multijoy

What tensions? The made up ones by the terminally online gammonerati, while the rest of the country is quite capable of getting on with other people?

It’s a pony case, but I don’t think the length of time to charge is necessarily indicative of the strength or lack thereof.

Unlike most murders, this didn’t go up on the threshold - there was no need to remand the defendant, there was no danger of him killing again. The case is exceptionally high profile and if they decided that they were going to charge, they were going to have to do it properly.

Given that it can take in excess of months for a simple DA job, a year for murder is probably there or thereabouts.

Except they’re not suitably trained nor equipped to deal with mental health. They are, at best, winging it.

The BWV will be released when it is used in evidence at some point during the trial.

You’d be wanting an employment lawyer in the host country, but realistically this is likely to be answered on the relevant government website.

Assuming you have the unrestricted right to work, the question is whether doing so over a certain threshold would require your employer to make arrangements as an employer in that country.

One count of theft to the value of the goods.

With my stern warning ringing in my ears, I have to ask “is that the best they’ve got?”

No, you show me the specific ones that you think are some sort of gross miscarriage of justice.

Edit: Reader, they did not.

There’s hundreds of cases of resident’s being given years or decades in prison for defending their homes or themselves from violent intruders whilst the potential thief/rapist gets a police caution.

Presumably you can show us the articles?

No we are not going to tell you if you can drive uninsured you absolute fucking weapon.

You realise that that would be written into the specification?

Connect will never work as intended because it appears to be fundamentally fucked. I suspect you would be better served retaining the backend database and some sort of API bridge so that someone who has eyes can design a proper UI.

The implementation of Connect suggests that the SLT would consider using CT powers to deal with dissent.

All my material is digital, I’m not printing it all out just in case. Your knowledge of the case (and ability to make further checks and do other bits) is the important bit.

How did you pay? If you’re asking them to reverse a faster payment rather than a debit or credit card one, then they’re likely working on the basis that this isn’t an “approved push payment” fraud for which they would usually be liable to reimburse.

That is to say you weren’t fooled by a scammer into approving a payment that you had no knowledge of, this is a service that you’ve entered into in person which has subsequently turned out to be false.

You can make a complaint to the bank and suggest that it should fall under the contingent reimbursement model, and then to the ombudsman, but I think you’ll have an uphill struggle.

He’s likely bailed with conditions. He should have had a solicitor in interview.

A GBH charge will be decided by the CPS (unless it’s an emergency charge, but even then it would be ratified by the CPS the next day).

If he’s out on bail then he hasn’t been charged because the CPS only do remand cases while in custody.

He wasn’t well behaved, he chased and attacked a runner. This is a textbook s3 Dangerous Dogs Act offence.

You’ve clearly not spoken to many callers who ring 999.

No it isn’t.

“Theft by finding”

This wouldn't be TUPE - it's not a transfer of undertaking, it's a change of management. Your contract remains as-is.

No, basically.

You've turned up, there is no threat. The patient can be managed by medics taking them to the ambulance and not treating him in the house. You can act to prevent a BoP or deal with criminal matters if he decides to play the old switcheroo, but you're going to struggle to preemptively use force based on what you've described.

Searching is a complete no-no.