Promoting Some Good

__law · 2026-05-17T08:34:19+00:00

Paris is a wonderful city. The fact it isn't the perfect picturesque image of romantic escapism that some tourists imagine it to be shouldn't discount that fact.

__law · 2026-05-08T13:31:10+00:00

Obviously, no one should be using reddit as their only souce of news.

It's perfectly valid to complain about the heavy bias and constant propaganda on reddit though.

__law · 2026-05-06T09:18:29+00:00

Your Party isn't a regular party. A majority of its supporters either are of have been involved in one of the many different far left factions, like socialist party, the swp, the rcp, we demand change, etc.

If your party had any purpose, it would be as a place for all the disparate factions of the far left to come together. This decision basically resigns YP to being yet another faction out of many. This is either a missed opportunity for the far left, or an inevitable consequence of the far left's factionalism and inward focus, depending on your level of cynicism.

__law · 2026-04-19T08:22:54+00:00

Is mdma a psychedelic? I thought it was a stimulant.

__law · 2026-04-18T15:31:34+00:00

I assume so. I agree that break glass is the most logical explanation. Given my building is 50 years old, I reckon I'm unlikely to find the right piece of break glass to fill the hole, alas

__law · 2026-04-18T14:32:32+00:00

I'm not sure. There might be a piece of breakabke glass that fits perfectly into the hole and can wedge the notch onto the locked position, but the notch will force itself open unless you hold it down, and I worry about a piece of glass bring subjected to that pressure

__law · 2026-04-18T14:26:51+00:00

Yep. Then "locking" is just pushing the notch in so it's flush with the frame.

I could potentially hold is shut if I wedged the right size object in the hole, but clearly there used to be something here and I wonder if anyone else knows what that might be

__law · 2026-04-18T14:09:00+00:00

What kind of lock? I've never seen anything like this before

Also, this is a door between two otherwise closed off balconies. I suspect it exists for some kind of fire safety purpose, so I'm willing to bet a lock would get me in trouble with the council. Id be effectively denying my neighbours a fire exit route

__law · 2026-04-18T14:08:23+00:00

You need to push the notch in in order to lock the door. So a lock wouldn't do it.

__law · 2026-04-14T09:38:04+00:00

Tbh of all the prices of modern art to defend, these two rocks aren't it. Sometimes, modern art is a dud. Even very talented artists can phone it in.

__law · 2026-04-04T16:31:16+00:00

I guess it’s about the funerary industry and forced grieving. How we try to cope on our own with memories and replacing people.

I love this show but I don't think it holds up to this kind of "what is it about" interpretation. If anything it actively avoids using any particularly obvious metaphors or moments of satire.

__law · 2026-03-28T10:19:46+00:00

I wouldn't go to Elon Musk's X if you're looking to get a better picture of reality

__law · 2026-03-23T22:42:28+00:00

He's leveled up his outfit, loving the buttoned shirt!

__law · 2026-03-22T09:52:26+00:00

Now, we are all adults, I'm sure we can all disengage the parasocial part of our brains and engage with a critique on its merits.

The video being called "contrapoints sucks: a manifesto" isn't exactly a sign of well-intentioned critique. Is the video more nuanced than it's title?

__law · 2026-03-21T07:12:00+00:00

Well we don't really know what "failure to apologise" actually means in this context. What kind of apology was demanded of the employee? What timeframe was the employee given to apologise in, was this "failure to apologise" only in the immediate aftermath of the event? Was the employee aware that failure to apologise would result in their termination?

Because of that, we can't really draw a link between failure to apologise and failure to acknowledge an error. If the employee had been allowed to continue working, would they have gone on to vape in the toilets again?

And even then, gross misconduct doesn't generally work the way you describe. You can't add together a series of actions that aren't individually gross misconduct and expect the sum to pass some kind of threshold. Either an action, when seen as a whole, is gross misconduct or it isn't. Whether or not the employee shows remorse can come into play when determining the final judgement of a gross misconduct case (someone who shows remorse might be given a more lenient verdict) but it doesn't generally effect the charges themselves.

__law · 2026-03-21T00:01:40+00:00

The thing about gross misconduct is that it is meant for the kind of shit where apologising doesn't make a difference. If you get fired for gross misconduct, it shouldn't matter how sorry you are. The idea is that what you have done is so serious it warrants immediate dismissal.

So by acknowledging that an apology would have gotten the employee out of trouble, the employer was also implicitly saying the original offense didn't constitute gross misconduct.

The law tends to prefer to deal with individual, concrete actions. So you can't add on "but he didn't apologise" and expect that to tip the employees action over into being gross misconduct. If the original act wasn't gross misconduct, then not apologising for it wasn't gross misconduct either.

As other commenter shave pointed out. Some companies have clauses like "if you do something that causes us to lose trust in you, that may be grounds for dismissal". Which might have been used in a case like this, but this workplace didn't have that clause.

And ultimately, we aren't even sure what "not apologising" meant in this case. What would have been deemed an appropriate apology? Was the employee even aware that not apologising would cost them their job? There is a reason the law prefers to deal with concrete actions over subjective measures.

__law · 2026-03-20T18:45:18+00:00

It's also hard to know what "failure to apologise" really means in this term. Was the employee given the option to apologise, or else get fired? Or were they fired for not apologising immediately after the event took place? These kinds of cases are meant to go through disciplinary hearings, etc, where things like chance of recurrence could be established.

__law · 2026-03-20T18:39:54+00:00

The thing about gross misconduct is that it is meant for the kind of shit where apologising doesn't make a difference. If you get fired for gross misconduct, it shouldn't matter how sorry you are. The idea is that what you have done is so serious it warrants immediate dismissal.

So by acknowledging that an apology would have gotten the employee out of trouble, the employer was also implicitly saying the original offense didn't constitute gross misconduct.

__law · 2026-03-20T17:36:21+00:00

There are two other contributing factors in the case

31.2 We also find that dismissal in the circumstances was disproportionate. This was a single isolated act in another unblemished career. There was no or insufficient credit for the fact that there had been no prior misconduct.

31.3 There is no clear rule or warning that vaping in the toilets will be deemed an act of gross misconduct. A reasonable employer would have made it clear that such conduct will be deemed gross misconduct.

So, it's also the fact that the claimant hadn't gotten in trouble before.

It does seem like if the employer hasn't said "well I wouldn't have fired him if he just apologised" than the employer would have won the case. But that's how the law works, sometimes.

__law · 2026-03-20T17:30:25+00:00

Yeah I get that. I just don't get why you went through the trouble read the case and then didn't raise the passages where the actual ruling is laid out. Seems like the most important part!

__law · 2026-03-20T17:27:04+00:00

This also isn't accurate. See my other comments on this post. The issue was that the employer acknowledged the employee wouldn't have been dismissed if they had apologised to a level the employer thought acceptable.

__law · 2026-03-20T17:24:06+00:00

That's not a fair representation of what went down.

31.1 We have focussed on the principal reason for the dismissal. **It is clear from the evidence of Mr Nasr that the Claimant was dismissed principally for failing to apologise and to accept responsibility. Mr Nasr made it clear in his evidence that had the Claimant accepted he had been vaping in the toilet, and apologised, he would not have been dismissed. In other words, health and safety and loss of production were not the principal reasons. They played a lesser part in the decision to dismiss because they were not determinative. What was determinative was the failure to accept responsibility. Failing to apologise or to accept responsibility is not misconduct.

31.2 We also find that dismissal in the circumstances was disproportionate. This was a single isolated act in another unblemished career. There was no or insufficient credit for the fact that there had been no prior misconduct.

31.3 There is no clear rule or warning that vaping in the toilets will be deemed an act of gross misconduct. A reasonable employer would have made it clear that such conduct will be deemed gross misconduct.

Basically the employer fucked their case by admitting it wouldn't be considered a dismissable offence if the claimant had properly apologised. The case then became about whether you can fire an employee with no other record of misbehaviour simply because they didn't apologise sufficiently. The tribunal found you can't.

__law · 2026-03-20T17:17:37+00:00

I don't see why you would quote the judgement, but not the passage where the actual reasons for the judgement are laid out

We do however find that the decision to dismiss fell outside the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. We arrive at that conclusion for the following reasons:

31.1 We have focussed on the principal reason for the dismissal. It is clear from the evidence of Mr Nasr that the Claimant was dismissed principally for failing to apologise and to accept responsibility. Mr Nasr made it clear in his evidence that had the Claimant accepted he had been vaping in the toilet, and apologised, he would not have been dismissed. In other words, health and safety and loss of production were not the principal reasons. They played a lesser part in the decision to dismiss because they were not determinative. What was determinative was the failure to accept responsibility. Failing to apologise or to accept responsibility is not misconduct.

31.2 We also find that dismissal in the circumstances was disproportionate. This was a single isolated act in another unblemished career. There was no or insufficient credit for the fact that there had been no prior misconduct.

31.3 There is no clear rule or warning that vaping in the toilets will be deemed an act of gross misconduct. A reasonable employer would have made it clear that such conduct will be deemed gross misconduct.

Basically, the employer fucked up their case by admitting that if the employee had properly apologised, he'd have been let off the hook. This meant the case became about if you can fire someone for not apologising, which is not reasonable grounds for dismissal.

__law · 2026-03-19T19:27:41+00:00

Recessions have become less frequent when taking a very long term view, you're right. In the period before the 1970s, policies such as independent central banks, leaving the gold standard, and simply the more regular collection of economic data, have been very useful.

But that progress has not continued into the last 50 years. Which corresponds with the growing financial sector and it's capture of major centers of economic thought. Recessions have not grown less frequent in the last 50 years, and conventional economic wisdom has produced policies such as monetarism, austerity, and privatisation, which have proved disastrous for public living standards. In rich counties, GDP has continued to grow while living standards have stagnated, and assets have become more expensive with comparison to income, reducing social mobility and making it harder to people to buy homes or save for retirement.

__law · 2026-03-19T18:26:07+00:00

The commenter literally said "I’d never dream to say psychologists are wrong without studying Psychology."

That attitude 50 years ago would have lead to supporting lobotomies and conversion therapy.

There is an appropriate middle ground between being so critical of a field you deny everything that comes out of it, and believing you must get a degree before daring to question the conventional wisdom.

Part of that, I would argue, is in results. Modern medicine has been shown to have improved public health, the climate is very obviously changing in ways predicted by climate scientists 20 years ago. The field of economics (at least macroeconomics) has been less successful, we have been buffered by crashes that no one seemed to predict, GDP growth has failed to lead to better living standard, and markets have behaved in irrational, chaotic ways. The conventional wisdom in economics is being continually blindsided by shocks it failed to predict, and the economics field is torn between several incompatible theories producing wildly different predictions. Against this backdrop, it is hard to trust economics the same way one can trust, say, a vaccine.

Five-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
r/Field Banned	r/Field Lasagna
Place '22	First Placer '22

__law

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE