Dannyno

It's common sense, isn't it? If you can minimise the number of prams or kids in car parks, it's obviously safer. Also, when were you at school? Car parks are bigger and often more complex now than 10, 20, 30 + years ago; cars are bigger; there are more cars. Add to that the space issue with lifting children in and out of cars, and also add in the usefulness of having such spaces next to trolley drop-off points so you don't have to leave children alone in the car. All good reasons for having them. Anyway, there's no law that says there have to be parent-child car parks, and it's not illegal to park in one if you're not a parent with a child. Stores provide them because parents with children are their customers.

There's a Don Valley Masterplan which says there should be good footpath and cycle links across the valley. Improving cycle lanes etc in the area isn't therefore necessarily about improving access to the store by cyclists, but about making sure cyclists can travel along the whole route, which will clearly become more difficult with more traffic.

Eventually they can, yes. But having child bays closer to store doors means they don't have to walk across busy and dangerous car parks. Helps if you have a pram too, you don't have to manoeuvre it through ranks of parked cars and across busy roads while also pushing a full trolley. It's not necessarily about space.

Some of the transport improvements might include those listed here: http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s14006/IKEA.pdf see p.8

Last March B&Q/Kingfisher announced they were closing 60 stores over the next two years. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/business/bq-shut-60-stores-find-5431934 ---------- Post added 02-01-2016 at 10:19 ---------- The report you seem to be talking about may be the 2010 Cushman and Wakefield report here: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/reports/retail-studies-in-sheffield.html Not immediately obvious how that would have helped.

Worth reading the Sheffield Flood Risk Management Strategy: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/environment/flooding/strategy.html

Opinions will certainly vary. But the *facts* about what happened and that the police lied etc are not disputed or were established by inquiries and investigations or ultimately admitted by the police. As I noted. The failure to prosecute is exactly what I'm complaining about. ---------- Post added 30-12-2015 at 19:23 ---------- Except when there's a catastrophic failure of intelligence, or when they lie about what happened. ---------- Post added 30-12-2015 at 19:25 ---------- "Not since Winsor" - so as I said, they got an allowance. A bit of googling reveals that interim payments pending a new system are still being made. It's not difficult to find out about.

The basic wage is the same, yes, but they have also been getting an additional allowance. You can read about it from public police sources, it's not secret or difficult to find out about. As for shootings, I was making a general point looking at examples in the UK and elsewhere. The examples I'm thinking of in the UK are particularly bad because the police have lied, withheld evidence, and failed to hold anyone to account. By "innocent" I don't mean innocent of anything at all. But since we don't have extrajudicial execution in this country, shooting people when there is no good reason to shoot them is or ought to be unacceptable, regardless of whether the individual was up to no good. I'm not against shooting people where it is necessary to do so. In the De Menezes case the particular officers were possibly doing what they thought they had to do, but it is still the case that someone made a catastrophic error is misidentifying the target. And then the police lied about events and so on. But all that happened was that the Police Commissioner was fined under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, of all things. That was it. That shouldn't fill anyone with confidence, either that "innocent have nothing to fear" or that if anything goes wrong due to avoidable mistakes anyone will be held to account or that lessons will be learned. I might cite the Azelle Rodney case. There were certainly weapons in the car he was in, but the inquiry into his death (there was never a proper inquest) concluded that the shooting officer's account of events was "not to be accepted", that he was not acting under the belief that Rodney had picked up a gun and was about to use it. Shooting him was therefore not a proportionate response to protecting people from unlawful violence. In which case, shooting him was on the face of it unlawful. I might cite the Harry Stanley case. He was shot because he was carrying a table leg in a carrier bag, and had been reported to the police as "an irishman carrying a gun". This could have happened to anyone. The police of course lied about events. I might cite the case of James Ashley. The Chief Constable of Sussex Police lied that James Ashley was wanted for murder. The subsequent inquiry was damning about police behaviour - finding collusion, concealment of evidence, to the extent that there was an arguable case for perverting the course of justice. Whitehouse resigned at Blunkett's suggestion when he was home secretary. The police only admitted to negligence. I might cite the case of David Ewin. I might even cite the case of Diarmuid O'Neill, an IRA member who was shot while trying to surrender - innocent? No. A threat at the moment he was shot? No. And of course again the police lied, claiming that there was violent resistance to their raid - a claim withdrawn when it was revealed that O'Neill wasn't carrying a weapon. He was in his underpants. Now, most people won't have much sympathy for O'Neill. But if police can raid a hotel room (possibly on bad intelligence or on a misidentification), shoot the half-naked occupants, and then lie about it, that surely puts us all at risk, particularly when there is zero prospect of anyone being held to account. As for the record of South Yorkshire police, how much do we trust the force that bungled crowd control at Hillsborough and then *lied* about it?

No it isn't. It's Old English for "the people living at or dependent on Sumortūn", i.e. Somerton. So obviously the town of Somerton gave its name to the county, but equally obviously the county is quite a big bigger than Somerton or its immediate vicinity. "Somerton" does mean "summer farm" or "summer settlement" or "farm only used in summer", and it is on higher ground that the surrounding area. So the idea is that the area was used for grazing in summer, then people would retreat to Somerton come the winter floods.

Increasing the speed of rivers isn't an unequivocally good thing for reasons that ought to be obvious after a few moments' thought. Same thing with straightening bendy rivers - bad things happen as a result.

It isn't true that Somerset means "land of the Summer people" at all. And while flooding is natural, climate change is causing extreme flooding events to become more common.

The idea seems to be that parking charges discourage visitors to the city centre. But I bet that if you did an audit of parking spaces you wouldn't find a pattern of disuse. It would be interesting to compare traffic flows on free parking bank holidays and charged-parking boxing days. On bank holidays I suppose you have many fewer people working in town, and shopping competes with other leisure activities. Meadowhall only works because all the parking spaces are in a ring around the centre. From there, you still have to walk to the shops and the centre itself is completely pedestrianised - a fact never noticed. Merely introducing free parking would not actually replicate Meadowhall's advantages for the motorist. To do that you would have to eliminate all vehicles from the centre of Sheffield (which is not completely pedestrianised still), put a roof on it, and bulldoze a ring around the city centre for mass car parking. Which is clearly not going to happen. The reason the city centre struggles is not because people have to pay a few quid for parking.

Nonsense. Sheffielders are as prone to this as anyone else.

This is all about perceptions, because police foot patrols are completely inefficient. They're not mobile enough, and the likelihood that something would happen requiring their presence in their immediate vicinity is vanishingly small. Waste of money. ---------- Post added 26-12-2015 at 09:33 ---------- How do you know they're "good guys"? How do you know they're not just waiting for an opportunity? How do you know they're not incompetent and likely to shoot someone innocent unnecessarily. It's not like there aren't lots of examples of this. ---------- Post added 26-12-2015 at 09:54 ---------- They are volunteers, in that you have to apply. After the Winsor Review there were interim "Expertise and Professional Accreditation Allowance" payments for firearms officers and others. Not sure how the additional training/expertise is being recognised now, but it will be I'm sure.

As the government explain: https://www.gov.uk/bank-holidays

Er, well obviously they know every address (because they've sent a letter there), and so they could just start by cross checking addresses from which no forms have been received against other records.

I just want to point out that there is no actual logical reason why you can't prove a negative. "You can't prove a negative" is often said, but it's false. The limitations are practical. So for example it is not difficult to prove that there isn't a cat in the fridge - you go and look. But to prove that there isn't an ant in your house would be significantly harder. But in principle not impossible. In maths there are examples of provable negative statements like, "there is no largest prime number". Or take a logical proof like this: 1. If the cat had walked across the wet concrete, there would be paw marks. 2. There are no paw marks in the wet concrete 3. Therefore the cat did not walk across the wet concrete The negative conclusion follows logically from the truth of the first two statements (obviously, assuming them to be true, but the point is that the argument is valid). It should also be noted that if "you can't prove a negative" could be shown to be true, you'd have a paradox, since it is itself a negative statement.

Forge Valley has five "curriculum days". They're listed here: http://www.forgevalleysheffield.org/term-dates.html This is exactly the same number of training days that Notre Dame (top state secondary in Sheffield) have: http://www.notredame-high.org.uk/index.php/information/item/162-term-dates They are, of course, (like the fines for holidays in term time) a legal requirement originally introduced by the Tories. See the wikipedia site linked above.

It appears to have been flattened now. I haven't been there for years but there was a high curb, enforced with railings at the point where number 21 is on that road. About here? http://www.picturesheffield.com/frontend.php?keywords=Ref_No_increment;EQUALS;t04138&pos=174&action=zoom&id=34431 http://www.picturesheffield.com/frontend.php?keywords=Ref_No_increment;EQUALS;t04137&pos=173&action=zoom&id=34430 No sign of railings in either photo. Must have been a very long time ago.

Star shop: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/order-your-sheffield-books-photos-and-dvds-1-2981142

Not until 2017 according to: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/works/schemes/streetsaheadproject/works-schedules/works-map.html, but they could have rescheduled.

Looked like this in the 1960s/70s: http://www.picturesheffield.com/frontend.php?keywords=Ref_No_increment;EQUALS;s02332&pos=139&action=zoom&id=6046 ---------- Post added 26-11-2015 at 23:54 ---------- Colour: http://www.picturesheffield.com/frontend.php?keywords=Ref_No_increment;EQUALS;t03204&pos=2&action=zoom

The University of Sheffield has 1100 students in the student village at Ranmoor (http://360degreevirtualtours.group.shef.ac.uk/ranmoor/), and c3500 at Endcliffe (http://360degreevirtualtours.group.shef.ac.uk/endcliffe/). There are another 1200 in accommodation in the city centre, not all of which is University owned (http://360degreevirtualtours.group.shef.ac.uk/city/). None of these are new any more. Ranmoor opened about 5 years ago, i.e. before the last census. Tapton Halls have been closed and sold for development. Bear in mind that a lot of the new new accommodation complexes are private, not owned by either of the Universities. And I don't think Hallam have any accommodation that they own directly any more. The council have a "student accommodation strategy" (google it) that points out that newer purpose built accommodation is attracting students away from private landlords and into the city centre or thereabouts. It says: It also says, interestingly, that 83% of students in a 2013 survey said they lived in private rented accommodation. and (remember these figures are a few years old) The University of Sheffield (at the time the report was written) puts 94% of its new undergraduates in its own accommodation. The report notes Hallam's different strategy, but also that nonetheless most Hallam first years were allocated spaces in purpose built accommodation away from Crookes. Worth a read: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/dms/scc/management/corporate-communications/documents/housing/strategy-policy/housing/Student-Accommodation-Strategy-2014-2019/Student%20Accommodation%20Strategy%202014-2019.pdf

Did the vet have a view about probable cause? Did you see your dog eat anything unusual? Have you ever seen poison-laced food in Rivelin? ---------- Post added 11-11-2015 at 17:57 ---------- That's horrible. So is there any evidence that the dog was deliberately poisoned? Also, note how different the symptoms are here compared to other stories. ---------- Post added 11-11-2015 at 17:58 ---------- People shouldn't poison dogs, should they? And it does happen, and it's nasty when it does. But there is no evidence here of a campaign of dog poisoning in Sheffield parks.

It's one of the more student-heavy areas of Sheffield, but nowhere near the majority that some have said. Things might be changing, because of the amount of purpose-built student accommodation - the big flats - that has been built in the last few years. Private renting possibly isn't as popular as it was, especially for first years, but I have no stats on that. And student numbers generally might reduce over the next few years. Will be interesting to see what happens in the next census.