use-2/ ---------- Post added 09-04-2015 at 17:41 ---------- You're buying the leasehold (150 years), not the freehold, in other words. A lot of people buy houses on similar terms. This is "selling land" in any meaningful sense.

A lot of this kind of thing goes on through the Sheffield City Region Local Enterprise Partnership http://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/ Last February there was this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26088500 However, the case then went to the Supreme Court, where they lost, this February: http://www.localgov.co.uk/Councils-lose-EU-funding-appeal/38200

But in Judeo-Christian tradition, Sunday is the first day of the week, not the seventh. Saturday is the seventh day and therefore actually the Sabbath (well, the Sabbath extends from Sundown Friday to Sundown Saturday). Traditionally, especially in Catholicism, Sunday is not the Sabbath but "the Lord's Day", and was treated as the weekly festival of the resurrection, not the completion of Creation. A day of worship, not a day of rest. Just to let you know.

But she isn't allowed to walk free at all. Justice is not binary. There is not choice of just "locked up" or "let go". There are also community sentences, as in this case, and supervision orders, as in this case, and being ordered to undergo treatment, as in this case, and having already served several months in prison before sentencing, as in this case.