Text me your address and I'll be there. I could do with dishing out a good beating. Followed by biscuits.

Just found a brilliant wall of text email from the boss who likes to bitch about the standard of my emails, without ever giving an example. "as these communications may be stressful to the student, she will continue to receive such communication".

So.... you've just told a faculty director that we'll keep sending emails to a student, because it stresses her out.

Sigh. Once again, I'll have to wade in and fix something that someone else fucked up months ago by pissing around with my students without asking or knowing that the hell they were doing. On the plus side, that's only the second time today.

Please punch my face. Thank you.

Cheers for the ear, by the way

It's what we're here for, isn't it? Or was it dick? I can never remember.

It's what we're here for, isn't it? Or was it dick? I can never remember.

"well, that's your problem really, not mine."

John Nichols Thom, or Mad Tom, (1799 - May 31, 1838) was a Cornishman, a self-declared messiah who, in the 19th century led the last battle to be fought on English soil.
...
[He] assumed the identity of Sir William Courtenay, declared himself "saviour of the world" and became a wandering preacher. He again wore his colourful costumes, including an embroidered Maltese Cross and a sword which he claimed to be Excalibur. Later witnesses also stated that he had nail marks in his hands. He supported the cause of farm workers who resisted the effects of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which ordered all able-bodied men to workhouses if they could not find work.

Thom gathered a following of more than one hundred people and convinced them that their faith would make them invulnerable to steel and bullets. He also claimed that he could slay 10,000 men by hitting his left hand with his right and that if he were shot dead, he would come back to life three days later.

Is it meant to be any good then?

edit: Duke Nuke 'em I mean

Hmm, yes. First of those, okay. Second - technically correct, but he's a bit of a twat and is happy treating you as a lower order.

Add that to the no internet policy at work, and I would be saying, thanks but no thanks.

I look at interviews as my chance to see whether it is a place that I would want to work, rather than them seeing if they want to employ me, but then I'm an arrogant fuck!

Boss emails asking why it's so 'late notice'

Now I know most of you won't want to click on the following link, what with it being Kelly Brook in the nude, but I thought I would post it, just in case any of you do:


***NWS Link in spoiler***

Oh my.. you can see all her bits & bobs 27 and everything...

Peak District Assault Vehicle is now race prepped.

has bullseye always been so fantastic?

"Welcome to fucking Bullseye":

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg_x6aIQ9uQ">YouTube Link</a>

Chinny can you find the clip of the Geordie bloke as follows:

No.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG7PRx8lLDA">YouTube Link</a>

Crumbs, they're making an Atlas Shrugged movie. I bet that'll be a light-hearted journey full of whimsy and joy.

Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles

(1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—
(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or
(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

(2)The express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of a person otherwise entitled to remove the vehicle to the immobilisation, movement or restriction concerned is not lawful authority for the purposes of subsection (1).

(3)Subsection (2) does not apply where—
(a)there is express or implied consent by the driver of the vehicle to restricting its movement by a fixed barrier, and
(b)the barrier was present (whether or not lowered into place or otherwise restricting movement) when the vehicle was parked.

(4)A person who is entitled to remove a vehicle cannot commit an offence under this section in relation to that vehicle.

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to a fine,
(b)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

(6)In this section “motor vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle or a
vehicle designed or adapted for towing by a mechanically propelled vehicle.

So, it would appear that if it goes through, then clamping cars could disappear.

The brilliantly named Protection of Freedoms bill makes for some interesting reading. Especially s54:


So, it would appear that if it goes through, then clamping cars could disappear.

Well you can't clamp it or move it, but the council can under subsection 4, I would suggest.

What I wonder is whether subsection 4 also covers the private clamping/towing firms where you've parked in a 'your vehicle will be clamped' area.

What constitutes entitlement to remove a vehicle?

Ok then. There's no way we can mess up.

Urrggghhh. Finally made it home at 4 having drunk various lager, cider, bitter, stout and two kinds of whisky.

On my way to meet friends in London, and bumped into our very own Gaz! Small world.