Dannyno

Current maximum sentence from magistrates for possession of a "bladed article" is 4 years. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/bladed-articles-and-offensive-weapons-possession/ Sentencing guidelines for using a firearm are here: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms If you're saying 10 years, you're more lenient then the current state of the law. Mandatory minimum sentences apply in some cases. Use of firearm to resist arrest - maximum life imprisonment Possession while committing offence - max life imprisonment Possession with intent - max life Carrying in public - 7 years Knives etc: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offensive-weapons-knives-bladed-and-pointed-articles Stop and search cannot be random under the current law (except in certain circumstances), which is a good thing because it has always been widely abused by the police. There have to be reasonable grounds. According to https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/658099/police-powers-procedures-mar17-hosb2017.pdf there were nearly 304,000 stop and searches in the year up to March 2017, which is a reduction. How effective are they? Just 17% led to an arrest. But on another measure, in 21% of stop and searches "the outcome of the search was linked to the initial reason for the search." So not always an arrestable outcome. But that means in the vast majority of stop and search incidents, the outcome was not linked to the reason for the stop, and in most cases leads to no arrest. In 71% of cases the result was "no further action". There was an non-arrest outcome in 12% of cases. Not sure what that means, but maybe indicates some kind of case to answer even if not arrestable. So it doesn't seem that effective really.

Directions here seem clear: https://www.sth.nhs.uk/our-hospitals/charles-clifford-dental-hospital/how-to-get-here

No, wasn't Sutcliffe arrested in Broomhill? Outside the Light Trades House, Melbourne Avenue?

I found an article about the trial in the Guardian of 8 August 1959. It was a robbery of a "bank car", rather than a bank as such. £49,500 was stolen. Those on trial were James Jennings (29), a London street trader; Patrick Moore (39), a London bookie's assistant; and Ronald Strongman (32), described as a "general dealer", also from London. Jennings was charged with conspiracy, being an accessory, and procuring Moore and Strongman and others to commit the robbery, and the others with actually carrying out the robbery. Jennings doesn't seem to have been present when the robbery happened. On 8 July 1959, Williams Deacon bank employees had collected money from other banks and were taking it to the Attercliffe Road branch. Some of the money was in a kitbag locked in the car boot, the rest in a suitcase in the car. A Jaguar car overtook the bank car and forced it to stop. "A number of men" jumped out, among them Moore and Strongman. They smashed the bank car windows with pieces of wood, grabbed the suitcase, opened the boot and took the kitbag, and then drove off in a van. The van was found abandoned on wasteland,and had been obtained by Jennings in London using a false name and a stolen driving license. The Jaguar had been stolen on 12 June in Marylebone, London. Jennings told police he'd been paid £80 for his part. Clearly others were involved, but those put on trial did not reveal their names. ---------- Post added 16-09-2018 at 18:29 ---------- The robbery itself was reported in the Guardian of 9 July 1959:

I can't help lazy reporting. The fact is that Amey were not contracted to resurface every road in the first five years. And I'm not seeing anything in what you've said here that shows that they were. Your first quote is just rhetoric, and obviously not a contractual target: And your BBC quote is: Which may or may not be true or achievable, but is obviously not a contractual target of resurfacing every road in the first five years. Because those five years ended in 2017, not in 2020. Nobody has ever quoted any contractual term that says they were to have resurfaced everything in five years. If you can find any contractual term, or any official statement by either Amey or the Council, to suggest otherwise, I'd be happy to be corrected.

I can't make head nor tail of that. Can you explain where it says that they were contracted to resurface every road in the first five years?

Apparently McQueens source their milk from First Milk, which is a dairy farmers cooperative. So their milk is coming from all over the place. ---------- Post added 06-09-2018 at 08:46 ---------- Hillborough Dairies, last time I checked, were owned by a company based in Hampshire, which itself was not a farm but sourced from various farmers.

But they didn't sign up to a contract to resurface all the roads in the first 5 years.

People are rubbish eye-witnesses generally.

People are also very bad at judging distance.

It'll just be a cat. People are very bad at judging size at distance.

That's right, or a town hall. in fact the criteria are not published and there is no automatic route to city status. It's granted by the crown. Traditionally, cities did have cathedrals, but there's no actual rule. There are some cities which do not have cathedrals, and there are some towns which are not cities which have cathedrals. So, Blackburn, Rochester, Guildford and Southwell are examples of towns with cathedrals which are not cities. And Brighton has no cathedral but is a city. Cambridge has no cathedral but is is a city. Same with Hull, Lancaster, Leeds, Nottingham, Plymouth, Preston, Salford, Southampton, Stoke, Sunderland, Swansea and Wolverhampton.

I was there Friday night, have been doing the fringe since. There are different places selling alcohol. The main beer tents had a very limited selection - two beers, two ciders, some spirits. And the beer was something like £4.60 or £4.80 a pint (it wasn't my round). So nothing like £8. But perhaps there are some craft beer stalls with more expensive drinks.

I presume the advocates of hanging people on a "three crimes and you're out" basis are prepared for the slaughter of thousands of speeding motorists who treat fines as a fee.

We use a smaller capacity black bin because we manage not to generate enough waste for the normal size. We use the big blue bin for paper and the small blue crate for bottles etc. I don't mind a new bin, in principle. My problem is that there is no room around our terraced house for another bin. I don't know where we're going to put it. What I want is a brown crate. Or, what would happen if, instead of putting out a large brown bin, I put out a small blue crate instead?

Obviously if you're going to go on strike you're going to try and time it to have maximum impact, not minimum impact. Why would you do anything else, if you can?

No, it's not. But what it started out to be failed. ---------- Post added 26-06-2018 at 09:00 ---------- Only if you think that "belonging to everyone" [which of course in reality means its's owned by the Council] means it cannot ever be used for events that might temporarily limit access to the duck pond.

It's important to understand what the issues actually are. The problem of homelessness is not primarily a problem of people not having a roof over their head. It's about families in B&B accommodation, that kind of thing - that's the major problem. Insecure housing, temporary displacement. There are also people who find themselves on the streets for all kinds of reasons, and for them there is help available and somewhere to stay overnight. There are very few rough sleepers in Sheffield - and they do it because they can't or won't use overnight accommodation - and that might be for a range of reasons - use of drugs/drink, violence, fear of violence, mental health issues and so on. Begging and homelessness are not the same thing, obviously there's an overlap, and again personal stories vary. Quite often beggars are not people who need some cash to get over a short-term problem, but people who have become dependant on that income. Giving money may just perpetuate addiction problems. And whatever sympathy you have for their situation, or whatever libertarian instincts you may have, the political question to ask is whether your contribution helps or worsens the problem. The "getting into a nice car" thing does flag another aspect. The point is: whose car is it? Some street begging is organised by people who are effectively pimps. It's organised crime. The beggar doesn't keep the money; it's not their car. They go out and beg, but someone else takes a cut - perhaps it's even a form of modern slavery. Too many assumptions being made - really worth looking into in more detail and looking at what those working with people on the streets are saying. But these are all vulnerable people - they need help, not condemnation. So even if you decide it's best not to give money, give in other ways. ---------- Post added 24-05-2018 at 07:50 ---------- On the other hand, see this: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/10/why-you-should-give-money-directly-and-unconditionally-homeless-people

There are lots of pictures on the web of cannonballs with holes in them. So they did exist. Presumably there will be identifiable differences between a fly press weight and a cannon ball that the experts will be looking at. Probably not made of the same composition of metals, for a start.

I haven't given an opinion, I've just provided factual information.

Not a million, no. £300K for the library/archives for SYCC, £200K from Sheffield Council's special employment fund. £20K towards employing local staff. So just over half a million from both sources. You could add in the temporary accommodation costs if you wanted.

St James' House on Vicar Lane was the NUM's temporary headquarters from April 1983 until the new HQ was built. It was provided by the Council. Holly Street was the National NUM HQ, but only for a few years. It was reported by Peter Hetherington in the Guardian of 15 April 1983 that the NUM had explored move options with various councils (as lots of large organisations looking to move do) and chose Sheffield because it was the best offer: South Yorkshire County Council and Sheffield Council offering £500,000 in grants, plus £20,000 from the council towards the cost of employing 20 new staff (some London staff had opted for voluntary redundancy rather than move north). SYCC was paying £300,000 towards the establishment of a public mining library and archive. The freehold of the building site was given to the NUM, when the land was sold to them, contrary to usual policy. It opened I think in 1989, but was only used for five years before moving to Barnsley. A dispute with city planners, however, meant that the building never had a front entrance - access was only through the underground carpark.

Hallam doesn't own any student accommodation at all. Most recent student developments in the city have been private developments. Surely the development on this site is for the Business School to do Business School things. No indication in the article that there will be any student accommodation in the building?

This is interesting: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/958072934396039168.html [it's about why Montreal doesn't grind to a halt when it snows]

It's not illegal to run in the road with your back to the traffic, but it is stupid and contrary to the advice in the Highway Code. Were there to be an accident, failure to follow the Highway Code would no doubt be taken into account. But of course cars should take care in any case. Everyone who has pointed out that the zone marked out along Rivelin Valley Road is not in fact a cycle lane is correct. It's not. Not just for the practical reason that it's full of debris, but because it's not actually a cycle lane.