alex_b

We just received one for St John?s and St Clement?s which would close parts of Adys, Ondine and Amott. Given how terrible traffic is in the morning with aggressive drivers smacking their horns I?m in favour. Having a camera filter is better than a hard barrier like they have for Bellenden Primary.

The first thing I?d try is to get a really long Ethernet cable and see if the issue continues to occur on a wired connection. If so it?s a fault with Virgin (good luck with that?), if not then it?s a Wi-Fi issue which might be fixable with a mesh setup. Again if you?re going for mesh I?d really recommend hard wiring the access points.

I?ve worked in technology for 20 years and never heard a VPN called a VPL. What are you trying to use a VPN for? Generally I?d be wary of a lot of the cheaper ones.

A few additional tips: Definitely connect the mesh access points via Ethernet cable, it will make it faster and more reliable. As others have said use the same mesh extender in the garden studio too. Finally disable Wi-Fi on the Three router, that will mean you only have one Wi-Fi network that devices are trying to connect to. Also try to get everything possible off Wi-Fi and onto hardwired connections, smart tvs, computers used at desks etc. One other thing to consider is not just the headline bandwidth but also the contention and latency from your provider. For instance I got better real world performance from an A&A 70Mbps VDSL line than from Virgin?s 200Mbps line. I?ve now switched to A&A?s FTTP 160Mbps service and it?s brilliant. It?s twice as much as what Three are charging butI think you get what you pay for.

I?m trialing at work and really like it. It?s not massively different but it feels ?cleaner?, the changes are helpful and I?ve not encountered any issues. The biggest benefit I?ve seen is in window layout management, you can have multiple desktops and can snap windows to more layouts (halves, thirds, quarters and a few other options). If you hate the start button in the middle you can put it back on the left too.

I?ll believe this is going to happen when it?s actually done. PR Station was supposed to be getting step free access back in 2016/2017 and now there are ?proposals? for it to possibly happen almost ten years later. I won?t hold my breath.

Your friend might want to read her company handbook to ensure she fully understands any company policies around disciplinary processes, grievances etc. Generally she will be entitled to have someone accompany her to any formal disciplinary process and also be informed of the meeting in advance. She may also consider filing a complaint in writing setting out any discriminatory practices to protect her position in advance of any disciplinary if she thinks it?s heading that way. In the end it really depends how she wants to play it, if she thinks they?re going to escalate then she might want to seek legal advice (I can suggest someone if your friend would like). ACAS also has good guidance https://www.acas.org.uk/

One of the Rye Lane ward councillors came round in November or possibly early December. I guess they feel they ought to engage with electors once every four years. Never answer emails though.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whatever the judge directs or the evidence is the > Jury still have an right to acquit for whatever > reason they see fit. > > Do people feel we should change that ? Realistically how would one do that? It seems you?d be bound to wind up substantially undermining the jury process. That said I would be supportive of juries publishing their reasons for the verdict, even just ticks or crosses against the judge?s directions. I?d also like to see more transparency and research into jury decisions which is currently illegal.

The jury directions have been published and make very instructive reading. It appears that none of the defendants admitted the statue was damaged and that was a decision for the jury to make. https://barristerblogger.com/2022/01/09/colston-summing-up-those-legal-directions-in-full/

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pure speculation, having read the discussion > above.... > > The defendents admitted to damaging the > statue...so they basically 'plead guilty' to > damaging it. > > BUT, what they were charged with was was 'criminal > damage', so the question the jury may have been > asked to consider is the extent to which the > damage was 'criminal'...? > > maybe some form of lesser/civil charge related to > the damage might have gone a different way? > > As I say, thats just me thinking out loud I don?t know if they precisely admitted damage. They didn?t deny the statue was pulled down by them and others, but did the prosecution prove this caused damage (it?s now on display in a museum). Then as you rightly say the prosecution needed to prove the damage was criminal and that various defences didn?t apply. That?s why without the jury directions and all of the evidence it?s hard to know much about why the jury reached the verdict they did.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not whether the jury is sure, it's "beyond > reasonable doubt"... > > But in any case a jury has always had a right not > to convict. Jury nullification is a check on the > law and prosecutorial discretion. There's no way > the jury didn't think the elements of the offence > weren't proven - they just didn't want to convict > the defendants. This verdict has zero precedential > value. It's just the latest example. > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification It?s generally ?sure? in jury directions not ?beyond a reasonable doubt? which is not longer the standard direction. https://barristerblogger.com/2020/04/29/the-standard-of-proof-in-criminal-trials-peter-hitchens-is-right-and-lord-goddard-was-wrong/?fdx_switcher=true

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We may not be in a position to know the minutiae > of the jury's deliberations. What we do know is > they were asked to consider the arguments of both > the prosecution and defence. They went with the > defence. > The summary of the defence's case is brief and > widely available. > > From The Guardian: > > 'In closing statements following the nine-day > trial, the defence had urged jurors to ?be on the > right side of history?, saying the statue, which > stood over the city for 125 years, was so indecent > and potentially abusive that it constituted a > crime.' > > The defendants did not contest that they damaged > the statue. > > The jury deliberated for just over three hours. So > it seems reasonably straightforward - albeit > unusual. > > What is very difficult though, near impossible, is > trying to second-guess what this might mean for > other real or imaginary cases. Quite obviously, if > you damaged a statue of Churchill, Maggie > Thatcher, Nelson Mandela or whoever - or throw a > living person into Bristol Dock, this verdict > would have little or no bearing. This isn?t correct. First in criminal law it isn?t whether the jury prefers the prosecution or defence case, it?s whether they are SURE the defendants are guilty based on the law that?s been given to them by the judge and the facts presented by both sides. They could have decided the defence was mostly talking nonsense but still weren?t sure the prosecution proved their case. Second, the paragraph from the Guardian is only part of the defence?s case. It appears that the defendants ran multiple defences and there were at least four routes to an acquittal. We simply cannot know the reason for the decision of the jury, certainly not from a short paragraph from a newspaper.

The difficulty here is we don?t actually know what the jury decided beyond the verdict. They may have decided that the prosecution didn?t prove the statue was actually damaged (it?s now displayed in a museum in Bristol). Or they may have decided the prosecution didn?t prove that the defendants didn?t have an honest belief that the people of Bristol and Bristol council wouldn?t have objected - there had been votes in favour of removing the statue. Or perhaps they decided that the prosecution didn?t prove the defendants didn?t have an honest belief that the display of the statue wasn?t itself a public order offence. Or perhaps they didn?t agree that the prosecution had proved that a conviction would have been proportionate in light of the defendants rights under the Human Rights Act /ECHR. This is my problem with the criticism of the verdict: the jury actually heard the evidence and the law, had multiple routes to acquittal and it was for the prosecution to make the case which they failed to do. I don?t think I or any other commentator has sufficient insight in what actually happened to determine whether the outcome was perverse or not. I feel similarly about the acquittals of various Sun journalists for phone hacking, I think they ought to have been convicted but don?t have enough information to know why they weren?t.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James - one very simple and easily achieved action > would be to require the sweepers to place plastic > sacks of rubbish on bins rather than at the side. > Some do, some don't and it seems silly not to make > it a requirement because it stops foxes from > ripping them apart and spreading contents all over > the pavement. I can't understand why it is not > part of the job description. Maybe it is and some > don't bother. (There is nothing from stopping > anyone from doing that themselves, of course.) The foxes on Adys Rd and Bellenden Rd seem perfectly capable of knocking rubbish off the top of bins and strewing it all over the street. The bin by St Johns seems to be a particular problem.

There were FX machines at London Bridge Tube and Blackfriars Tube that will do conversion or donate to charity (or there were pre-pandemic.

I think it?s very dependent on where his job is based. For instance West London is a pain if you work in Canary Wharf. Also does he know people in London already? Moving near friends is always a good plan.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Someone in my road has had a large bag of sand > standing in the road outside their house for weeks > (possibly months, I can't remember when it first > appeared). > > At first I assumed this was to save a space for > the arrival of a skip, or for builders' vehicles > etc, but the bag of sand is never moved, so > vehicles delivering or collecting materials from > the house have to park alongside the bag of sand, > blocking the road. > > Meanwhile, nobody can park there. > > Is that a) allowed and b) reasonable? Report it to Southwark highways department and they?ll deal with it. We had a builder taking up over three parking spaces with a couple of skips and building material stored on the road. Southwark dealt with it really quickly.

We have a linked card for our Starling account which we can top up and is limited to ?200. The one annoying thing is as it can?t be used for online purchases it doesn?t work for Uber.

Any idea how autopay usually takes to show up?

Our car is non compliant and we got a letter addressed to us based on DVLA data.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just out of interest (not to make any particular > point), what have class sizes been in England > historically? I think they are around 30 now? I > was educated overseas and our standard class size > was 30-32 (one teacher per class - at least for > primary and core secondary subjects), this was > taken as a given and not really debated much / > seemed to work OK. Have class sizes here > increased over the years or have they also always > been around this mark? (Obvs might be smaller in > more remote spots, so thinking about maximums in > populated areas)? 30 is the legal max and I think has been since the 90s. When I was at school in the 80s we had 25 in a class at Infants, Juniors and Secondary (until GCSEs). There are some places in the country where class sizes are much much smaller for instance village schools near Bath still often have two years in one class that fewer than 20 kids.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ianr Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > There was no officer at the scene. > > > > How do you know? > > I believe my wife. Are you suggesting he was > hiding in a bush taking notes? One possibility that occurred to me is that the person in the other car may have subsequently called the police (perhaps claiming that your wife didn?t stop or that some other offence was committed) and so an officer attended after your wife had left.

It sounds like the other party?s insurers have made a mistake with the name, cannot verify your partners? licence or insurance and have passed this across to the police. Our insurer did the same when we were hit by a car being driven by someone who wasn?t insured on the car she was driving. Presumably sending the police the details they?ve requested )and informing your insurers of the claim) will resolve this.

A quick google suggests that two thirds of students had a part time job last year, down from 74% pre-pandemic (presumably because of the drop in hospitality jobs last year). Source https://www.savethestudent.org/money/surveys/student-money-survey-2021-results.html Also research shows that drinking in the young has dropped sharply over the last twenty years (e.g. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/10/young-people-drinking-alcohol-study-england). So other than a bunch of outdated ?boozy, layabout students? stereotypes, why do you think there is a massive untapped workforce to fill the current labour shortages?