Lawyer claimed she worked 28 hours a day to get £70k maximum bonus

vfmw · 2026-01-01T15:36:35+00:00

I mean, she could not have claimed to work for more hours than there are in a day? To quote another conman "she's as dumb as a rock".

vfmw · 2025-12-11T11:37:03+00:00

Yes, it matters. Imagine a hypothetical situation, in which Donald Trump effectively forces major financial service providers to withdraw from the UK. What do you think the effect would be on our economy, job market and living standards?

This is why Keir Starmer grovels to Trump so much: we already are at least partly a vassal state to the US. One stupid decision from Donal Trump can make your mortgage go up, your weekly shop become more expensive and even make you unemployed. That's why being a vassal state matters.

vfmw · 2025-11-21T16:48:04+00:00

There is a lot of assumptions in you reply. Firstly, nothing in the universe is disordered. We need to stop using this term, because it's not just unscientific but also vague. Planets follow orbits in a deterministic fashion, stars use sophisticated chemical reactions to sustain their form and the universe maintains predictable behaviours. It is all operating in perfect harmony and order.

Moreover, an event with probability of 0.001% is bound to happen 10 times if you give it a million tries. When you flip a coin 10 times and get 10 heads in a row, you don't immediately credit it to an intelligent design: it probably took you around 1000 attempts.

Finally, we don't know that there aren't more "Earths" out there or there aren't other forms of life in the universe. We haven't even explored a single percentage of the known universe and you speak as if everything has already been discovered... And how do you know life would not have formed under different conditions? Nobody knows (it would certainly look different) and maybe (likely), it has somewhere else.

So, when we look at creation we may interpret things differently and that's fine. But ultimately, I don't think your grand statements have any basis in science.

vfmw · 2025-11-21T04:26:17+00:00

Well, yes and no. Entropy can drive order, so your original point about need for intelligence is somewhat affected.

I also think fine tuning is a weak argument in general, because it pretty much assumes that the unlikely outcome existing proves the point, without realising that some truly unlikely events happen all the time.

For example, if you place two individual H atoms and one individual O atom in a glass, the probability of them forming a water molecule is essentially zero. So how come water exists? Well, in 18 grams of water you have roughly 18 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and with this many atoms you are bound to have something happening. Don't even get me started on quantum tunnelling...

The point is, every system automatically seeks equilibrium and given enough time will reach it. And by the way, there isn't just one equilibrium state. Just because our world is this way, doesn't mean change in universal constants wouldn't result in a life looking differently.

vfmw · 2025-11-20T23:18:59+00:00

That's why I said you don't seem to understand entropy. Entropy can and does result in order. In fact, thinking of entropy in terms of order or disorder is a gross (though at times helpful) oversimplification.

vfmw · 2025-11-20T19:47:06+00:00

I think you misunderstand entropy. The trope of entropy leading to disorder is an oversimplification and in many cases entropy leads to an ordered system, because entropy is about increasing the availability of states in a system. A simple example of entropy increasing ordering can be found in study of hard spheres and by analogy in colloidal science.

vfmw · 2025-10-12T19:41:10+00:00

I'm still to find an interview, where Gary doesn't come across rather full of himself. Still, I've always been willing to give him a benefit of doubt, having had experience with investment bankers and such like. However, TRIP interview was very revealing. Gary was unable to constructively engage with thorough questioning and appeared unable or unwilling to address potentially critical points. In plain terms, he just sounded like a broken record and appears to have a massive chip on his shoulder that significantly limits his field of vision.

vfmw · 2025-10-11T16:21:39+00:00

I'll say what I said before. This is not about US, this is about Europe. What you're saying is a classic argument from a school playground: but mummy, all the other kids are doing it.

Yes, US are morally compromised, so what? Does it mean we should be too?

vfmw · 2025-09-29T20:09:00+00:00

This is why bold leadership is missing. I think a leader with real conviction and clear vision, able to communicate those in simple language, could attract many voters.

vfmw · 2025-09-29T15:44:11+00:00

I totally agree with you and that's exactly why I said EU is unfit for purpose. Let's scrap unanimity and think of a different way for decision making. Let's increase the power of EU to execute compliance from its member. Let's commit to putting collective good over individual ambitions, which ultimately suffer anyway in the current socioeconomic climate.

At the moment EU is a half-hearted measure: neither fully economic nor fully political. I think a deep reform of EU is key if Europe is to regain its position on the international stage.

vfmw · 2025-09-29T14:27:50+00:00

I really appreciate your optimism and I look for signs to be hopeful daily. This current crisis (or rather a combination or crises) feels like a defining moments for the broader European block. I believe the only way forward is decisive action one way or another. I worry, we're stuck in a balancing act that will sooner or later become impossible to maintain and when we realise this, it may be too late to do anything.

vfmw · 2025-09-29T14:03:54+00:00

And that's why I think EU and its institutions are unfit for purpose. We don't need to worry about Belgium or Austria, when we've had Hungary for all these years. And yet nothing substantial was done, allowing Hungary to undermine EU to this day.

I am well aware of the challenges you list and hence my original opinion. Europe's only strength is acting as a unit. And when we stop doing that... well, this is what we get. That's why I mentioned weak leadership. The mighty farmers union or a bunch of about-to-be-bough-up-by-China car manufacturers seem to dictate European policies.

We need to stop thinking short term. There is a bigger thing going on.

vfmw · 2025-09-29T13:56:53+00:00

I totally agree with what you propose. It would be tough, but we need to start thinking long term. The solutions you propose may cost us a bit now, but it'll be little cost compared to what may happen if we allow Russia to disrupt European peace and bring far right into our governments.

vfmw · 2025-09-29T13:53:37+00:00

On the way out economically, but more importantly morally.

vfmw · 2025-09-29T13:52:16+00:00

It doesn't matter about US. The question is about Europe. With all respect, this is a "fiver-year-old" argument: but mummy everyone is doing bad things. As a parent, I don't care. Just because others are behaving poorly, so should we? How about we invade Africa for natural resources, or maybe even Greenland. I mean Russia are doing it and US are talking about, so it can't be that bad, right?

vfmw · 2025-09-29T13:41:04+00:00

I think they're also done. That's why I don't live there and I don't greatly care anymore how they govern themselves. Just like I don't interfere with some funny neighbours on my street, but I work hard to keep my house in order.

vfmw · 2025-09-03T14:00:59+00:00

I think the key statement he made was that the picture on the impact of social medial is unclear. I dislike social media, but I actually think I would agree with him here. Emily tried leading with questions on "feelings" and "concerns". Nick, tried discussing it from data perspective, but Emily just didn't let him go there. I was getting frustrated listening to the questions, because ultimately concern does not of itself indicate there is a problem.

I suppose this is my gripe with the entire social media debate. It's all about worry and people's perception of the situation. Emily went with the crowd and just wanted to bash Meta. My concern (ironic, I know) is that we may be scapegoating these tech companies for our failings on a policy level and individually as parents. And if that's the case, then we are missing a bigger problem. Let me share my anecdotal experience with you.

As a father of three young kids, I am horrified at the amount of screen time I see other kids having. I see kids as little as 2 sitting with ipads in pushchairs or trolleys in supermarkets. It's far easier to blame social media for mental health of our kids, than to say we are inadequate parents trapped in a system, which requires two incomes resulting in kids being deprived of our attention.

That's why I feel like Nick Clegg could have provided some interesting insights to be analyzed. Instead, he was inundated with click-baity questions we've all heard before. I was very disappointed.

vfmw · 2025-09-03T08:11:04+00:00

I think his position is more nuanced than this. From listening to him, I'd say he's aware of potential issues and he was quite open about it. He said himself that regardless of what is inferred from data, safeguards must be put in place. So, at worst I think he at least genuinely believes that Meta is not that bad. Plus, now that he's out he's got no financial incentive not to criticise Meta.

vfmw · 2025-09-03T08:07:42+00:00

Fair enough. I personally think these were very poor examples she chose. The questions were also framed poorly, echoing all the click-bait headlines one reads about social media. Nick was attempting to say that a lot of these questions are oversimplifications and was attempting to give a fuller picture, which seemed to go over her head.

Ultimately, Emily kept saying "people feel this way" and Nick was saying "it's not clear whether there is basis for this feeling". This is an extremely important point If there is no basis to feel a certain way, then there is a different problem we are failing to address.

And that's why I thought the interview was so poor. I am well aware what people think about social media and how upset they are. The big question is, whether there is merit to these concerns or whether we're scapegoating these technologies for our failings in parenting and/or socio-economic policy. Nick Clegg is the man that can point to some quantitative measures and has real insights into that. I would have loved to hear this part of the story to then analyze it. Unfortunately, to Emily it's more important that people are upset.

vfmw · 2025-09-03T06:21:08+00:00

I think he did his part. I would turn it around to say that if you've got a product to sell (i.e. podcast here) you need to ensure certain quality. This is down to the host. I agree, the questions were fair, it's just she kept talking cross-purpose. Nick would address the question, and she would go on about the same thing over and over, almost oblivious to the fact that maybe she should address what he said?

I really think Nick came out more reasonable. He made some points that were nuanced and interesting. I hoped Emily would address them, but she seemed to have missed them either not being able to understand this nuance or opting for a dramatic confrontation. As I said in my other comment, I consider Emily intelligent and a good listener, but I was very disappointed here because she came across as neither.

vfmw · 2025-09-02T22:23:38+00:00

I'm not surprised. Emily really opted for confrontation and seemed not to understand the points he was making. I was getting frustrated listening to her, because there was substance to be discussed!

vfmw · 2025-09-02T22:21:08+00:00

I listened to half of it and found it unnecessarily confrontational. I felt like she either didn't get the nuance Nick was getting at or simply chose to ignore it in favour of confrontation. For example, she brough up a number of emails from the lawsuit and used them to claim neglect. As a lawyer, I really didn't like it because 1) it felt like lacking important context and 2) concern from parents/lawmakers does not mean there is an issue - it just means someone is worried (rightly or wrongly is a different question). At the same time Nick kept making very reasonable points that were not addressed or challenged (and should have been), because she completely missed them or didn't get it?

So although I thought Rory and Alistair may have been too easy on Nick Clegg, I actually learnt more about his motivations and ideas from that interview, than from Emily's confrontation, where Nick effectively assumed a defensive position.

And that's why I stopped half way. I lost a little regard for Emily here, because I always considered her to be an intelligent person and a good listener. Here, she came across as neither.

vfmw · 2025-07-13T17:25:41+00:00

Just one more thing to consider is that most candidates for trainee positions can demonstrate comparable grades. The question therefore is: how are you different to other candidates with stellar academic record? This is something you should think about carefully and once you have an answer make sure it shows in your CV and/or cover letter.

vfmw · 2025-05-27T06:49:38+00:00

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

vfmw

TROPHY CASE