In the news

via the Guardian

Bit of a sensatoinalist writing style by the Guardian though; ... secrecy surrounding.. eerily reminiscent... raises questions ... Looks to me like Google has been fairly straightforward about their side in this and that they have the academic clout to back up their claims.

Arron Banks loses slapp case. Too fucking right.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/13/arron-banks-loses-libel-action-against-reporter-carole-cadwalladr-guardian-defamation-brexit-russia

He's still been able to legally harass and bully CC for years, while she's been reliant on crowdfunding and worrying that she'd lose everything to pay his legal costs. It's such a shit system, must have had such a mental toll on her, for just doing her job well.

It's such a shit system

Yup - masses of this. Agree with you. He's also bound to appeal to further the pain because he is a cunt and that's how he works.

The wording of the actual ruling will make interesting reading also.

Arron Banks loses slapp case.

Now this is some very good news in an otherwise shitty news day.

Yey! :)

Not aware of a public access/right to roam thread, so here seems relevant. Dartmoor land owner challenging right to wild camp on his estate
https://twitter.com/guyshrubsole/status/1536248173760479233

if not well managed

Big caveat here...

Thing is you work somewhere that takes productivity and efficiency seriously.

In a lot of places, it's something to inflict downwards.

Temperature topped 110F on four consecutive days and has not fallen below 80F at night-time for the past week in the Arizona city, breaking several records

Here

Insane, not dropped below 27 degrees c in a WEEK, even an night.

I'm in San Antonio for work this week and can confirm it's brutally hot.

Madrid isn't far off that during August. Already had a couple of 40+ days recently
Fortunately the nights aren't that bad at the moment

Ohio responds to recent shootings in schools by... reducing the training that teachers must undergo before carrying guns in school from 700 hours to 24.

What could go wrong?

I guess at some point they'll run of ways to try and make more guns work or kids and have to try being sensible.

700 hours

Isn't that more training than is required to become a police officer?

[Edit] Almost - minimum 737 hours required to become a police officer in Ohio.

Surely they've got to try arming the pupils before that happens.

they've got to try arming the pupils

The first time a stressed teacher shoots a pupil, we can expect to see somebody in the GOP arguing for just that.

Odd that the GOP trusts teachers to carry guns when they don't trust them to, say, choose school textbooks.

This Whitby vote has a familiar ring to it...

People vote for something unenforceable/unworkable/impossible
"We voted, so it must happen!"
Others point out it cannot happen for valid reasons
"Boo! Naysayers! Unbelievers!"
Thing doesn't happen...
People who said it couldn't happen and were right are blamed...

Don't get me wrong. I sympathise that locals are priced out by second home owners and it should be dealt with. But I don't see how this can be promised on a local level. There just aren't the powers at that level. There seems to be an innate belief across the UK that if something is voted in, then it's a given, whatever the detail or circumstances.

I'm interested in it. I'm a court lawyer, but with backlogs being horrendous across jurisdictions and specialisms, what way could a 4 day week be utilised while still tackling the backlog?

10 hour days for the 4? People would generally be too tired to do that sort of time in court as the focus is too intense. So it would probably need recruitment to allow extra staff to cover the days people were off - lawyers, admin staff, clerks, judges. Where is the funding for that? Solution, better legal aid rates (by a lot), and create more jobs.

Of course creating more well paid jobs in justice would clearly incentivise a well functioning system, and a 4 day week would, IMO, be a success. But without investment (by the government) I can't see it working currently.

Its not necesarily a question of cutting hours and making people work harder in the hours that they do work...when done properly its recognising that if you pay people more to do less work, they will do better work and you will have less of an issue retaining staff. This is especially true if they get more time to spend with friends and family and doing the things that make them happy.

I'd rather employ 100 people working ~34 hour weeks on the same amount of pay as if they were working 40 than 70 people working 48 hour weeks but being paid for 40 trying to keep their heads above water.

In my experience (which is very focussed on fintech) if you've got a staff churn anywhere above 10% per year, it starts to make good financial sense. Its not just the cost of recruitment, its the time lost recruting when you should be earning money.

If you think about the relationship between a company and an employee more, its farcical what people are willing to sacrifice to pay their rent and bills. Start working at 18 and retire at 70 working an average of 220 days per year? Thats about 8.5 full time calendar years of your life doing something that isn't your first choice in what you want to be doing.

How much is 8.5 years of your life worth? How much money is over 10%* of your life worth?

*The figure is even worse when you calculate as a % of your life when you're not sleeping.

pay people more to do less work, they will do better work

The old "activity" vs actual work argument. Sadly where I work, activity rules the roost...

I worked for an investment bank in 2001. I was a young whippersnapper at the start of my career back then. In a performance review my manager told me to stop leaving work at 5pm. When I pointed out that I didn't have enough work to work late he told me that it's not about how much work you do, it's about how much work people think you do and that I should create the illusion of being busy if I wanted to progress.

How miserable is that?

I'm waiting to see what the headlines are when (if?) the Rwanda flight returns with more refugees than it takes. Apparently the arrangement with Rwanda is at least partly reciprocal so we are taking "a proportion" of Rwanda's refugees in return.

Apparently the arrangement with Rwanda is at least partly reciprocal so we are taking "a proportion" of Rwanda's refugees in return.

Did not know this. (In fact, I'm pretty sure it can't be true.)

Refugee wiff-waff....

How miserable is that?

Very

I thought the same but this is in the agreement

It's also capped to 500 people per year from UK to Rwanda. Not sure that's worth £150m.

1 Attachment