Re: Oh dear...poor use of symbols and units
Her Britannic Majesty's government did the proof-reading, on account of the big bits in bold in the article being direct copy-n-pastes from the Statutory Instrument.
It's quite literally the law.
637 posts • joined 15 May 2013
A bit further west than Munich I discovered a great Flemish dish called carbonnade flamande. Beef marinaded in local beer (so dark and strong!) and then stewed in a creuset dish with onions and mushrooms plus various regional herbs for flavour. Serve with frites and side salad. Mouth-watering just thinking about it.
You leave the OP alone. All his friends have been posting on Facebook about the bad MSM and how journalists have got it wrong all the time. He wants to feel like part of the special group, fearlessly posting The Truth in comment sections across the internet, bravely pointing out that It's Wrong, You Know. Verily, we are blessed to have his Righteous Sword of Truth gracing our base commentardery.
I'm sure he couldn't tell you what an APT is or does, even given two hours with Google and a packet of crayons. But that's no reason for you to come and crap all over his historic crusade by repeating simple facts well understood by the readers of El Reg, you nasty bully.
The alleged crime of committing contempt of court, you mean? Further details, albeit brief, available from The Times.
You jest but that was genuinely the problem with the unscheduled A330 coffee-electronics interface event. The cockpit had US cup holders fitted but the puny Euro disposable coffee cups were too small to fit. Cue captain trying to put his cuppa on his tray table and whoops...
Gib.gov's press office sends its missives out under the name "No.6 Press Office Mailbox". It took me a few minutes to realise that, far from having six separate email addresses, the Gibraltarian government is actually based at No.6 Convent Place, GX11 1AA.
I assume it's a pleasingly parochial reference to 10 Downing Street.
Both sides did call expert accounting witnesses. Unfortunately they did this at full forensic accounting length during late summer and early autumn when there's lots of other news going on.
I'm hoping to use the quiet Christmas period to try and summarise those parts, though it'll be difficult as the court people who I ask for copies of exhibited graphs, spreadsheets and so on will be on holiday. There is a fair amount of it in the closing arguments too.
To avoid the article getting unfeasibly long I didn't highlight that the reason behind the Lillian Penson Halls kerfuffle was because Cornerstone needed to replace its existing Paddington mast, which was, in fact, on Eastbourne Terrace - on top of a building scheduled for demolition and redevelopment.
With 29 withdrawn comments I thought you might see better than to post this, but perhaps the 6 upvotes emboldened you.
I have placed your commentard account on pre-moderate. We don't need clodhopping dullardry like this polluting the forums.
If anyone else can explain to me why a straight headline summarising the legal arguments of the Morrisons claimants is "clickbait", do so.
For all others who are too defective to read beyond the headline, feel free to go and read something more suited to your abilities and station in life. You will find Spot the Dog provides you with an adequate intellectual challenge and suitable dinner party discussion material for years to come.
Advertising Standards Authority Ltd is a private company based in Shoreditch. Adland has a gentleman's agreement that they won't sue the ASA for embarrassing them publicly.
Oddly enough the ASA also "rules" against companies (well, small and micro-businesses) who don't subscribe to its various rules and so on. I assume the policy is 1) never target a non-subscribing company with any financial reserves and 2) adland agrees to cover their legal fees if a one-man band does get legally angry.
No no no no no. If you're going to shoot, shoot to kill, don't shoot to inflict suffering and a drawn out death from lead poisoning. A .22" Hornet round seems to be the smallest accepted lethal foxing cartridge.
Mind you, one of those automatic airsoft guns pumping out a stream of plastic BBs might do the trick. Could be a Reg project - can we build a replica Phalanx CIWS using a Raspberry Pi, an airsoft gun and some open source AI/ML pattern recognition sw so it doesn't blast holes through Tiddles and Rover?
Correct. I'm expecting the second half of this, where HP cross-examines Lynch and Hussain's witnesses and evidence, to contain a fair amount of traffic the other way because that's how cross-examination works.
It's worth bearing in mind that the reports you read, here and elsewhere, are distillations of what happened in court that day. For the clearest picture it's best to read multiple outlets' reports: we all differ subtly in what we mention because this is such a complicated and nuanced case.
It's a different thing to have a permanent set of steam-driven gauges displaying information all the time. On the Tutor, if I want to check the ammeter I glance down at that particular gauge.
On a glass cockpit (say with an Airbus, or even a Cessna with a Garmin setup) that means looking down and selecting a menu on a multi-function screen and picking the right parameter to display. I also need to know what things will spontaneously pop up and where they will pop up on my screens if something goes wrong, as opposed to just knowing that if gauge X goes to reading Y I need to carry out action Z.
Two different beasts, two different philosophies.
The Rolls Building where this trial is taking place, allegedly Britain's most modern courthouse, has no press benches or even tables. The 19th century Royal Courts of Justice has press benches in every courtroom.
Mind you, the Rolls Building is abundantly sprinkled with plug sockets for chargers whereas it wouldn't surprise me if the oak-panelled RCJ was still lit with natural gas, so there's advantages and disadvantages.
Not sure about air traffic control. On the rare occasions when UK ATC systems down tools and go to the pub, everything stops: procedural control is so rarely needed that it's no longer trained in places that don't use it day-to-day.
The original invite was to pop over to Norway for a few days to see the RN doing things with autonomous watercraft (boats and mini submarines). Part tech demo to show off British industry, part "oi, Vlad, we've got toys that can detect your toys now". Unfortunately the timing clashed with something else.
Sportingly, the RN said "come aboard anyway". Hence I got to treat you all to tales from the Arctic, as well as discovering Windows ME/XP and Apple Macintosh still in use.
We encountered a 5 metre swell just outside Kristiansund. That was very entertaining; I learned that I don't get seasick (to be fair, may well have been the seasickness tabs functioning as designed) and very nearly impaled my nostril on a coathook outside the wardroom as Enterprise just kept on heeling further over.
I also nearly got KO'd by a flying chair while interviewing one of the HMs, who had developed the uncanny ability to stand rooted to the spot while everyone (and everything!) else went flying hither and thither.
I have to agree tbh (relatives used to live in Watford proper, then moved to Garston, then rather speedily moed out again).
That said, on a Friday afternoon when this article was the only thing standing between me and the pub, finding a way to describe a sub-division of a town which is analogous to a suburb wasn't massively high on the agenda.
Suffice it to say, you won't find ABC by searching for 'venture capital' on that blog. I've tried and the results do not come up with him.
Let there be no more guessing of his identity or of ways to work it out. Anyone doing so will have their comments deleted.
Ye gods. Pinsents haven't been media partners of the Reg for years - nice to see a long term reader commenting, terrible to see you evidently don't read us that often. In fact Pinsents was one of the tiny number of law firms to criticise El Reg's open justice win in the Upper Tribunal earlier this year.
You'll find any good court reporter regularly namechecks barristers and solicitors' firms, mainly because that allows the informed reader to figure out how much money that side is flinging at the case. The lawyers may think it's an ego boost - it reveals just as much as what the complainant was wearing.
As for your "source in court" snark, my name is at the top of the article. Why? Because I sat there in Court 37 watching my Friday beer o'clock go speeding past and wrote down all that was said. If I was cribbing off someone else, I'd have namechecked them and linked to them. Doubtless Google would love to nobble El Reg's coverage of court cases brought against them but they ain't doing it through me.
(psst, Sergey, Larry, double this week's cheque or I spill the beans)
Ta - we've got the pub booked and the beer tankers on standby!
To an extent yes. It all falls under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and the law of defamation. We're bound not to publish anything that creates a "substantial risk of serious prejudice" to legal proceedings - in other words, airing stuff that isn't heard inside the courtroom by a jury or introduced by either side's lawyers. Judges are mostly immune to prejudicial material, jurors much less so. You can actually write quite a bit from the papers in an ongoing case - I did it extensively during the Google Right To Be Forgotten trial (e.g. this witness statement)
Things like commentary on whether one side's guilty or not before the verdict are what generally gets people in trouble - some American columnist who thought he was being all cool and trendy about Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks during the phone-hacking trials got an entire issue of GQ magazine pulped a few years ago and the publisher was fined £10k. The commercial hit of losing an entire print run would have been far worse than the £10k fine.
With some time and determination on the phone you can certainly get Crown court judgments - they're all public documents. Full transcripts are a bit trickier if only because criminal cases tend to contain an awful lot of legal argument about inadmissible evidence that they don't want out in the public domain. They're also startlingly expensive.
For the legally inclined, Criminal Procedure Rule 5.8 along with Criminal Practice Direction 5B tell you exactly what you can get and how to get hold of it.
There's a reporting restriction order now in force which bans naming either NT1 or NT2 that's effectively there forever ("until further order"). It was first made "until judgment is handed down" (or similar wording, digging it out of the office safe is too much hassle for a comment) and renewed on the morning of the judgment.
Unless someone with exceptionally deep pockets fancies challenging that (hint, it won't be El Reg), they'll both be anonymous in relation to this court case forever. NT1 at least is Googleable.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020