Dannyno

We're talking here about refugees - people applying for asylum in the UK due to persecution in their own country. They are not "scroungers", but people who need help. The government funds them for a while, via local authorities, while their application is processed.

I don't know the details, but funding arrangements are set out here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/995786/2020-2021_LA_Funding_Instruction_v1.0_-_Final.pdf That seems to show that each adult refugee "costs" up to £8520 in the first year, and from the 2nd to 5th years this starts at £5000, tapering away to £1000 in the 5th year (this support ends after 5 years). This is basically what councils can be reimbursed for (there's more to it than this, if you read the detail in the document, but this is the main element for adults).

The question is a bit muddled. "City of Sanctuary" is a designation associated with a charitable organisation committed to trying to provide a welcoming and supportive culture towards refugees - it describes itself as a grassroots movement. You can donate to them here: https://cityofsanctuary.org/donate/ But being part of the "City of Sanctuary" movement has nothing to do with how many refugees end up in a particular place (and let's remember there's a difference between refugees fleeing persecution and immigrants in general or economic migrants who move primarily for work and how they are handled by the state). The UK has a national asylum dispersal programme, introduced by the 1999 Asylum and Immigration Act. The idea, apparently, was that it would prevent concentrations of refugees in any particular place - most refugees were settling in the south of England to make their asylum applications, for obvious reasons. Overall statistics can be read here: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01403/SN01403.pdf And the local authority stats are here: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/ That tells us that in March 2021, Sheffield was host to 828 people seeking asylum (i.e. being supported until a decision is made), which relative to population is comparable to Birmingham and way lower than Liverpool. The point to make is that the asylum dispersal programme and the City of Sanctuary movement are not linked. You don't get more because you've signed up to City of Sanctuary. Now, in supporting the City of Sanctuary charity in Sheffield as a community organisation, the Council does give them grants to support their work with refugees. Between 2017/2018 and 2019/2020, this was £45,000 a year, but there may be other small grants too if they apply for them - they also got £3000 for monthly cross cultural activities, mentioned on the council site. You can see these figures reported here:https://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=22398&Opt=0 There's also this report which describes some of the great work City of Sanctuary do: https://sheffield.cityofsanctuary.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2021/05/CS08-COS-AIR-2018-19-FINAL.pdf

Old post, I know, but I had a look at Companies House. The last accounts filed for Rother Valley Country Park Ltd (a subsidiary of Oak Holdings) are dated 16 Aug 2011, representing business up to 31 October 2010, which as the accounts say was the first full year of RVCP running the park. Turnover had increased from £756, 784 in 2009 to £1, 135, 930 in 2010. But costs were also up, and in the end the loss for the year was £68, 042, worse than £15, 803 in 2009. So no, they weren't making a profit before Rotherham Council terminated the contract.

The Russell group, by the way, is just a club/lobby group for (currently) 24 Universities which consider themselves to be research-intensive. The Russell Group is not monolithic. It has 'red brick' universities (those founded in the late 19th/early 20th century) like the University of Sheffield (founded in the early 20th century), medieval institutions like Oxford or Cambridge, 'plate glass' universities (founded in the 1950s/60s) like York University, and early 19th century institutions like Durham. They don't share the same organisational form.

You said this, but it's worth emphasing that beyond Oxbridge and some of the other older universities, "colleges" or "schools" or "departments" or "faculties" are really effectively synonyms for groupings of subjects for management convenience, not much different to the way any large organisation is structured. The amount of freedom they have will vary from institution to institution, but they are a single entity (unless, for example, a Business School has been set up separately). But at Oxford and Cambridge and to some extent at other older Universities like Durham, colleges are different and have a different history. There's quite a bit of diversity, but basically at Oxford and Cambridge the colleges are more or less autonomous or self-governing communities or there's a kind of federal structure.

You're referring to the Blair government's target, set out in 1999 (8 years after polytechnics became universities) which was in fact 50 per cent of young adults (aged 18-30) going into higher education (rather than University specifically). Had polytechnics not already been converted, attendance at them would obviously have counted, because the target was not only about universities, and not only degrees. It's true that a large part of the target would be made up of students at universities studying degrees, but it was broader than that. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1789500.stm To which we can add Oxford which has Oxford University and Oxford Brookes University, and Cambridge which has Cambridge University and one of Anglia Ruskin's campuses.

Found this: "Private roads: how private is private?" by Andrew Barsby (author of 'Private Roads: the legal framework') in "Justice of the Peace" journal, 2002 issue 42, October. He says later: and Taking all this and the previous post together, it seems like there are powers to require that misleading traffic signs be removed from private land. And that even on a private road, those responsible for its maintenance cannot put up any old signs they like (if the road is accessible by the public).

On 24/07/2020 at 07:11, Tony said: S.64 (4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act (1984) says: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/64 And s.69 reads: In other words, nobody except the relevant authority is allowed to put up traffic signs "on or near" a road. And the relevant authority can require that one be removed, or remove it themselves and claim their expenses. But then s132 of the Highways Act 1980 reads: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/132 Also, planning regulations apply, see: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/11499/326679.pdf And I suppose that if any driver followed a fake sign and incurred loss or damage by doing so, they could sue you. I'm currently trying to find out whether there is any reason these laws don't apply to private or unadopted roads.

So a rush of blood to Ordnance Survey's head, then, unless the Council changed the name and then changed it back!

Cuthbert Street can be found on maps from the early 1890s, exactly where Cuthbert Road is on later maps. So either those maps made a mistake, or the name changed. See for example: OS Town Plan, 1890 1:500: https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/435500/387500/13/100453 Still there in 1894 on this map: https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/435500/387500/12/100392 But Cuthbert Road on this 1905 map: https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/435500/387500/12/100571 (not sure those links work as intended, but easy enough to find anyway)

According to https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roadworks, the only roadworks on Badger Drive are for Northern Powergrid.

Yes, some information here: https://sheffieldperegrines.wordpress.com/2020/05/27/ringing-the-chicks/

According to the 2011 data at Nomis, which I linked to above, the wards in order of student population were: 2011 ward numbers % Broomhill 5,910 40.8 Central 12,330 38.9 Fulwood 3,520 28.1 Walkley 3,733 23.2 Crookes 2,735 21.5 Burngreave 1,694 10.2 Manor Castle 1,393 9.9 Nether Edge 1,354 9.9 Darnall 1,122 7.9 Arbourthorne 840 6.9 Firth Park 832 6.5 Ecclesall 731 6.3 Gleadless Valley 856 6.1 Shiregreen and Brightside 666 5.0 Dore and Totley 476 4.9 Hillsborough 570 4.6 Beauchief and Greenhill 521 4.6 Southey 533 4.5 Beighton 515 4.3 Stannington 471 4.2 Woodhouse 437 4.1 Graves Park 442 4.1 Birley 417 4.1 West Ecclesfield 427 3.9 Richmond 425 3.8 Stocksbridge and Upper Don 442 3.8 East Ecclesfield 411 3.5 Mosborough 335 3.0 This doesn't just mean University students. (https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/ward2011/1140857319/subreports/ward2011einact_compared/report.aspx)

You can research this properly using official data. Explore here: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/ward2011/contents.aspx https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/ward2011/1946157123/report.aspx

All at the Phoenix Hall (what became the Nelson Mandela building) as far as I can tell.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/event-safety/safety-advisory-groups.htm

This came up recently on The Fall Online Forum, and having researched the gigs using the microfilmed copies of The Star in the public library I was able to construct a list of all the gigs as reported in the late great Martin Lilleker's column (apart from a couple where I dug out information from fan site gig listings, having run out of time in the library - and for Comsat Angels, a date was given in the Star, but not the names of the support bands, which I've relied on a Comsats fan site for). Here are all 13: 2nd September 1981: Bow Wow Wow, supported by The Higsons 4th September 1981: The Fall, supported by Disease and The Past Seven Days 5th September 1981: UK Subs, supported by Injectors 7th September 1981: Clint Eastwood and General Saint, supported by Reggae Regulars 9th September 1981: The Look, supported by Deaf Aids and Panza Division 11th September 1981: John Peel Roadshow, with Artery and Vendino Pact 12th September 1981: Cimarons, supported by Far Image and Paradise Steel Band 14th September 1981: Geddes Axe, supported by Tokyo and Vortex 16th September 1981: Crazy Cavan, supported by The Jets and Freebird 18th September 1981: The Damned, supported by Rough Copy 21st September 1981: The Exploited, supported by Social Security and Abrasive Wheels (from other info on web) 23rd September 1981: New Order, supported by Section 25 and Stockholm Monsters (from other info on web) 25th September 1981: The Comsat Angels, supported by Tense & Mirror Crack'd (from other info on the web)

Judges can't just make up punishments, they have to follow sentencing guidelines. For possession of a knife etc, the guidelines for magistrates can be read here: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/bladed-articles-and-offensive-weapons-possession/ Crown court: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/bladed-articles-and-offensive-weapons-possession/ The court first looks at culpability and harm in order to categorise the offence. The court then locates the offence in a table, which provides a starting point - there are then mitigating or aggravating factors which can dial the punishment up or down. Magistrates are limited in terms of how long a custodial sentence they can pass. There are statistics for sentencing in knife/offensive weapon cases. The most recent seem to be for Jan-March this year: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/knife-and-offensive-weapon-sentencing-statistics-january-to-march-2019 That tells us that in that time period there were 22,041 cases. Of these, 37% ended in an immediate custodial sentence (it was 22% in the same period in 2009). The average sentence was 8.1 months, up from 5.5 months. But no stats there about lengthy sentences. But this parliamentary briefing has got some figures: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04304/SN04304.pdf That says (p16) that before 2008 between 2-5% of offenders were sentenced to terms longer than a year. Since then it's been 8% on average, reaching 16% last year and 2015. So the regime has been getting less liberal, not more.

No reason to think it's anything to do with that.

I'm not sure how long the 70 stretch is, but the Parkway is 5.5 miles in total. If you drive at 50 mph, you can travel that distance in 6 minutes 36 seconds. If you drive at 70 mph, you can travel that distance in 4 minutes 43 seconds. So the difference is, er, about 1 minute 53 seconds (on edit: had to double check!). I would imagine the environmental benefits of cutting speed will vastly outweigh the 2 minute increase in journey time (less, of course, because the 70 stretch is not the whole of the road).

He actually got 15 weeks suspended for 12 months and a drug rehabilitation requirement, which is probably what he really needs. As he pleaded guilty and all the rest of it, the sentence will have been moderated in line with guidelines. He's not doing anything that's going to get him locked up for a very very long time under current rules, which means he gets out of prison in a year or two and straight back into crime. Unless he can kick the drugs, this will likely go on.

I think the OP is putting too much faith in "DNA testing", and that very few people really understand what is being tested and what the results - assuming them to be accurate - actually means. First of all, you correctly remember that various DNA testing companies were tested - and found to be producing different results for the same individual. So the accuracy of testing is in question. But it's worth understanding what is going on, because it's not just a question of them getting the testing or analysis wrong (although, how would anyone know if they were?). Firstly none of these companies just "tests DNA". They test part of your DNA: maybe just a couple of percent. A conclusion based on that may not hold true for the remaining percentage. Secondly, each company has its own proprietary database based on the DNA of their customers. Since companies may have bigger or smaller databases, or different demographics of customers, that may lead to different results. Because, thirdly and probably most importantly to understand, these DNA tests are not tests of ancestry. These companies do not have databases of the DNA of people from the 1800s or the 1700 or the 800 BCs or whenever. They have databases based on the DNA of people living around about now. They are comparing current populations, not ancestral populations. They tell you what you have in common with other living (or recently dead!) people. They tell you where your "relatives" (in some abstract sense) live not where your ancestors lived. So the OPs discovery that their DNA was "north Western European" just means that the small percentage of DNA actually analysed was most commonly shared (in the company's database, and note that "most commonly" doesn't mean exclusively) among contemporaries living in north Western Europe. Which isn't very specific - so maybe the company hasn't analysed enough DNA from enough of a variety of people to make a more specific claim. But this is important, because it's confusing the OP who believes their family to be Italian, which would presumably be Southern European. But just because the OP's test found that the small percentage tested was most commonly found among current north western European customers of the company, that doesn't logically mean that they're not of Italian ancestry. What would happen if you tested Italians? Maybe the same! There's also the point that if you go back far enough, simple maths tells you that you will have ancestors from whom you have inherited no DNA at all. And if you think about it, if you go back enough generations, eventually everyone shares ancestors (maths again - 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great grandparents, 32 great great great grandparents and so on), so there's in principle a bit of everything in all of us. A guide to all the issues which might be worth a read is here: http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/img/Ancestry-DNA-Testing-and-Privacy-Guide.pdf And a debunking guide: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking And this: https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford

It's obvious why. But it's worth saying that as news coverage at the time made clear, the exemption was something also requested by the Tory backbench 1922 committee. However, the Tory leadership - who originally had supported the exemption - changed tactics and, along with protests from Labour MPs, the motion was killed.

It'll take about 15 minutes on quiet roads, double that at busy times. Either way 30 minutes is absolutely nowhere near enough, taking into account parking, walking to where you want to go etc. 45 minutes is more realistic if you don't want to be rushing. But I'd set off about 9am if I were you and take it steady. Google maps is quite good for estimating journey times at particular times on particular days, broadly in line with what we're saying: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/Travelodge+Sheffield+Richmond,+Prince+of+Wales+Road,+Sheffield/Northern+General+Hospital,+Sheffield/@53.3916013,-1.4747757,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m18!4m17!1m5!1m1!1s0x48799d511d1dd4ad:0xb7dd6bea9369d0f!2m2!1d-1.4141219!2d53.3741479!1m5!1m1!1s0x487978438922e4af:0xf58e916845d2feda!2m2!1d-1.460631!2d53.408432!2m3!6e0!7e2!8j1540371600!3e0