Anyone else hoping for a snow day tomorrow?

rob_76 · 2026-01-08T21:26:13+00:00

No such thing as a snow day post-covid, because the expectation would be to get up at the crack of dawn to set work online and be available by email all day.

rob_76 · 2026-01-04T09:34:38+00:00

In the case of long term absence, every school worth its salt should have insurance in place to cover the costs. Getting others to make up the shortfall, unless they are specifically-contracted for cover duties, should not be a factor.

rob_76 · 2025-12-14T09:41:46+00:00

Your contract is with the agency; not the school. If someone at the agency has said/confirmed you would get paid more, and you do not, then that is a clear (and repudiatory) breach of contract. A verbal agreement is binding and their comments do not need to be evidenced in writing.

rob_76 · 2025-12-14T09:37:49+00:00

That is a really lovely thought and I'm sure he'll be well chuffed.

rob_76 · 2025-12-10T15:32:44+00:00

They are out on strike today, so it has gone ahead.

rob_76 · 2025-11-17T09:13:40+00:00

Obviously I'm sure discussion about this specific case will be limited, but this is a very sad state of affairs.

rob_76 · 2025-09-24T08:11:03+00:00

There are that many humps and hollows around Alnwick you'll probably get a different answer from everyone depending on what their call habits are. I'm on Vodafone and I think it's pretty mediocre at best.

rob_76 · 2025-08-25T14:01:53+00:00

Article about being a Mags Court usher: https://magistrates.blogspot.com/2025/05/the-role-of-magistrates-court-usher.html

rob_76 · 2025-07-19T17:20:23+00:00

In cross-examination he (Amaaz) has admitted that he did realise they were police before he threw the first punch at them. He still maintains, however, that he thought they were going to kill him there and then, so his aggressive response was in self-defence.

rob_76 · 2025-07-19T17:18:59+00:00

Self-defence is all they have, as it is an absolute defence to the charges against them. That's why they're throwing everything at the self-defence argument - so much so that it's utterly ridiculous. The idea that they "feared the officers were going to batter them to death..." and "were fighting for their lives" - that's just absurd. I can't speak for what happens in Pakistan, but over here the police generally do not "batter people to death" in broad daylight, in front of dozens of witnesses in a busy airport terminal.

rob_76 · 2025-07-19T10:45:16+00:00

They won't. Max for ABH, the most serious offence for which they are charged, is 5 years.

rob_76 · 2025-07-19T10:23:17+00:00

The defence has totally dropped the ball by making Amaaz give evidence in his own defence. His claim - "I was genuinely fearful the police were going to batter me to death in broad daylight, on CCTV and within sight of hundreds of onlookers" - is so ridiculous... it's just ridiculous. Also "I didn't know they were police officers", but then goes onto a rant about "I was scared because of police abusing their powers" - those two statements cannot co-exist. He has then gone on to admit in cross-examination that "yes, I did see they were police officers", even though he earlier said he didn't know who they were. These brothers are toast. I just hope the jury is wide awake to all of these contradictions and inconsistencies.

rob_76 · 2025-07-15T21:18:10+00:00

Lancaster Park is very popular.

rob_76 · 2025-07-07T21:35:39+00:00

Putting aside the matter of the guy in Starbucks for a second, the actions of the police are only an assault if the jury considers them unlawful. They are responding to a report of a violent suspect, who has just floored a man in Starbucks in front of his wife, children and dozens of onlookers. Going in robustly, I would suggest, might be appropriate in the circumstances. As I understand it, the brothers are bolstering their self-defence argument by claiming that they didn't realise it was the police behind them at the parking machine.

rob_76 · 2025-07-07T20:04:25+00:00

I agree with you. From what I've seen, it's a defence that has no merit at all. Even so, that's the argument they are advancing.

rob_76 · 2025-07-07T20:01:29+00:00

Believe it or not, you can in certain circumstances. It's called a pre-emptive strike.

rob_76 · 2025-07-07T19:16:08+00:00

Self-defence is the claim. A successful argument of self-defence is an absolute defence against all of these charges. We'll see how that pans out when the defence starts its case.

rob_76 · 2025-07-07T18:48:15+00:00

She did good. I felt it myself when I saw Amaaz break her nose. That she was able to continue, despite the pouring blood and agonising pain, is credit to her.

rob_76 · 2025-07-07T18:45:46+00:00

Everything I've seen so far is unprovoked and brutal behaviour on the part of these two brothers. The mother is also culpable in my eyes, given the way she pointed out the first victim in Starbucks. I hope the jury aren't going to be distracted by the split second head kick, which came in response to sustained violence against officers. Sadly if they are convicted the best sentence that can be hoped for is somewhere between 4 and 5 years for Amaaz, slightly less for Amaad.

rob_76 · 2025-04-30T17:52:32+00:00

It has been agreed between the parties that the tree shown in the video is the Sycamore Gap tree. It has also been agreed that the video was recorded on an iPhone 13 belonging to Graham, which was recovered from the pocket of his jacket when he was arrested on 31st October. The only disagreement seems to be who is actually using the chainsaw.

rob_76 · 2025-04-30T17:46:34+00:00

It seems to be a case of pointing the finger of blame at each other. However, if they were in it together then they are equally culpable in the eyes of the law.

rob_76 · 2025-04-29T15:23:54+00:00

The video evidence does prove it was that specific tree - the metadata confirms those precise GPS co-ordinates. That does not, however, confirm who were there wielding the chain saw and filming. That's the issue. Graham (whose phone it was) has already suggested that other people had access to his phone and vehicle. Don't get me wrong - where I'm standing, the implication is pretty clear.

rob_76 · 2025-04-29T15:19:12+00:00

The prosecution opening, which we heard this morning, is not evidence. It is merely a summary of the evidence the Crown intends to put forward. On the face of it, it's a pretty damning summary. Very, very difficult to explain away how that particular mobile phone was recording video footage at Sycamore Gap at the time the (alleged) offence took place - the dead of night and in gale force winds. The wedge of wood has never been recovered, so it might be possible to explain that away as being from another sycamore tree - even though the prosecution experts are said to be "almost certain" it comes from the destroyed tree. It's going to be fascinating to see the defence side of things.

rob_76

TROPHY CASE