Today I'm angry about.....

[Bruce Rioja]

Sellotape! Whenever I use it I carefully turn down a piece on itself to leave a little tab.
Whenever the missus uses it I have to spend half a fxcking day trying to find the end bit. FXCK, just turn the fxcker over on itself by just an incywincy bit you tw*t
(I can see why there's more divorces just after Christmas).

Buy one of these you tight sod.

http://www.staples.co.uk/office-tape-di ... ber=414118" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Straight on the Ducking Stool if you turn up around his neck of the woods with such a contraption!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Sellotape! Whenever I use it I carefully turn down a piece on itself to leave a little tab.
Whenever the missus uses it I have to spend half a fxcking day trying to find the end bit. FXCK, just turn the fxcker over on itself by just an incywincy bit you tw*t
(I can see why there's more divorces just after Christmas).

Buy one of these you tight sod.

http://www.staples.co.uk/office-tape-di ... ber=414118" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Straight on the Ducking Stool if you turn up around his neck of the woods with such a contraption!

Luddites came top of our Council election last year.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I've waited in all morning for a Central Heating Engineer.
He gets here, and I show him to my dead cold radiator.
CHE *stands looking at it* *fiddles with the Terrier valve, turning it from 5 to Frost a few times and then stands with his hand on the radiator * "It's cold" he says.
Me: It will be you've got it on frost
CHE:( turns it to 5) "It's still cold"
Me: I know
CHE: *sucks teeth* It's fecked.
Me: Yea, please fix it.
CHE: You need a plumber for that, I fix boilers.
Me: So when I rang up yesterday and told you I'd got a knackered thermostat valve on my radiator you thought you'd come out and do what?
CHE: I thought it might have been your boiler.
Me: Feck off, idiot.

[clapton is god]

^ Similar: I have a plumber engaged to do some radiator work. Replace one radiator and install two others plus some general plumbing jobs,

We last saw him second week of December and he told us he'd be back in the New Year week commencing the 11th. Not seen or heard of him since then! It was relatively warm before New Year but a bit nippy now so am getting 'bothered'. Still, it wasn't an urgent job, I have all the radiators and we've not paid him a penny as yet so I suspect we'll hear from him sooner or later. As long as its not July.

[TANGODANCER]

^ Was a time before heating engineers were born when anything around the home to do with water meant "plumber"

[Lost Leopard Spot]

^ Was a time before heating engineers were born when anything around the home to do with water meant "plumber"

That was my basic stance, except approaching it from the elite end. If you can fix boilers you should be able to fix fecking radiators.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Why is the law in this country in such a shit state.
Rape defendant's names are publicised partly "on the ground that publicity encorages other witnesses to come forward" as explained by the CPS.
This presumably, because more than one rape presents evidence of seriality and therefore probable guilt to the first offence.
And yet, conversely, when a serial burglar is brought up before the bar, the jury knows nothing of his previous convictions.
Some fxcker needs to sort out whether we should know this stuff... or not. And then be fxcking consistent about it.
I know my view.

[Prufrock]

Why is the law in this country in such a shit state.
Rape defendant's names are publicised partly "on the ground that publicity encorages other witnesses to come forward" as explained by the CPS.
This presumably, because more than one rape presents evidence of seriality and therefore probable guilt to the first offence.
And yet, conversely, when a serial burglar is brought up before the bar, the jury knows nothing of his previous convictions.
Some fxcker needs to sort out whether we should know this stuff... or not. And then be fxcking consistent about it.
I know my view.

Are on about a particular case? Because, generally, they do (well previous dishonesty convictions).

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Why is the law in this country in such a shit state.
Rape defendant's names are publicised partly "on the ground that publicity encorages other witnesses to come forward" as explained by the CPS.
This presumably, because more than one rape presents evidence of seriality and therefore probable guilt to the first offence.
And yet, conversely, when a serial burglar is brought up before the bar, the jury knows nothing of his previous convictions.
Some fxcker needs to sort out whether we should know this stuff... or not. And then be fxcking consistent about it.
I know my view.

Are on about a particular case? Because, generally, they do (well previous dishonesty convictions).

Well as far as I know they don't. Previous convictions are kept out of a trial until sentencing, at which point they are taken into consideration. Someone I know was on jury service, and told specifically they couldn't look up the defendant's history, and when one of the jury did and told the rest that he was a serial scrote the judge found out and ordered a retrial.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Why is the law in this country in such a shit state.
Rape defendant's names are publicised partly "on the ground that publicity encorages other witnesses to come forward" as explained by the CPS.
This presumably, because more than one rape presents evidence of seriality and therefore probable guilt to the first offence.
And yet, conversely, when a serial burglar is brought up before the bar, the jury knows nothing of his previous convictions.
Some fxcker needs to sort out whether we should know this stuff... or not. And then be fxcking consistent about it.
I know my view.

Are on about a particular case? Because, generally, they do (well previous dishonesty convictions).

Well as far as I know they don't. Previous convictions are kept out of a trial until sentencing, at which point they are taken into consideration. Someone I know was on jury service, and told specifically they couldn't look up the defendant's history, and when one of the jury did and told the rest that he was a serial scrote the judge found out and ordered a retrial.

I hope he got cited for contempt of court - wasting everyone's time and money. Still, it is a way to get out of jury duty.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

^ The fact came out in questions to the judge by the foreman. The rest refused to dob the culprit in and claimed group culpability because, as the foreman said, the juror who's used the internet to find the previous history of the scrote before them faced harsher consequences than the, pretty obviously guilty, cxnt on trial.
So no he didn't. And too right too.
Plus he got out of nothing. The trial occurred and then was retried.

[TANGODANCER]

Here's a cracker offered by a lawyer in his clients defence. The accused had conned £34,000 out of people for fake trips to Mecca. XXXXXXXXXXXX, defending, said: “I accept fully he had the benefit of the money that was improperly obtained.

“It was spent at Sainsbury’s, it was spent on paying the bills, it was spent on ordinary, everyday living.
“This is not a case of this man stealing the money and spending it on any sort of lavish lifestyle.”

[Prufrock]

Why is the law in this country in such a shit state.
Rape defendant's names are publicised partly "on the ground that publicity encorages other witnesses to come forward" as explained by the CPS.
This presumably, because more than one rape presents evidence of seriality and therefore probable guilt to the first offence.
And yet, conversely, when a serial burglar is brought up before the bar, the jury knows nothing of his previous convictions.
Some fxcker needs to sort out whether we should know this stuff... or not. And then be fxcking consistent about it.
I know my view.

Are on about a particular case? Because, generally, they do (well previous dishonesty convictions).

Well as far as I know they don't. Previous convictions are kept out of a trial until sentencing, at which point they are taken into consideration. Someone I know was on jury service, and told specifically they couldn't look up the defendant's history, and when one of the jury did and told the rest that he was a serial scrote the judge found out and ordered a retrial.

Well, as far as you know is wrong, amigo!

There will be a pre-trial hearing to decide, but previous convictions often go in. You can use them to show propensity (this dodgy f*cker is a dodgy f*cker who's done this countless times before and so it's more likely the f*cker did it this time) or sometimes untruthfulness (this lying f*cker has committed crimes that involve lying loads before so not only is he more likely to have done this lying crime this time, he's also much more likely to be a lying bastard whatever he says).

They have to be relevant. Your fictional burglar's one count of sexual assault 15 years ago is not going before the jury (that he was a nonce, once, a long time ago doesn't help deciding whether he's a burglar now, but it is possibly going to make some jurors think "he's a wrong 'un so send him down anyway"). Your fictional burglar's 15 counts of burglary over the last few years all with the same MO as this burglary definitely are going before the jury. Things in between will go one way or the other depending how near to each they are.

[Hoboh]

Why is the law in this country in such a shit state.
Rape defendant's names are publicised partly "on the ground that publicity encorages other witnesses to come forward" as explained by the CPS.
This presumably, because more than one rape presents evidence of seriality and therefore probable guilt to the first offence.
And yet, conversely, when a serial burglar is brought up before the bar, the jury knows nothing of his previous convictions.
Some fxcker needs to sort out whether we should know this stuff... or not. And then be fxcking consistent about it.
I know my view.

Are on about a particular case? Because, generally, they do (well previous dishonesty convictions).

Well as far as I know they don't. Previous convictions are kept out of a trial until sentencing, at which point they are taken into consideration. Someone I know was on jury service, and told specifically they couldn't look up the defendant's history, and when one of the jury did and told the rest that he was a serial scrote the judge found out and ordered a retrial.

Well, as far as you know is wrong, amigo!

There will be a pre-trial hearing to decide, but previous convictions often go in. You can use them to show propensity (this dodgy f*cker is a dodgy f*cker who's done this countless times before and so it's more likely the f*cker did it this time) or sometimes untruthfulness (this lying f*cker has committed crimes that involve lying loads before so not only is he more likely to have done this lying crime this time, he's also much more likely to be a lying bastard whatever he says).

They have to be relevant. Your fictional burglar's one count of sexual assault 15 years ago is not going before the jury (that he was a nonce, once, a long time ago doesn't help deciding whether he's a burglar now, but it is possibly going to make some jurors think "he's a wrong 'un so send him down anyway"). Your fictional burglar's 15 counts of burglary over the last few years all with the same MO as this burglary definitely are going before the jury. Things in between will go one way or the other depending how near to each they are.

My simple solution of shooting the sexual nonce then would save all that bollox!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Why is the law in this country in such a shit state.
Rape defendant's names are publicised partly "on the ground that publicity encorages other witnesses to come forward" as explained by the CPS.
This presumably, because more than one rape presents evidence of seriality and therefore probable guilt to the first offence.
And yet, conversely, when a serial burglar is brought up before the bar, the jury knows nothing of his previous convictions.
Some fxcker needs to sort out whether we should know this stuff... or not. And then be fxcking consistent about it.
I know my view.

Are on about a particular case? Because, generally, they do (well previous dishonesty convictions).

Well as far as I know they don't. Previous convictions are kept out of a trial until sentencing, at which point they are taken into consideration. Someone I know was on jury service, and told specifically they couldn't look up the defendant's history, and when one of the jury did and told the rest that he was a serial scrote the judge found out and ordered a retrial.

Well, as far as you know is wrong, amigo!

There will be a pre-trial hearing to decide, but previous convictions often go in. You can use them to show propensity (this dodgy f*cker is a dodgy f*cker who's done this countless times before and so it's more likely the f*cker did it this time) or sometimes untruthfulness (this lying f*cker has committed crimes that involve lying loads before so not only is he more likely to have done this lying crime this time, he's also much more likely to be a lying bastard whatever he says).

They have to be relevant. Your fictional burglar's one count of sexual assault 15 years ago is not going before the jury (that he was a nonce, once, a long time ago doesn't help deciding whether he's a burglar now, but it is possibly going to make some jurors think "he's a wrong 'un so send him down anyway"). Your fictional burglar's 15 counts of burglary over the last few years all with the same MO as this burglary definitely are going before the jury. Things in between will go one way or the other depending how near to each they are.

So, you're telling me that my actual burglar, that turned over a large country house, who was caught red handed two days after he'd been evicted from Kelvin Hall estate in Sheffield and been moved into a tiny village, didn't have a trial where his over five hundred previous wasn't mentioned? They weren't mentioned, it turned out because yhe scale of the burglary at trial elwas different to the one's he'd been convicted for...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I can also tell you, you guessed wrong. I'm all for not knowing, including in rape trials.

[thebish]

^ Was a time before heating engineers were born when anything around the home to do with water meant "plumber"

That was my basic stance, except approaching it from the elite end. If you can fix boilers you should be able to fix fecking radiators.

enoch has made a career out of fixing up old boilers - not sure how he copes with radiators, though...

[LeverEnd]

^ Was a time before heating engineers were born when anything around the home to do with water meant "plumber"

That was my basic stance, except approaching it from the elite end. If you can fix boilers you should be able to fix fecking radiators.

enoch has made a career out of fixing up old boilers - not sure how he copes with radiators, though...

Now that's not what he said, stop twisting his words!

[jimbo]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acas-talks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, after all this Hunt is still threatening to impose the new contract whether we agree or not. How the hell is that going to help things, given that 99.4% of junior doctors voted against the plans?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acas-talks

So, after all this Hunt is still threatening to impose the new contract whether we agree or not. How the hell is that going to help things, given that 99.4% of junior doctors voted against the plans?

The clue's in his name, jimbo. Hunt with the sea.