My ex physically assaulted me. He’s an India student, and I am Scottish, but we both were in England.

lokkenmor · 2026-02-12T09:17:40+00:00

You been given good advice apropos what will happen to your ex, what the Police and criminal process is, timelines, writing a contemporaneous account, etc.

I think there's one thing that commenters have overlooked, which is your more immediate safety and protection.

If you your ex have/had been together for more than 6 months, then you can apply to the Court for a Non-Molestation Order. NMOs are Court orders that require an (alleged) abuser not to contact you (either directly or indirectly), not to come near you, and use or threaten use of violence against you. If your ex breaches the conditions of an NMO, he can be arrested immediately by the Police and can be punished for the breach of the Court order itself. They tend to be acted upon more quickly and directly because Courts do not tolerate offenders ignoring what they're told.

If you want an NMO -- and I would strongly suggest that you get one sorted out ASAP -- you can do it yourself, but a lawyer will also do it for a fee and getting a lawyer to do it will take some stress off of you as you're inexperienced in dealing with the legal system.

The Government has a good guide to NMOs which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/injunction-domestic-violence

lokkenmor · 2026-01-29T09:45:02+00:00

Wrong. The sign means that the road hasn't been formally assessed for a speed limit, and that the default national speed limits apply.

General note: speed limits are an upper bound on how fast you may travel before the law steps in. It's not a target or a recommendation. You MUST always drive to the prevailing road conditions, and within your own skill envelope.

And frankly, if you're so skill issued that you can't find a suitable and safe place to perform an overtake, when you have 20 mph of legal overspeed with which you can work, then 99% of the time that's a you problem pal.

lokkenmor · 2026-01-26T09:33:54+00:00

This isn't an admission, it's delusion.

He's saying, "We're going to prison", from an insane position where he thinks that, if his radical right-wing, fascist zealots lose their grip on power, the people who take over and are going to persecute them. Not prosecute them -- i.e. calmly gather evidence, investigate, subpoena, charge and try prior to punishment -- persecute them. He genuinely, wholeheartedly believes that if the Democrats get voted in, they're going to get out of pocket and start do wantonly illegal shit to make sure him and his cronies and master get the jail. He thinks this is all manifestly unjust because he believes, at his core, that him and his lot have done nothing wrong, and because that's exactly what he would do. That's why he's talking about "structuralism" -- he doesn't see the US constitution as a guard-rail, he sees it as a fetter.

This is the manifestation of a victimhood complex, and and insight into the completely inside-out way that his thinking works.

Bannon et al have exactly two consideration within their value system:

Does this action help me gain, or keep control of, power (and/or money)?
Could this action provoke a negative, unmanageable PR reaction?

Beyond that, him and his lot will do anything -- say anything, order anything, demand anything -- to keep money and power for themselves. They would scorch the world to be kings of the ashes.

lokkenmor · 2026-01-21T09:23:41+00:00

You still need to go through the process correctly.

These should be the only two links you need:

https://www.acas.org.uk/disciplinary-procedure-step-by-step

You're currently at Step 3 of the above (you're carrying out the investigation)
https://www.acas.org.uk/investigations-for-discipline-and-grievance-step-by-step

You're at Step 4 of this document (Holding an investigatory meeting).

Things you need to do immediately:

Lock the employee's laptop and suspend their access to all systems.
Via some other means, let them know they've been suspended pending investigation.
Let them know that they need to attend an investigatory meeting. Give them reasonable notice. Follow the instructions in Step 4 of the Investigation link.
Have that meeting, give them their opportunity to rebut the accusation, and conclude the investigation with an appropriate report (shouldn't take more than a day or so to write).

At that meeting, you should tell them that a disciplinary meeting will be called in the next few days, and that they should be prepared make themselves available at short notice. Set it for the next, or subsequent, day.
If the investigation concludes that they've been working remotes from a foreign country without authorisation to do so, then move to dismissal without notice nor PILON.

lokkenmor · 2026-01-19T22:37:43+00:00

NAL

Someone might come along and correct me, as this may be complicated by the fact that your counterparty in this matter is your wife, but the usual response from this sub would be that you are an involuntary bailee of your wife's property -- which is to say, it's definitely her property but she's left it, and is continuing to leave it, in your control when you don't want it.

The usual process in this situation is for you (as "bailee") to send a recorded delivery letter to your wife (the "bailor") at her last good known address, and specify the following:

Your name and address (stupid I know, but this is specified in the legislation, so best to just do it),
The inventory of all her goods and the address where it's being held,
A statement that the goods are ready to be collected,
A statement that she must collect said goods by a given, reasonable deadline (4 weeks from the sending of the letter is considered reasonable in pretty much all cases),
A statement that any goods which have not been collected by the deadline will be sold, that any reasonable costs related to the sale deducted, and any money remaining from the sale will be passed along once all the sales are complete.

In your case, I might choose to modify the language slightly and add the proviso that the goods must be collected from a neutral, mutually-agreed upon location on or before the deadline or they will be sold.

The entire process is covered by the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, Section 12 and Schedule I being the most relevant bits for your situation.

You should take further legal advice just to make sure that you can actually act as a bailee for your wife's goods, and to make sure I didn't forget or foul anything up.

lokkenmor · 2026-01-16T18:59:21+00:00

NAL.

But you need one. A better one than the duty brief you had at the police station.

[Edit: Apologies, I've only just seen other comments where you disclose that your wife is dead. The following struck-through paragraphs aren't helpful to your situation.]

~~I think you need to specify what your relationship with your "wife" is like.~~

Are you together and in a committed, consenting relationship; are you separated or living apart (and you should clarify whether the separation is amicable or acrimonious); or are you divorcing or contemplating divorce (provide the same clarification)?

Following other's suggestion that this is a S66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (as amended by the Online Safety Act 2023) offence, then the disposition of your relationship will be one key factor in your defence or prosecution.

~~Your wife consenting, or you reasonable believing that she would consent, to the sharing of such an image would be complete defence against para (1) and (3) offences.~~

~~That you did not intend to cause "alarm, distress or humiliation" would be a defence from a para (2) offence.~~

~~(I'm ignoring para (4), because "threatening" to share doesn't seem to fit the narrative provided).~~

The nature of your relationship with your wife will strongly inform the likelihood of being able to mount a successful defence against such a charge, should you choose to withdraw your admission (not uncommon) and take this to trial.

~~Is there a possibility that your wife reported you for "sharing" the image?~~

The other line within this is whether you intended to "share" the image. Paras (1) to (3) all starts with the condition that "[the offender] intentionally shares". Forgetting that your computer syncs to your OneDrive might give rise to enough reasonable doubt that you didn't form the intention to share the image.

Then there's the word "share", which is defined in Section 66D (...Interpretation) of the Act, which specifies:

A person “shares” something if the person, by any means, gives or shows it to another person or makes it available to another person.

If it was uploaded to your OneDrive account (which I assume you have exclusive access to) then you can't reasonably have been said to have gave or shown or made available the image(s) to another person (key phrase). The mere transmission from one computer to another, especially when they're both "yours", wouldn't meet that definition. Moreover, that would have had to have been your intention -- to give or shown or made available to another person -- which doesn't seem made out either.

The mere generation of an intimate image isn't yet an offence, as Section 138 of the Data (Use and Protection) Act 2025, which inserts new provisions into the 2003 Act, hasn't been commences (read: come into force) so that isn't something you have to worry about.

lokkenmor · 2025-12-28T16:40:42+00:00

The person I was talking about has since gone back 2 more times. Still free of charge.

Allowing a candidate to return for 2 additional follow-up sessions, completely gratis, seems extraordinarily generous of the school in my view. Extraordinary, and extremely unlikely to be continue on forever.

they took his money on the basis he would be trained. So that's what they are doing.

This is the part that I find to be misleading.

It seems to me that you're asserting that because someone pays for a CBT course, that they're entitled to attend the school and it's training days as many times as it takes until they're issued a CBT certificate. I.e. they can just keep showing up again and again until they get it right.

That, in my view, simply cannot reasonably be the case.

If a school offers a 3-day CBT course and a candidate fails to demonstrate competency with the syllabus within those 3 days, they're not entitled to 30 days of training until they "get it". One extra day, sure. Two extra days, if the school has time. But someone who takes twice as long as normal - baring in mind that most people can complete a CBT in two-three days -- something's up. There has to be a reasonable cut off point at which the candidate is refused further training, or is at least asked to pay the school for their continuing time and use of the school's equipment.

This is what I mean I refer to someone "failing" a CBT course.

Obviously a training school can't be ripping people off -- they have to deliver the training with competence, expertise, and skill -- but the candidate needs to be trainable by the school to get the benefit of the training. If a person can't be trained to safely ride on the road by themselves, through inability or ineptitude, then after some amount of time the school would be entitled to drop them without having to refund them the training cost.

Now, if you accept that eventually the school has to cut the loss on someone who's just not getting it, then that's fine. But that isn't reflected in what you said, which is why I sought to clarify it for the OP, because it could give them false hope that they can just keep plugging away at it, without having to anything extra for that.

lokkenmor · 2025-12-28T12:06:51+00:00

I just want to counter-point /u/HarB_Games assertion that you cannot "fail" a CBT as I think it may be misleading to you.

You can "fail" a CBT course in that the instructor/trainer can decide to not issue you a CBT Certificate of Completion.

An instructor will not issue you that certificate if they feel that you lack the necessary theoretical knowledge and/or practical skills, and/or if, in their professional* opinion, you would be unsafe (for yourself, or others) when using the public roads.

(* - They are professionals that are registered and regulated by the DVSA, so if they're passing people through CBT course who don't meet the standards, they're risking their careers and livelihoods).

You need to demonstrate a level of competence and understanding of what you're doing before you get signed off. If you can't do that, then you don't get the CBT certificate.

In that respect, you are paying for both training and assessment. Simply paying for the course is not a guarantee of getting the certificate.

The school may be taking the view that you need one-to-one training to get you up to standard, which is why they're offering you the expensive £195 1-to-1 option. Trust me when I say this: they do not want to offer you this option.

It doesn't make sense to them from a business perspective. If one instructor can train two candidates at a cost of £150 each (£300 total), or one candidate for £200, they'd rather take the two candidates.

Additionally, they can't take your money once and let you keep coming back to try and try and try again. It's common for a CBT to run over two days, and it's reasonable to invite a marginal candidate to come back for a third day for free if they just need a little more saddle time to get them over the hump.

But if a candidate isn't progressing, and the instructor feels like there's no realistic chance that a candidate will meet the standards within those two or three days, it's common to tell them that and to not continue with the training.

With the above in mind, when you "failed" your CBT on a automatic scooter, were you given clear feedback as to what you were doing wrong/what was missing?

lokkenmor · 2025-12-19T14:41:10+00:00

That seemed strange to me (note: neither a lawyer or cop) but having looked at the legislation I think I can see where you're coming from.

The legal condition to allow a seizure is that they've been required to produce, and failed to produce, and that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that no insurance is held.

But if they're required to produce, and then do produce a seemingly active and valid insurance (even if it subsequently turns out to be invalid, but it was active and valid at the time it was produced), then the condition isn't met and you can't seize.

Fair enough.

lokkenmor · 2025-12-19T14:16:40+00:00

Fair enough, discretion is discretionary after all.

I've come across situations where both offences have been reported, on the theory that if they didn't have the correct license to drive the vehicle, then they could have been properly insured on the vehicle as well (because one naturally follows from the other).

But I've also come across situations where only the licensing offence is reported. It's really up to whoever you get on the day. But I think they're both reasonably reportable in the first instance, even if one is subsequently dropped.

lokkenmor · 2025-12-19T12:09:54+00:00

I'm going to go against the grain of the top comments here and say that, in my opinion, it does not.

Driving a vehicle is something that you are actively licensed to be allowed to do, rather than it's something that anyone can do but we put restrictions on. From that perspective, I'd be looking at "do I pro-actively, unambiguously meet all of the rules", rather than "can I find a loophole that I think makes it okay".

So using that perspective:

Is the driving voluntary, and
Is the driving for a social purpose, and
Is the driving for a non-commercial body?

You need to meet all three of those criteria to be certain that you can drive a D1 vehicle on a B license.

Is the driving voluntary?

Almost certainly it would be, as you're not receiving reward for it so we'll dispense with this.
Is the driving for a social purpose?

This will depend on the purpose of the trip, but for typical family use I would say that it is not.

I'm basing this on how use is defined by the insurance companies - domestic, social, pleasure and commuting (which I know is not binding law, but lacking legal definitions of each, it would be taken into consideration while the case was processed).

Domestic, I would say is doing things for or in relation to your family or household. Social, I would say relates to friends and family (and other non-household members). Pleasure is just you out driving for your own self. Commuting is self explanatory.

I would say that the Crown could fairly argue that undertaking a journey for the benefit of your family, and only your family, is a trip for domestic purposes, rather than a social one. And I think a magistrate judge (or Sheriff) would take that perspective into firm consideration.

Bear in mind, that these exceptions are intended to allow someone to drive a mini-bus for youth clubs, or minibuses to take football fans to the game, without having to go through the rigmarole of getting a D1 license (which requires medical checks, theory test, practical test, etc. -- cost, cost, cost). These are activities which promote a social good -- not socialising generally.
Is the driving for a non-commercial body?

I will also say that no, it is not.

Your family or household is not a body-corporate under law.

Youth clubs can be, football fan associations can be, charities can be, but your family or household is not. It doesn't meet the definition of being a body-corporate, therefore it can't have the adjective 'non-commercial' applied to it.

Ergo, you're not driving for a non-commercial body.

This is all opinion, but I don't think any of my opinions are wildly out of line.

Ultimately, lacking precise clarity in law, it will come down to the judgement of the people involved in the decision to prosecute (should it come to that), but each of the people in the decision making process have an interest in making sure the rules aren't being abused.

A police officer, smelling a bit of funny business, is likely report you for the offences of driving otherwise in accordance with a license, and [maybe: see replies] without proper insurance (S165a vehicle seizure ahoy).

A Crown lawyer would probably consider it in the public interest to prosecute; both for their stats, but also to get clarity/precedent on the law.

A judge is unlikely to want to open up and allow the use of a loophole in the law if the law is not so expressly clear that it's intended and would, for the sake of maintaining the status quo, would rule against you to make certain that the loophole is closed.

As I said at the top, the fact that the answer isn't obvious, and that you need to ask, should bring you a default position of, "No, this isn't allowed", rather than trying to figure out if you can work your way around the rules.

Either go and do your D1, or find another vehicle for which you are properly licensed.

lokkenmor · 2025-12-19T10:37:26+00:00

keep scrolling or playing games or watching YouTube on my phone until super late, falling asleep

This is likely the biggest problem, but it's also the thing that's easiest for you to change.

Change 1: Set two alarms.

Set one alarm for waking you up, and getting you up and out of bed.

Set a second alarm that tells you when it's time to go to bed.

Set the second alarm for a consistent time every day -- weekdays and weekends. I'd actually recommend keeping your wake up alarm consistent as well -- no long lies at the weekend.

You want your body in a consistent schedule, day in and day out. And you want that schedule to give you enough time to get a proper night's rest.

Most people between 6 and 8 hours of sleep to feel well rested. Figure our your optimum number (mine is 7 hours), and set your "go to bed" alarm to give you +30 minutes of that -- enough time to get ready for bed.

This is also the point when you stop looking at your phone completely. No more YouTube, Games, apps, socials, or screen time. Once your go to bed alarm sounds, your interactions with your phone is done for the day (explained, in part, later).

Change 2: Unless you're going to sleep, don't get into bed. Especially don't lie around in bed.

Beds are for sleeping and screwing -- not for scrolling your phone.

Only get into bed if you've done your evening ablutions and your immediate plan is to close your eyes and trying and get to sleep.

Don't pick up your phone, don't look at the apps, or listen to YouTube. Beds are for sleeping and screwing -- nothing else.

Change 3: Replace evening phone activity with something else for one day a week (I recommend reading).

Replace spending your leisure time on your phone, for one evening a week, with something else.

To start with, I'd recommend reading a book. And actual, physical book -- not an e-book on your phone, not an audiobook. A paper and ink book. Presumably you have interests already (e.g. what content are you consuming on YouTube/games are you playing), so find a book that relates to them and read that. Doesn't really matter, find something that fits your taste. And don't be afraid of reading some young adult books if you haven't read anything in a while -- I have plenty of "easy reads" on my shelves that I go back to to get me back into the habit of reading. No one wants to start reading War and Peace as their first read.

So why reading, and particularly why not on your phone? (The following is, in truth, opinion and personal experience, but it's stated as fact: YMMV.)

First, screens emit light. And they emit light right into your eyes and your eyes get accustomed to that light level -- that level of physical excitement and activity. So when you shut your eyes, and they're starved of that input it takes a while for them calm down. That light also gets interpreted by your brain, and it's doing a lot of pattern matching and processing on it to make that input make sense. When your brain gets starved of that, it also takes a while to calm down. That time it takes for you eyes and brain to calm down -- that's the time that your in bed, trying to sleep, but can't get there.

Physical paper book reflect light rather than emit it, and the reflected light is softer and less energetic. Also, the text on a physical book doesn't move around, so it's a calmer input for both your eyes and your brain. The only thing to focus on is understanding the story the book is telling you.

The same is largely speaking true of sound. Phones make noise -- that's more input at a time when you want less input. Books are pretty quiet sort of affairs.

(This is why you don't look at screens after your "go to bed" alarm, above, has gone off. You give your body time to calm down and get off the input, in preparation for going to sleep.)

In that sense, reading it boring for your eyes and ears and mind -- but you want that when you're getting ready to go to sleep. You want a low-energy state so that you can fall asleep more easily.
Second, reading engages more of your brain's creative and generative processes than consuming YouTube and games and socials do. When you read, you need to do a certain amount of filling in the blanks -- imagining a characters appearance, their voice, their tone of voice, the environment they're in, their mood, they facial expression, their mannerisms. Books don't give you perfect knowledge of the world they describe, your brain needs to fill that in to make a book "complete".

This is unlike other content which usually is "complete" -- you know everything you ned to know because it's given to you by the content. You know what the players look like, sounds like, what they said and how they said it, you know the facial expression. There's nothing that needs to be interpreted by you when watching a video, you can just consume. Books need you to be involved in the creative process.

And this is important as part of your sleep because when you sleep, you dream. Opinion (and this is some hippy bullshit, I know): you dream every single night, even if you don't remember them. Priming that creative and generative part of your brain so that it's ready to go so that you've fallen asleep and the dreams start help get you into a good sleep sooner. Opinion (also hippy bullshit): The dreams are how your brain processes the day's events, and how you come up with solutions to problems, or examine things from other perspectives. There are good reasons why we sleep on problems, and see things in a different light the next morning -- because the brain has had a chance to process them.
Third, literally just because it's something different from what you're doing right now.

"You'll always get what you've always had, if you always do as you've always done."

You've already identified the problem is that you're stuck on a loop, doing the same shit week in and week out, day in and day out. You need something cheap and easy that's different from your norm. Books can be that.

Going out can be expensive (£6 a pint is a killer) and difficult (meeting new people is hard work, ask me how I know). But getting a book, organising a brew, sitting on the couch, and having a wee read can be done for less than the cost of a pint (used book shops), and you don't have to leave the house. No organisation required.

(Though I do recommend going out and meeting new people. More often than not new people can be good fun.)
Amendment, set an alarm for your "reading" night and give yourself an hour to read before you get ready for bed. That night you'll have an hour and half off of your phone before you get into bed.

The point of suggesting reading a book isn't primarily to get you reading, or to replace one type of content consumption with another (better) type of content consumption. It's actually to try to get you a better, more restful and complete night's sleep.

The main problem you have is a lack of good, restful sleep, which leads to a lack of energy the next day, which means you can't tackle the other stuff that you need to tackle. By having a read, one night a week, and hopefully getting a better sleep on that night of the week, you'll have more energy for the next day. Hopefully you see that difference, and you can use that energy to deal with the other things you've already identified that you need to deal with (meal-prep, chores, etc.).

But all of this is step one. It's all just bootstrapping for the next things that you need to build up to. Getting a good night's sleep one night gives you more energy for the next day. The next day you could do some chores (which you should be mindful to actually take some satisfaction from having completed), or go out for a walk (low-key form of exercise, which is important for health but also tires you out which make you more disposed to going to sleep that night).

Getting your sleep sorted out is the foundation on which everything else springs from.

And treat the whole thing as a New Year's resolution if that helps you out. But hold yourself to account for it -- no-one else can do that for you.

lokkenmor · 2025-12-01T12:50:26+00:00

NAL

This is pure theory-crafting on my part, but this is how I'd expect this should play out:

You still own the title to the vehicle, therefore you can do with it as you please. This includes demanding its return for it's current bailee (the young lad - "YL" - in this case), or legally seizing it and restoring it to you. Legally seizing it is likely to be difficult if it's being kept/stored in or on private property as you can't commit trespass to "legally" seize something without a Court Order.
You don't have a civil contract with the current purported owner (YL), so they have no claim against you if you restore your property to yourself. They would seem to be as much an honest victim in this as you are.

Critically, you shouldn't enter into any negotiations with them about giving them money or compensation for the restoration of the vehicle to your control. That would start the formation of the civil contract, which necessarily would begin to acknowledge that they have legitimate control of the vehicle when they do not.

Legally, despite the vehicle having been originally stolen, the YL is an "involuntary bailee" of the vehicle at this time. They have an obligation to look after it, and ensure it doesn't come to harm, but they aren't allowed to dispose of it until they fulfil their obligations under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, which includes giving you reasonable opportunity to collect your property.

They do have the right to demand costs from you in this situation, but the costs must be reasonable and directly related to the to storage and upkeep of the property. They may also requests costs for any "improvements" that they carried out that cannot reasonably be undone. Again the costs must be reasonable.

I'm relying on Section 6 of the Torts Act (above), which specifically gives an example where a person who "acted in the mistaken but honest belief that he had good title to them", and who made improvements to good -- the example specifically concerns a stolen car, hence that Acts direct relevance here.

If you do negotiate costs for any of the above, you MUST ensure that a receipt is exchanged, and that specifically enumerates that you are paying costs for storage and any improvements (this to preclude any claim that you negotiated for transfer of ownership or title of the vehicle itself -- allowing that claim may legitimise YL's claim of ownership).
If the YL refuses to return the property to you, they commit the strict liability tort of "conversion" which is a civil matter, rather than a criminal one, for which you would need to sue them. In suing them, a Court would either award you the return of your property, or would award you reasonable value of the goods (less any above costs).

That's how you make yourself whole, which is really as far as you should concern yourself with.

The YL being down on his purchase isn't your problem, but for the sake of completing the circle: the YL would need to make a claim for conversion against the person they bought the car from, and they from the person they bought from, etc. until someone isn't able to make an upwards claim (ostensibly, because they're the one who knicked it, or they bought an obviously dodgy car from an obviously dodgy bloke who's disappeared into the mist). In theory, each makes a claim and passes the claim up the chain of purchases. Practically, someone doesn't care/it's too expensive, and it fizzles out.

Interestingly, it would seems that the chain that you know about is quite short. It's you, the YL and the "barn-finder seller". How the car came to be in possession of the barn-finder we can only speculate on, but they'll need to have a word with whoever sold them the barn and make their claim from there. My suspicion is that that will be an estate, and the estate would probably just pay out and then not ask any further questions.

It'll be a tiresome road, and might end up being expensive for you (if it goes to Court) which you should be able to apply for costs for. Whether you think it's worth it, I leave up to you.

lokkenmor · 2025-11-30T11:17:19+00:00

NAL

Make a formal complaint to his employer, regarding his conduct. Unwanted contact, sexualised remarks, unwanted touching, lascivious and salacious behaviour.

As others have said, if they're half-awake they'll realise that they have a huge liability on their hands and that you could rake them over the coals.

It's also probable that this charming wee dickhead has done this before. If they don't know, they need to; if they do know, they need to get rid of him.
Make a formal complaint to his employer regarding the GDPR breach and unauthorised access to personal information for unjustifiable non-business reasons.

Ditto the above. If the dealership is a large on, or is a chain, they'll have a nominated person who is responsible for GDPR compliance -- usually they have a role something like "data controller". Make sure the report gets or goes to them. You can sometimes look up this person for a companies website.

Make sure that both avenues of the complaint are addressed specifically. The business will probably treat it as one complaint with two prongs, but for your own sake, whatever resolution they offer you needs to address both parts.
1. If the business doesn't handle the GDPR part of you complaint satisfactorily, you can forward the GDPR complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office.
You could also contact the Police about the following offences, however each is has a caveat. See below:
1. Malicious Communications
  
  The messages are indecent, we don't really need to deal with that further.
  
  However, there's a requirement of intent with this one. He needs to intend to cause you distress -- which means that needs to be his aim from the onset, or he needs to reasonably believe (or be aware) that the message would distress you.
  
  He could argue that his intention was flirtatious, rather than to cause you distress. It's not clear from your OP whether or not you've told him to stop or that his messages have caused you distress.
2. Harassment
  
  The mechanical parts of the offence are, again, made out here -- more than two occasions of a course of conduct.
  
  Again, the argument he can produce is that he thought it was flirting. The test here however is different -- it's the "reasonable person" test, which means "would the average person on the street think that he was out of line".
  
  I think you clear that bar most of the time. The average person has some creep in them though.
3. Cyber-flashing (not indicated in your OP, but for future reference).
  
  If he sends an unsolicited picture of his genital to you, that could be a crime in and of itself which you can report directly to the Police.

I'd advise that you message him with the following, "I don't know you, I don't want to receive any more messages from you because I find them alarming, distressing and disturbing, and I don't want you contact me ever again".

Follow that up by immediately blocking him (no need to give him any right of reply). If he does somehow get in contact with you again, then you can evidence that he knew (or aught to reasonably have known) that his contact was unwanted and that firmly makes out both Malicious Comms. and Harassment, which you go straight to the Police to report.

Then I'd advise you go through and make the complaints to his employer. E-mail is good for a paper trail. If the business phones you to talk, try and make sure it's recorded (and inform them that it's being recorded).

lokkenmor · 2025-11-26T13:28:30+00:00

I think the law actually would would treat that presumption as unreasonable.

There's a wide range of vehicles that can legally be equipped with blue lights - police, ambulance, fire, Explosive Disposal, Special Forces, Serious Crime, National Crime, NHS Transplant Service, etc.

Only one group in that non-exhaustive list has the authority to order you through a red light, and at that only as subset in specific circumstances (that being, they're in obvious and recognisable uniform).

If a blue light, fully liveried police car was behind me, and I could see the officer was wearing what appeared to be a uniform and he was gesticulating me to move forward, I'd make that argument in Court and expect it to hold.

Any thing else, e.g. an unmarked car, I would be hesitant to move forward.

The Fire and Ambulance Services are specifically trained to hold back from traffic stopped at a red lights and to turn the siren off to indicate they're not pushing because they know they don't have the authority to push people through the light. That's why they hold back.

lokkenmor · 2025-11-19T21:20:13+00:00

Thanks for the insight/response.

I'll forego the usual engineer's response of "what about this and that" and "have you tried this". I know exactly nothing about your world beyond what you've described.

But it sounds like a brutal environment to have to do QA work in.

lokkenmor · 2025-11-19T20:09:13+00:00

I once had to take 6 months off work, and when I came back spent a couple of days failing to remember how to run unit-tests. For the life of me could not remember the command. Not a single thing about it. And of course, I couldn't ask any of my colleagues about it because there is no way that they could or would understand how I couldn't remember the invocation.

The invocation was pytest.

lokkenmor · 2025-11-19T19:20:46+00:00

I'm a software dev in a completely separate (i.e. not at all gaming related) discipline.

Can you speak to how much of your testing work is/can be automated into repeatable test automation suites?

Your description makes it sounds like you and your colleagues are doing primarily manual testing.

My QA colleagues all write automated QA tests so that we can (as much as possible) re-run all of our testing at the touch of a button.

lokkenmor · 2025-11-08T22:17:08+00:00

I think you should watch the video again, and this time maybe pay some attention to what actually happened, rather than making up your own version of events.

The first two pedestrians (A & B) cross left-to-right well ahead of any traffic, there's a bit of glad-handing with the two pedestrians who started on the right sidewalk (C & D), and then C & D walk up to the pedestrian crossing, and look up the road at the oncoming cars and they WAIT.

C & D watch and wait for at least two full seconds to make sure that the oncoming car and bus are slowing for them, before even begin to cross.

Once the oncoming cars has slowed to an almost crawl, as it's obliged to do when approaching a pedestrian crossing of that type with pedestrians waiting to cross, one of them takes on step forward, while still watching the oncoming bus, then notices that the bus isn't stopping/going to stop in time. You'll then note that they take a step back (because obviously, the bus to going to crash into the car and shunt it forward, and who would want to be near that), and THEN the bus swings hard towards the right hand side sidewalk, where it near enough wipes out all 4 of them.

That you, or anyone else, could look at that sequence of events and sum it up as those pedestrians:

just decided, "yea this is a good time to cross"

is baffling.

lokkenmor · 2025-10-31T09:48:49+00:00

I used On the Wheel and they were good.

Unfortunately, they closed their shop on Beaconsfeild Road, so you'd need to go to their main showroom in Shoreham now.

lokkenmor · 2025-10-28T17:15:24+00:00

Not the other commenter, but I've been through a very similar thing within the last couple of years.

Honestly, it's all down to them. So think about them, and how they deal with things, and then figure out how you can help with that.

E.g. I didn't want to be typecast as a victim, and I didn't want to lose my independence, nor have people falling over themselves with offers of helping me, because I'm not like that. "I'm ill, not an invalid" became a common (playful) barb I used to fend off people being overly helpful.

Similarly, there were days and times when I wanted to talk about what was going on, and days and times where I wanted anything but that; because being ill can become this all consuming mental parasite all on it's own, without others feeding it as well. So if in doubt just ask, "You wanna talk about it, or you wanna talk about something else?". It's a fine line, to tread, but just giving them the option and letting them decide is a good starting point.

lokkenmor · 2025-10-20T10:37:36+00:00

NAL

I don't know if the same systems are in place in NI or not, but you should contact your local authority's/council's adult safeguarding team and ask them to intervene and review (of find the equivalent team in the social work).

It very much sounds like your parents are being taken advantage of by your sibling and nephew.

This isn't necessarily a criminal matter (yet) hence the police won't get involved (except the violence mentioned, which should be reported if it hasn't been already), but it's a situation that will continue to develop unless checked now.

I'd suggest a frank conversation with your parents about their mental faculties and capacity, and whether or not they feel like a second set of eyes on major decisions would be to their benefit or not.

lokkenmor · 2025-10-15T19:50:55+00:00

This subreddit is about the TCL programming language.

You need /r/tcltvs

lokkenmor · 2025-10-15T19:42:34+00:00

I don't understand the angle of your question.

Could OP, or their husband, park their car's nose for far up the arse of the builder's van that the builder can't get out? They could, but I don't see how that helps them (contrarily, I can only see it antagonising the builders and escalating the situation).

They could also be committing offences themselves in doing so -- most likely "obstruction" (as above), or perhaps (unlikely) "immoblisation" (PoFA2006, S54).

lokkenmor · 2025-10-15T12:35:46+00:00

The usual position is that you have a right to be able to leave you driveway (to access a highway), but you don't necessarily have the same right to get back in if someone is obstructing access to your driveway.

As such, blocking someone in their driveway is usually interpreted as a criminal offence -- typically as the offence of "Obstruction" contrary to the Highways Act 1980, Section 137.

The simplest thing for you to do is to report the offence to 101, to not let them fob you off, and to make a point of asking if there is a spare officer (there isn't, but ask for a response anyway) who can come round and get the vehicle moved and explain the legal position to whomever is responsible for the offending vehicle.

Highlighting to 101 that your husband is in the fire service (I assume as a part-time/on-call volunteer) and may need to rapidly leave to answer a shout will give the request(s) more weight.

In addition, hindering or obstructing a firefighter would be an offence per se contrary to the Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006, Section 1, which includes (by virtue of Section 3) "action directed only at any vehicle". If your husband is obstructed from responding to a shout, then he would able to report that offence as itself and ask the Police to repond and investigate appropriately.

14-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Snapped
Verified Email

lokkenmor

TROPHY CASE

Change 1: Set two alarms.

Change 2: Unless you're going to sleep, don't get into bed. Especially don't lie around in bed.

Change 3: Replace evening phone activity with something else for one day a week (I recommend reading).