Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
-[I]- Does anyone speak Lawyer?
27 views
Skip to first unread message
Sabremeister Brian
May 17, 2012, 4:40:43 PM5/17/12
to
As you may or may not know, I am currently sort-of-employed by a
theatre company called Mind The Gap, who work with people with
learning disabilities. We have two big projects for the cultural
olympiad, which means management throw their toys out the pram if
anything dares to threaten their grant for completing the
projects. Since MTG have two things to do this summer, they have
somehow managed to persuade ITV's This Morning to come and do a
feature piece on us.
Our normal working week is Monday to Thursday. ITV want to come in
on Monday the 21st, and this morning we all received Contributor
Release Forms. These CRFs are not in Plain English, they do not
have a Crystal Mark award from the campaign for clear English
usage, and they have been given to twenty people with learning
difficulties, many of whom would probably struggle to come up with
100 IQ points, on the working day before they are needed to be
returned. Many of MTGs members will not know, and will not have
carers or parents who know, to read it carefully and have the
experience to know what it all means and entails.
Due to one of the aforementioned porjects, several of them will
not have Friday free to take it to the local CAB (or otherwise get
it looked over by someone at least semi-professional in the right
area), and none of us have got the Saturday free for the same
reason. I, being one of the most capable and intelligent members
of MTG, have therefore taken it upon myself to provide a Plain
English translation for the others, but IANAL, and I am not
entirely confident that my translation will be accurate. The CRF
looks to me to be fairly heavy-handed, and if anyone is able to
help with translating it, it will be worth at least a beer at
DWCon.
"Dear Sir/Madam,
"In consideration of giving you the opportunity to provide us with
your contribution to the Programme (which we intend, but do not
undertake, to produce) and of our arranging to film the
contribution, you agree the following:
"1. You consent to the recording of you on the Filming Date(s), in
connection with your appearance (including any performance of any
musical composition(s)) for the Programme (the "*Contribution*")
and the use of your Contribution in the Programme in whole or in
part or not at all. You irrevocably grant and assign to us all
copyright and other rights in the Contribution so as to permit the
fullest use of the Contribution or any part(s) thereof worldwide
by all means and in all media now known or hereafter developed in
perpetuity in connection with the Programme or otherwise. You
accept that we have the right to edit, copy or translate the
Contribution as we see fit and you irrevocably waive the benefits
of and agree not to assert any provision of law known as "moral
rights" or any similar laws of any jurisdiction.
"2. You warrant that:
(i) you are fully entitled to grant all rights and consents
herein;
(ii) you are aged at least 18 years old;
(iii) you are aware of the nature and purpose of the Programme;
(iv) the content of your Contribution shall be true in all
respects to the best of your knowledge and belief and, insofar as
the contribution contains any opinions, these opinions are your
own and are genuinely and truly held by you;
(v) nothing in your Contribution will infringe the copyright or
any other right of any person, brach any contract or duty of
confidence, constitute a contempt of court, be defamatory, and/or
otherwise bring us or any other party into disrepute; and
(vi) you will advise us of any information which might compromise
or call into question the integrity of the Programme (for example,
factual errors).
"3. You grant us the right tou use your name, voice, likeness,
photographs and any biographical material concerning you in
connection with the promotion and exploitation of the Programme
and/or ancillary products/services derived thereof and/or in
connection with us worldwide by all means and in all media now
known or hereafter developed in perpetuity.
"4. You shall keep confidential and shall not disclose to any
third party, any information, photographs or other material
relating to the Contribution, us, the Programme or anyone taking
part in it unless otherwise agreed by us in writing.
"5. You consent to the holding and processing of personal data for
the purposes of our production and exploitation of the Programme.
"6. You agree that we may freely assign or license this agreement
and this agreement shall be goverened by and construed in
accordance with English law and be subject to exclusive
jurisdiction of English courts."
I shall be handing out my Plain English translation on Saturday
morning, so if you can help, it needs to be by, let's say, 10pm
Friday the 18th of May.
Thank you.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
There's a secret to good cooking.
I've no idea what it is though.
theatre company called Mind The Gap, who work with people with
learning disabilities. We have two big projects for the cultural
olympiad, which means management throw their toys out the pram if
anything dares to threaten their grant for completing the
projects. Since MTG have two things to do this summer, they have
somehow managed to persuade ITV's This Morning to come and do a
feature piece on us.
Our normal working week is Monday to Thursday. ITV want to come in
on Monday the 21st, and this morning we all received Contributor
Release Forms. These CRFs are not in Plain English, they do not
have a Crystal Mark award from the campaign for clear English
usage, and they have been given to twenty people with learning
difficulties, many of whom would probably struggle to come up with
100 IQ points, on the working day before they are needed to be
returned. Many of MTGs members will not know, and will not have
carers or parents who know, to read it carefully and have the
experience to know what it all means and entails.
Due to one of the aforementioned porjects, several of them will
not have Friday free to take it to the local CAB (or otherwise get
it looked over by someone at least semi-professional in the right
area), and none of us have got the Saturday free for the same
reason. I, being one of the most capable and intelligent members
of MTG, have therefore taken it upon myself to provide a Plain
English translation for the others, but IANAL, and I am not
entirely confident that my translation will be accurate. The CRF
looks to me to be fairly heavy-handed, and if anyone is able to
help with translating it, it will be worth at least a beer at
DWCon.
"Dear Sir/Madam,
"In consideration of giving you the opportunity to provide us with
your contribution to the Programme (which we intend, but do not
undertake, to produce) and of our arranging to film the
contribution, you agree the following:
"1. You consent to the recording of you on the Filming Date(s), in
connection with your appearance (including any performance of any
musical composition(s)) for the Programme (the "*Contribution*")
and the use of your Contribution in the Programme in whole or in
part or not at all. You irrevocably grant and assign to us all
copyright and other rights in the Contribution so as to permit the
fullest use of the Contribution or any part(s) thereof worldwide
by all means and in all media now known or hereafter developed in
perpetuity in connection with the Programme or otherwise. You
accept that we have the right to edit, copy or translate the
Contribution as we see fit and you irrevocably waive the benefits
of and agree not to assert any provision of law known as "moral
rights" or any similar laws of any jurisdiction.
"2. You warrant that:
(i) you are fully entitled to grant all rights and consents
herein;
(ii) you are aged at least 18 years old;
(iii) you are aware of the nature and purpose of the Programme;
(iv) the content of your Contribution shall be true in all
respects to the best of your knowledge and belief and, insofar as
the contribution contains any opinions, these opinions are your
own and are genuinely and truly held by you;
(v) nothing in your Contribution will infringe the copyright or
any other right of any person, brach any contract or duty of
confidence, constitute a contempt of court, be defamatory, and/or
otherwise bring us or any other party into disrepute; and
(vi) you will advise us of any information which might compromise
or call into question the integrity of the Programme (for example,
factual errors).
"3. You grant us the right tou use your name, voice, likeness,
photographs and any biographical material concerning you in
connection with the promotion and exploitation of the Programme
and/or ancillary products/services derived thereof and/or in
connection with us worldwide by all means and in all media now
known or hereafter developed in perpetuity.
"4. You shall keep confidential and shall not disclose to any
third party, any information, photographs or other material
relating to the Contribution, us, the Programme or anyone taking
part in it unless otherwise agreed by us in writing.
"5. You consent to the holding and processing of personal data for
the purposes of our production and exploitation of the Programme.
"6. You agree that we may freely assign or license this agreement
and this agreement shall be goverened by and construed in
accordance with English law and be subject to exclusive
jurisdiction of English courts."
I shall be handing out my Plain English translation on Saturday
morning, so if you can help, it needs to be by, let's say, 10pm
Friday the 18th of May.
Thank you.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
There's a secret to good cooking.
I've no idea what it is though.
Bernard Peek
May 17, 2012, 5:05:56 PM5/17/12
to
On 17/05/12 21:40, Sabremeister Brian wrote:
> I shall be handing out my Plain English translation on Saturday
> morning, so if you can help, it needs to be by, let's say, 10pm
> Friday the 18th of May.
The problem here is that you are only sorting out half of the problem,
> I shall be handing out my Plain English translation on Saturday
> morning, so if you can help, it needs to be by, let's say, 10pm
> Friday the 18th of May.
and that's not enough. If the TV company could have written the contract
in plain English they would have done. The language used in contracts
has very precise meanings and you can't just substitute something that
sounds right. The TV company's lawyers would throw it out (at least if
they are doing their job the would.) Contracts are not suitable for DIY
projects.
Throw the problem back at the TV company and have one of their lawyers
come out and sort the problem. They are paid to do it, they have
probably done it before and if they screw up their insurance company
will cover them.
I realise that you want to be helpful but this isn't a situation where a
helpful amateur can really help.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
Reader in Invisible Writings
May 17, 2012, 5:42:58 PM5/17/12
to
you want to be filmed? If so, throw it back at their lawyers, or get
them to provide you with legal opinion on the merits of the release form.
However, being legal does not prevent it being able to meet the Crystal
Mark as there are many legal documents that do and as ITV are clearly
giving these things to (what is in effect) members of the public you
will be doing them a favour if they get a comprehensible version of the
form made up.
If it came to a legal tussle you could always cite that you signed under
duress - which is always good for undermining agreements where one party
has much more power and has written the document. Also, the ITV know the
background of the people they are filming and so a difficult to
understand document could be argued to be unfair, which is another tool
to use against them and to frighten them with and get them to sort
things out.
--
Reader in Invisible Writings
Something to Ponder on!
Sabremeister Brian
May 17, 2012, 5:51:14 PM5/17/12
to
In a speech called 4fb56833$0$10741$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk,
trying to create something that means the same that can be
understood by the majority of the people being asked to sign it.
I'm going to use "forever" instead of "in perpetuity", and things
like that.
> Throw the problem back at the TV company and have one of their
> lawyers come out and sort the problem. They are paid to do it,
> they have probably done it before and if they screw up their
> insurance company will cover them.
Can I quote you on that? And the source of your authority on the
matter?
> I realise that you want to be helpful but this isn't a
> situation where a helpful amateur can really help.
Right. But can you at least tell me if the CRF is heavy-handed or
something? From a reading of paragraph 3, it seems as though (for
example), if one of my colleauges mentioned their epilepsy in a
clip that was used in the finished Programme, and from that
mention another programme-maker decided that they would like to
interview them about their epilepsy, they would first have to get
permission from ITV to do so, even if this new programme is
otherwise totally unrelated.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
Always be nice to attractive checkout operators
You never know when you may need a date in a hurry.
Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> said:
> On 17/05/12 21:40, Sabremeister Brian wrote:
>
>
>
>> I shall be handing out my Plain English translation on Saturday
>> morning, so if you can help, it needs to be by, let's say, 10pm
>> Friday the 18th of May.
>
> The problem here is that you are only sorting out half of the
> problem, and that's not enough. If the TV company could have
> written the contract in plain English they would have done. The
> language used in contracts has very precise meanings and you
> can't just substitute something that sounds right. The TV
> company's lawyers would throw it out (at least if they are
> doing their job the would.) Contracts are not suitable for DIY
> projects.
I'm not trying to substitute something that sounds right. I'm
> On 17/05/12 21:40, Sabremeister Brian wrote:
>
>
>
>> I shall be handing out my Plain English translation on Saturday
>> morning, so if you can help, it needs to be by, let's say, 10pm
>> Friday the 18th of May.
>
> The problem here is that you are only sorting out half of the
> problem, and that's not enough. If the TV company could have
> written the contract in plain English they would have done. The
> language used in contracts has very precise meanings and you
> can't just substitute something that sounds right. The TV
> company's lawyers would throw it out (at least if they are
> doing their job the would.) Contracts are not suitable for DIY
> projects.
trying to create something that means the same that can be
understood by the majority of the people being asked to sign it.
I'm going to use "forever" instead of "in perpetuity", and things
like that.
> Throw the problem back at the TV company and have one of their
> lawyers come out and sort the problem. They are paid to do it,
> they have probably done it before and if they screw up their
> insurance company will cover them.
matter?
> I realise that you want to be helpful but this isn't a
> situation where a helpful amateur can really help.
something? From a reading of paragraph 3, it seems as though (for
example), if one of my colleauges mentioned their epilepsy in a
clip that was used in the finished Programme, and from that
mention another programme-maker decided that they would like to
interview them about their epilepsy, they would first have to get
permission from ITV to do so, even if this new programme is
otherwise totally unrelated.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
You never know when you may need a date in a hurry.
Sabremeister Brian
May 17, 2012, 6:05:50 PM5/17/12
to
In a speech called jp3rd5$u56$1...@mud.stack.nl,
of others) would not be able to participate without violating
2(iv) - don't lie; or 2(v) - don't slag off the people who pay us
every week.
What I am most concerned about, however, is that all of those
presented with the document do not understand all the
ramifications of it. As you point out below, it is not beyond the
resources of ITV to create a CRF in simpler language that members
of the general public can understand - but we members of MTG are
not members of the general public, we are members of the public
who have learning difficulties, and therefore would probably have
trouble understanding even things written in layman's terms. Under
the Disability Discrimination Act, organisations are obliged to
offer disabled people facilities or assistance so that disabled
people's access to their services are not impaired or limited by
their disablement. In this case, that means a CRF that doesn't
have five-syllable words in it. And we've been given the document
effectively 24 hours before we will be under its' terms, which is
not a reasonable amount of time in which to query it, get it
checked, or to ask for an explanation or a more-simply-worded
version. So, not so much the content, as the style. Both do worry
me, though.
> However, being legal does not prevent it being able to meet the
> Crystal Mark as there are many legal documents that do and as
> ITV are clearly giving these things to (what is in effect)
> members of the public you will be doing them a favour if they
> get a comprehensible version of the form made up.
>
> If it came to a legal tussle you could always cite that you
> signed under duress - which is always good for undermining
> agreements where one party has much more power and has written
> the document. Also, the ITV know the background of the people
> they are filming and so a difficult to understand document
> could be argued to be unfair, which is another tool to use
> against them and to frighten them with and get them to sort
> things out.
--
- Jean-Paul Satre
Reader in Invisible Writings <markfo...@hotmail.com> said:
> On 17/05/2012 22:05, Bernard Peek wrote:
>> On 17/05/12 21:40, Sabremeister Brian wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I shall be handing out my Plain English translation on
>>> Saturday morning, so if you can help, it needs to be by,
>>> let's say, 10pm Friday the 18th of May.
>>
>> The problem here is that you are only sorting out half of the
>> problem, and that's not enough. If the TV company could have
>> written the contract in plain English they would have done.
>> The language used in contracts has very precise meanings and
>> you can't just substitute something that sounds right. The TV
>> company's lawyers would throw it out (at least if they are
>> doing their job the would.) Contracts are not suitable for DIY
>> projects. Throw the problem back at the TV company and have one
>> of their
>> lawyers come out and sort the problem. They are paid to do it,
>> they have probably done it before and if they screw up their
>> insurance company will cover them.
>>
>> I realise that you want to be helpful but this isn't a
>> situation where a helpful amateur can really help.
>>
>>
> In support of the above, I presume that they want to film you
> more than you want to be filmed? If so, throw it back at their
> lawyers, or get them to provide you with legal opinion on the
> merits of the release form.
Personally, I'm not keen on ITV anyway, and I (and maybe a couple
> On 17/05/2012 22:05, Bernard Peek wrote:
>> On 17/05/12 21:40, Sabremeister Brian wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I shall be handing out my Plain English translation on
>>> Saturday morning, so if you can help, it needs to be by,
>>> let's say, 10pm Friday the 18th of May.
>>
>> The problem here is that you are only sorting out half of the
>> problem, and that's not enough. If the TV company could have
>> written the contract in plain English they would have done.
>> The language used in contracts has very precise meanings and
>> you can't just substitute something that sounds right. The TV
>> company's lawyers would throw it out (at least if they are
>> doing their job the would.) Contracts are not suitable for DIY
>> projects. Throw the problem back at the TV company and have one
>> of their
>> lawyers come out and sort the problem. They are paid to do it,
>> they have probably done it before and if they screw up their
>> insurance company will cover them.
>>
>> I realise that you want to be helpful but this isn't a
>> situation where a helpful amateur can really help.
>>
>>
> In support of the above, I presume that they want to film you
> more than you want to be filmed? If so, throw it back at their
> lawyers, or get them to provide you with legal opinion on the
> merits of the release form.
of others) would not be able to participate without violating
2(iv) - don't lie; or 2(v) - don't slag off the people who pay us
every week.
What I am most concerned about, however, is that all of those
presented with the document do not understand all the
ramifications of it. As you point out below, it is not beyond the
resources of ITV to create a CRF in simpler language that members
of the general public can understand - but we members of MTG are
not members of the general public, we are members of the public
who have learning difficulties, and therefore would probably have
trouble understanding even things written in layman's terms. Under
the Disability Discrimination Act, organisations are obliged to
offer disabled people facilities or assistance so that disabled
people's access to their services are not impaired or limited by
their disablement. In this case, that means a CRF that doesn't
have five-syllable words in it. And we've been given the document
effectively 24 hours before we will be under its' terms, which is
not a reasonable amount of time in which to query it, get it
checked, or to ask for an explanation or a more-simply-worded
version. So, not so much the content, as the style. Both do worry
me, though.
> However, being legal does not prevent it being able to meet the
> Crystal Mark as there are many legal documents that do and as
> ITV are clearly giving these things to (what is in effect)
> members of the public you will be doing them a favour if they
> get a comprehensible version of the form made up.
>
> If it came to a legal tussle you could always cite that you
> signed under duress - which is always good for undermining
> agreements where one party has much more power and has written
> the document. Also, the ITV know the background of the people
> they are filming and so a difficult to understand document
> could be argued to be unfair, which is another tool to use
> against them and to frighten them with and get them to sort
> things out.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"When the rich wage war it's the poor who die."
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
- Jean-Paul Satre
GaryN
May 17, 2012, 6:07:13 PM5/17/12
to
"Sabremeister Brian" <bpwak...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:a1l62cFl8uU1
@mid.individual.net:
I'd suggest a preemptive strike.
"The company (ITV but check who is actually filming) is free to film and
distribute our performances but we require the theater to be fully
compensated for (x) percent of any proceeds thereof to go to the charity
we support (make up your own BS for whatever you say here)."
"The theater reserves and retains the right to use any and all images
from other sources for it's own purposes and requires such to be
supplied." Essentially Bullshit but if some parent uses a video camera
and you sling it on a wbsite they can't argue.
"The theater reserves the absolute right to prevent the broadcast of any
images that it feels to be detrimental to it's members under (Pick a
suitable child protection act)"
"The theater reserves the right of veto on any particular child being
filmed if it feels that it may cause mental distress"
The last two are unbreakable by anyone, ever.
Spot the bastard who used to go out with a lawyer! I may not have the
language quite right but it's close enough.
gary
--
"What else is civilisation than the ability to make use of things
invented by someone else?"
Karel Capek (in "War With The Newts")
@mid.individual.net:
"The company (ITV but check who is actually filming) is free to film and
distribute our performances but we require the theater to be fully
compensated for (x) percent of any proceeds thereof to go to the charity
we support (make up your own BS for whatever you say here)."
"The theater reserves and retains the right to use any and all images
from other sources for it's own purposes and requires such to be
supplied." Essentially Bullshit but if some parent uses a video camera
and you sling it on a wbsite they can't argue.
"The theater reserves the absolute right to prevent the broadcast of any
images that it feels to be detrimental to it's members under (Pick a
suitable child protection act)"
"The theater reserves the right of veto on any particular child being
filmed if it feels that it may cause mental distress"
The last two are unbreakable by anyone, ever.
Spot the bastard who used to go out with a lawyer! I may not have the
language quite right but it's close enough.
gary
--
"What else is civilisation than the ability to make use of things
invented by someone else?"
Karel Capek (in "War With The Newts")
Reader in Invisible Writings
May 17, 2012, 6:07:30 PM5/17/12
to
way you suggest as it does not say that you cannot use (or allow to be
used) you own name likeness etc in relation to another production - just
that they can in relation to theirs. Or did you mean 4 in which case you
have breached that already! I could see how 4 could be read in the way
you describe, but reasonable interpretation is that it only applies
until the programme goes out and/or just in relation to the programme -
not later and about other things.
What is probably nonsense and backside covering in the nth degree is
2(v) "nothing in your Contribution will infringe the copyright or
any other right of any person," so if you are doing a play, or signing a
song, or any other work that is not out of copyright - even if you have
got a licence to perform it in the theatre on the nights in question -
its your responsibility to get ITV perpetual rights to show it. Clearly
impossible and unfair to expect it to be the responsibility of every
person who signs the contract.
Reader in Invisible Writings
May 17, 2012, 6:12:19 PM5/17/12
to
cage over. It is difficult to enforce a legal agreement that breaches
rights in law. Remember the people you will be worrying are not lawyers
either so using phrases like Duress, Unfair terms and Breach of the DDA
will probably have them falling over themselves to sort it out.
>> However, being legal does not prevent it being able to meet the
>> Crystal Mark as there are many legal documents that do and as
>> ITV are clearly giving these things to (what is in effect)
>> members of the public you will be doing them a favour if they
>> get a comprehensible version of the form made up.
>>
>> If it came to a legal tussle you could always cite that you
>> signed under duress - which is always good for undermining
>> agreements where one party has much more power and has written
>> the document. Also, the ITV know the background of the people
>> they are filming and so a difficult to understand document
>> could be argued to be unfair, which is another tool to use
>> against them and to frighten them with and get them to sort
>> things out.
>
--
Nigel Stapley
May 17, 2012, 6:29:41 PM5/17/12
to
GaryN wrote:
>
> Spot the bastard who used to go out with a lawyer!
Was her name Sue?
>
> Spot the bastard who used to go out with a lawyer!
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
www.thejudge.me.uk
<reply-to will bounce>
Alec Cawley
May 17, 2012, 6:33:54 PM5/17/12
to
Ok, I'll disregard the legal verbiage and get through to to what I think
they mean:
"We are going to film you doing whatever it is you do. We are then going to
edit that film according to our prejudices, and not consult you in any way,
mostly because we haven't got the time. We will put any spin we like onto
the material and you have no comeback whatsoever.
The footage will go into our archive, and be turned out whoever we see a
need for it, or whenever anybody anywhere else in the world sees a need for
it. If, by some chance, at some time in the future one of you becomes
famous or notorious, (e.g. By becoming [the victim of] a serial killer), we
shall sell the footage to our sole profit."
They film, you have no rights over the content of their film, them
identifying you, them using if for purposes you disapprove of.
On the other hand, this is the same treaty that all celebs enter into with
the media. You go into it for your purposes, they for theirs. In one sense,
this is refreshing honesty: they are upfront about being soulless exploits.
Of course, if their broadcast serves your purpose, so are you.
they mean:
"We are going to film you doing whatever it is you do. We are then going to
edit that film according to our prejudices, and not consult you in any way,
mostly because we haven't got the time. We will put any spin we like onto
the material and you have no comeback whatsoever.
The footage will go into our archive, and be turned out whoever we see a
need for it, or whenever anybody anywhere else in the world sees a need for
it. If, by some chance, at some time in the future one of you becomes
famous or notorious, (e.g. By becoming [the victim of] a serial killer), we
shall sell the footage to our sole profit."
They film, you have no rights over the content of their film, them
identifying you, them using if for purposes you disapprove of.
On the other hand, this is the same treaty that all celebs enter into with
the media. You go into it for your purposes, they for theirs. In one sense,
this is refreshing honesty: they are upfront about being soulless exploits.
Of course, if their broadcast serves your purpose, so are you.
Sabremeister Brian
May 17, 2012, 6:59:34 PM5/17/12
to
In a speech called jp3sr5$v2k$1...@dont-email.me,
Ah - I think I read it as "ancillary products/services derived
thereof" being far more encompassing than it is.
> Or did you mean 4 in which case you have breached that already!
I haven't signed it yet, partly because I'd be in breach of 2(iii)
if I did - we've only been given the haziest explanation for why
they're doing the filming. Anyway, I have the right to request
assistance with things I don't understand, and you [generic] can't
give assistance without knowing exactly what the assistance is
required about.
> I could see how 4 could be read in the way you describe, but
> reasonable interpretation is that it only applies until the
> programme goes out and/or just in relation to the programme -
> not later and about other things.
> What is probably nonsense and backside covering in the nth
> degree is 2(v) "nothing in your Contribution will infringe the
> copyright or any other right of any person," so if you are doing
> a play, or
> signing a song, or any other work that is not out of copyright
> - even if you have got a licence to perform it in the theatre
> on the nights in question - its your responsibility to get ITV
> perpetual rights to show it. Clearly impossible and unfair to
> expect it to be the responsibility of every person who signs
> the contract.
We'll almost certainly be doing rehearsals for the other cultural
olympiad project, which MTG own the rights to anyway, but I am
given to understand there will be some individual interviews with
staff and members of the company.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"An Englishman, even if he is alone, forms an orderly queue of
one."
- George Mikes
thereof" being far more encompassing than it is.
> Or did you mean 4 in which case you have breached that already!
if I did - we've only been given the haziest explanation for why
they're doing the filming. Anyway, I have the right to request
assistance with things I don't understand, and you [generic] can't
give assistance without knowing exactly what the assistance is
required about.
> I could see how 4 could be read in the way you describe, but
> reasonable interpretation is that it only applies until the
> programme goes out and/or just in relation to the programme -
> not later and about other things.
> What is probably nonsense and backside covering in the nth
> degree is 2(v) "nothing in your Contribution will infringe the
> copyright or any other right of any person," so if you are doing
> a play, or
> signing a song, or any other work that is not out of copyright
> - even if you have got a licence to perform it in the theatre
> on the nights in question - its your responsibility to get ITV
> perpetual rights to show it. Clearly impossible and unfair to
> expect it to be the responsibility of every person who signs
> the contract.
olympiad project, which MTG own the rights to anyway, but I am
given to understand there will be some individual interviews with
staff and members of the company.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
one."
- George Mikes
Sabremeister Brian
May 17, 2012, 7:13:48 PM5/17/12
to
In a speech called
197488852358986225.704...@news.individual.net,
> On the other hand, this is the same treaty that all celebs
> enter into with the media. You go into it for your purposes,
> they for theirs. In one sense, this is refreshing honesty: they
> are upfront about being soulless exploits. Of course, if their
> broadcast serves your purpose, so are you.
So it's industry-standard then? *sigh* Another industry that needs
changing...
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"I'm not a spy, I'm a shepherd!"
"Ah - shepherd's pie!"
- A fragment of the late great Spike Milligna's brain
197488852358986225.704...@news.individual.net,
Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> said:
> Ok, I'll disregard the legal verbiage and get through to to
> what I think they mean:
>
> "We are going to film you doing whatever it is you do. We are
> then going to edit that film according to our prejudices, and
> not consult you in any way, mostly because we haven't got the
> time. We will put any spin we like onto the material and you
> have no comeback whatsoever.
>
> The footage will go into our archive, and be turned out whoever
> we see a need for it, or whenever anybody anywhere else in the
> world sees a need for it. If, by some chance, at some time in
> the future one of you becomes famous or notorious, (e.g. By
> becoming [the victim of] a serial killer), we shall sell the
> footage to our sole profit."
>
> They film, you have no rights over the content of their film,
> them identifying you, them using if for purposes you disapprove
> of.
Thank you, that's a very helpful summary
> Ok, I'll disregard the legal verbiage and get through to to
> what I think they mean:
>
> "We are going to film you doing whatever it is you do. We are
> then going to edit that film according to our prejudices, and
> not consult you in any way, mostly because we haven't got the
> time. We will put any spin we like onto the material and you
> have no comeback whatsoever.
>
> The footage will go into our archive, and be turned out whoever
> we see a need for it, or whenever anybody anywhere else in the
> world sees a need for it. If, by some chance, at some time in
> the future one of you becomes famous or notorious, (e.g. By
> becoming [the victim of] a serial killer), we shall sell the
> footage to our sole profit."
>
> They film, you have no rights over the content of their film,
> them identifying you, them using if for purposes you disapprove
> of.
> On the other hand, this is the same treaty that all celebs
> enter into with the media. You go into it for your purposes,
> they for theirs. In one sense, this is refreshing honesty: they
> are upfront about being soulless exploits. Of course, if their
> broadcast serves your purpose, so are you.
changing...
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"Ah - shepherd's pie!"
- A fragment of the late great Spike Milligna's brain
Robert Miles
May 17, 2012, 7:49:04 PM5/17/12
to
On Thursday, May 17, 2012 3:40:43 PM UTC-5, Brian Wakeling wrote:
> As you may or may not know, I am currently sort-of-employed by a
> theatre company called Mind The Gap, who work with people with
> learning disabilities. We have two big projects for the cultural
> olympiad, which means management throw their toys out the pram if
> anything dares to threaten their grant for completing the
> projects. Since MTG have two things to do this summer, they have
> somehow managed to persuade ITV's This Morning to come and do a
> feature piece on us.
[snip]
> As you may or may not know, I am currently sort-of-employed by a
> theatre company called Mind The Gap, who work with people with
> learning disabilities. We have two big projects for the cultural
> olympiad, which means management throw their toys out the pram if
> anything dares to threaten their grant for completing the
> projects. Since MTG have two things to do this summer, they have
> somehow managed to persuade ITV's This Morning to come and do a
> feature piece on us.
One of my brother-in-laws is a lawyer, but in the US and not in the
UK like you appear to need.
GaryN
May 17, 2012, 9:03:45 PM5/17/12
to
Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in news:N-
mdnQt0t_he5ijSn...@brightview.co.uk:
> GaryN wrote:
>
>>
>> Spot the bastard who used to go out with a lawyer!
>
> Was her name Sue?
Nah, that was the Architect, although she preferred 'Suzi' and was a
Goth[1].
The other Sue was the one who died of meningitis after finishing her
PhD.
The current Sue, or "Susan!" when I want her to pay attention, is a
software tester/tech writer. Wot has nicked my laptop because she can't
be arsed to learn Whinedoze 7 on the one I bought her in the hope of
getting mine back!
The lawyer was Helen, or was that the one whose uncle was the Bishop of
Liverpool? Possibly May or Roz. I don't remember.
I can't be expected to accurately remember every woman that I've slept
with in the last 30 years. At least 3 Sarahs, Cheryl (memorable), Kim
(still a good friend), couple of Lisas, 2 Karens, pretty sure there was
a Stephanie (Steff) in there somewhere, and a Lucy, Karen C (that makes
3 Karens), Lucasta, Kate, Tecla, Amanda, Kat, etc...
I refer the reader, particularly if it's Brat, to my comments about
getting on with people in a different thread.
Not boasting, and I actually love my SO, but you have to practice before
you make your mind up!
Actually I had made my mind up with the lass that died but when you can
do fuck all about it except hold their hand then that's what you do.
Then you go and get very very pissed and cry a lot[2], then you go to a
funeral. Then on a particular date every year you get thoroughly
ratarsed again. I do not recommend this[3].
The SO knows that this happened and occasionally shouts at me. But she
insists on doing the washing up so that's OK.
gary
[1]Interesting architechtural drawings populated by beople in long black
coats and sunglasses! Apparently now V. sucessful.
[2]I'm man enough to admit it and sod anyone who says otherwise.
[3]Vital signs went flat at 3:23 and 23 seconds on 23 October. Tell me
that's just coincidence! You can try but I won't believe it,
mdnQt0t_he5ijSn...@brightview.co.uk:
> GaryN wrote:
>
>>
>> Spot the bastard who used to go out with a lawyer!
>
> Was her name Sue?
Goth[1].
The other Sue was the one who died of meningitis after finishing her
PhD.
The current Sue, or "Susan!" when I want her to pay attention, is a
software tester/tech writer. Wot has nicked my laptop because she can't
be arsed to learn Whinedoze 7 on the one I bought her in the hope of
getting mine back!
The lawyer was Helen, or was that the one whose uncle was the Bishop of
Liverpool? Possibly May or Roz. I don't remember.
I can't be expected to accurately remember every woman that I've slept
with in the last 30 years. At least 3 Sarahs, Cheryl (memorable), Kim
(still a good friend), couple of Lisas, 2 Karens, pretty sure there was
a Stephanie (Steff) in there somewhere, and a Lucy, Karen C (that makes
3 Karens), Lucasta, Kate, Tecla, Amanda, Kat, etc...
I refer the reader, particularly if it's Brat, to my comments about
getting on with people in a different thread.
Not boasting, and I actually love my SO, but you have to practice before
you make your mind up!
Actually I had made my mind up with the lass that died but when you can
do fuck all about it except hold their hand then that's what you do.
Then you go and get very very pissed and cry a lot[2], then you go to a
funeral. Then on a particular date every year you get thoroughly
ratarsed again. I do not recommend this[3].
The SO knows that this happened and occasionally shouts at me. But she
insists on doing the washing up so that's OK.
gary
[1]Interesting architechtural drawings populated by beople in long black
coats and sunglasses! Apparently now V. sucessful.
[2]I'm man enough to admit it and sod anyone who says otherwise.
[3]Vital signs went flat at 3:23 and 23 seconds on 23 October. Tell me
that's just coincidence! You can try but I won't believe it,
Bernard Peek
May 18, 2012, 2:43:21 AM5/18/12
to
On 17/05/12 22:51, Sabremeister Brian wrote:
> In a speech called 4fb56833$0$10741$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk,
> Bernard Peek<b...@shrdlu.com> said:
>> On 17/05/12 21:40, Sabremeister Brian wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I shall be handing out my Plain English translation on Saturday
>>> morning, so if you can help, it needs to be by, let's say, 10pm
>>> Friday the 18th of May.
>>
>> The problem here is that you are only sorting out half of the
>> problem, and that's not enough. If the TV company could have
>> written the contract in plain English they would have done. The
>> language used in contracts has very precise meanings and you
>> can't just substitute something that sounds right. The TV
>> company's lawyers would throw it out (at least if they are
>> doing their job the would.) Contracts are not suitable for DIY
>> projects.
>
> I'm not trying to substitute something that sounds right. I'm
> trying to create something that means the same that can be
> understood by the majority of the people being asked to sign it.
> I'm going to use "forever" instead of "in perpetuity", and things
> like that.
I realise what you are trying to do but it's not possible for someone
> In a speech called 4fb56833$0$10741$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk,
> Bernard Peek<b...@shrdlu.com> said:
>> On 17/05/12 21:40, Sabremeister Brian wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I shall be handing out my Plain English translation on Saturday
>>> morning, so if you can help, it needs to be by, let's say, 10pm
>>> Friday the 18th of May.
>>
>> The problem here is that you are only sorting out half of the
>> problem, and that's not enough. If the TV company could have
>> written the contract in plain English they would have done. The
>> language used in contracts has very precise meanings and you
>> can't just substitute something that sounds right. The TV
>> company's lawyers would throw it out (at least if they are
>> doing their job the would.) Contracts are not suitable for DIY
>> projects.
>
> I'm not trying to substitute something that sounds right. I'm
> trying to create something that means the same that can be
> understood by the majority of the people being asked to sign it.
> I'm going to use "forever" instead of "in perpetuity", and things
> like that.
without very thorough legal training. If it was possible then ITV would
already have done it. You can produce what you think is a document with
the same meaning but without legal training you are unlikely to know
what the actual meaning is. The wording used in contracts is very
carefully chosen and every word has a specific meaning which may not be
immediately obvious.
This sort of release form is arse-covering in case someone in the future
wants to sue them. Their insurers will have insisted that every
eventuality is covered in a document written by a specialist solicitor.
It's up to ITV to decide how much leeway they allow. That may depend on
how much political clout the person you speak to can muster. It's very
unlikely that they would consider signing off a written agreement that
had not been vetted by their solicitors. They might just decide not to
bother with the agreement at all. But it is their decision to make.
Incidentally, I understand that the usual policy in large charities is
that only people with specialist training are allowed to speak to the
media in any capacity. It certainly was in the one I worked for.
>
>> Throw the problem back at the TV company and have one of their
>> lawyers come out and sort the problem. They are paid to do it,
>> they have probably done it before and if they screw up their
>> insurance company will cover them.
>
> Can I quote you on that? And the source of your authority on the
> matter?
with a letter approved by the company solicitor.
>
>> I realise that you want to be helpful but this isn't a
>> situation where a helpful amateur can really help.
>
> Right. But can you at least tell me if the CRF is heavy-handed or
> something?
meaning then you need to talk to a specialist solicitor or get a
representative of ITV to approve a variation. It doesn't have to be in
writing.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Larry Moore
May 18, 2012, 8:36:25 AM5/18/12
to
On 2012-05-18, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> Actually I had made my mind up with the lass that died but when you can
> do fuck all about it except hold their hand then that's what you do.
>
> Then you go and get very very pissed and cry a lot[2], then you go to a
> funeral. Then on a particular date every year you get thoroughly
> ratarsed again. I do not recommend this[3].
>
> The SO knows that this happened and occasionally shouts at me. But she
> insists on doing the washing up so that's OK.
>
> gary
>
I occasionally catch myself calling my lady of seventeen years
> Actually I had made my mind up with the lass that died but when you can
> do fuck all about it except hold their hand then that's what you do.
>
> Then you go and get very very pissed and cry a lot[2], then you go to a
> funeral. Then on a particular date every year you get thoroughly
> ratarsed again. I do not recommend this[3].
>
> The SO knows that this happened and occasionally shouts at me. But she
> insists on doing the washing up so that's OK.
>
> gary
>
with my first wife's name.
--
" My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear.
Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic.
And we’ll change the world.'
Last lines of Jack Layton's Letter to Canadians.
GaryN
May 18, 2012, 11:17:17 AM5/18/12
to
Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:k8idnQcks-TU3yvS...@wightman.ca:
> On 2012-05-18, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Actually I had made my mind up with the lass that died but when you
>> can do fuck all about it except hold their hand then that's what you
>> do.
>>
>> Then you go and get very very pissed and cry a lot[2], then you go to
>> a funeral. Then on a particular date every year you get thoroughly
>> ratarsed again. I do not recommend this[3].
>>
>> The SO knows that this happened and occasionally shouts at me. But
>> she insists on doing the washing up so that's OK.
>>
>> gary
>>
>
> I occasionally catch myself calling my lady of seventeen years
> with my first wife's name.
>
We went for lunch with an old mate of mine today. Oddly both of us were
wearing torn combat rags!
Got him a break from being a househusband working from home.
One of his kids won't talk, some sort of cognition problem which they're
working on. Can talk, just chooses not to.
How do you get through that one? My friend is trying but he lives with
it everyday and a few hours off was necessary.
And yes we got so drunk that the SO had to carry/drag me home.
gary
news:k8idnQcks-TU3yvS...@wightman.ca:
> On 2012-05-18, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Actually I had made my mind up with the lass that died but when you
>> can do fuck all about it except hold their hand then that's what you
>> do.
>>
>> Then you go and get very very pissed and cry a lot[2], then you go to
>> a funeral. Then on a particular date every year you get thoroughly
>> ratarsed again. I do not recommend this[3].
>>
>> The SO knows that this happened and occasionally shouts at me. But
>> she insists on doing the washing up so that's OK.
>>
>> gary
>>
>
> I occasionally catch myself calling my lady of seventeen years
> with my first wife's name.
>
wearing torn combat rags!
Got him a break from being a househusband working from home.
One of his kids won't talk, some sort of cognition problem which they're
working on. Can talk, just chooses not to.
How do you get through that one? My friend is trying but he lives with
it everyday and a few hours off was necessary.
And yes we got so drunk that the SO had to carry/drag me home.
gary
Lesley Weston
May 18, 2012, 12:43:07 PM5/18/12
to
is needed. Irrevocably giving up all rights seems a bit ominous,
especially the right to object to their editing of people's
performances. OTOH, media exposure is media exposure, something any
theatre troupe might want.
Lesley.
--
This address is real, but to reach me use leswes att shaw dott ca
Larry Moore
May 18, 2012, 12:53:35 PM5/18/12
to
On 2012-05-18, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> One of his kids won't talk, some sort of cognition problem which they're
> working on. Can talk, just chooses not to.
>
> How do you get through that one? My friend is trying but he lives with
> it everyday and a few hours off was necessary.
>
You are (also) a Bujold fan: "one damn thing after another"
> One of his kids won't talk, some sort of cognition problem which they're
> working on. Can talk, just chooses not to.
>
> How do you get through that one? My friend is trying but he lives with
> it everyday and a few hours off was necessary.
>
and "play the hand you're dealt" has worked, so far.
--
This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of laborers,
the genius of its scientists,
the hope of its children. Ike.
Alec Cawley
May 18, 2012, 1:13:02 PM5/18/12
to
maybe a dozen such stories a day, of which they actually broadcast eight,
and keep the remainder in case they run short tomorrow. All this done by
four guys and the office cat. They haven't got time to do the kind of
referring back one might think reasonable. The whole thing will be filmed
in an hour, and edited in fifteen minutes by a man in a hurry, after which
they will forget everything they knew about you and go onto the next story.
The footage will remain on the shelf for one to three months in case you do
something notable in your production - say a celeb comes to see it. Then a
librarian will look at it and decide whether to keep the footage as stock
or recycle the tape. In the former case, they will not keep a note of names
and addresses to get permission to use, so they demand permission up front,
just in case.
While it is not standard for filming professional actors, it is standard,
giver take, for news footage of the public. You are being treated not as
actors but as the public at an event of local note.
TV news in a sausage machine, not an artistic endeavour. Raw story is fed
in one end, unrecognisable mush encased in dubious wrappings comes out the
other, is cut into arbitrary lengths and fed to the populace with all the
panache of Mr Dibbler.
GaryN
May 18, 2012, 7:11:30 PM5/18/12
to
Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:po6dna_iYPcS4yvS...@wightman.ca:
> On 2012-05-18, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> One of his kids won't talk, some sort of cognition problem which they're
>> working on. Can talk, just chooses not to.
>>
>> How do you get through that one? My friend is trying but he lives with
>> it everyday and a few hours off was necessary.
>>
>
> You are (also) a Bujold fan: "one damn thing after another"
> and "play the hand you're dealt" has worked, so far.
>
>
probably off but the sentiment remains the same.
Sabremeister Brian
May 18, 2012, 8:26:39 PM5/18/12
to
In a speech called jp5u6t$2a7n$1...@mud.stack.nl,
<snip>
only understand a document like that, even one in Plain English,
with assistance and explanations from others (as described in [I
think it's] section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act). 2.1 would only
apply if they couldn't understand it with the explanations - if
you can't understand what you're giving away, even with
assistance, you are not considered capable of making an informed
decision to give it away. However, the assistance is readily
available, and I don't think anyone would fail to understand if
each clause was explained to them.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"Yan, tan, tethra, huthuthut!"
<snip>
>>
>> "2. You warrant that:
>> (i) you are fully entitled to grant all rights and consents
>> herein;
>> (ii) you are aged at least 18 years old;
>> (iii) you are aware of the nature and purpose of the
>> Programme; (iv) the content of your Contribution shall be
>> true in all respects to the best of your knowledge and belief
>> and, insofar as the contribution contains any opinions, these
>> opinions are your own and are genuinely and truly held by you;
>> (v) nothing in your Contribution will infringe the copyright
>> or any other right of any person, brach any contract or duty of
>> confidence, constitute a contempt of court, be defamatory,
>> and/or otherwise bring us or any other party into disrepute;
>> and (vi) you will advise us of any information which might
>> compromise or call into question the integrity of the
>> Programme (for example, factual errors).
>>
<snip>
>> "2. You warrant that:
>> (i) you are fully entitled to grant all rights and consents
>> herein;
>> (ii) you are aged at least 18 years old;
>> (iii) you are aware of the nature and purpose of the
>> Programme; (iv) the content of your Contribution shall be
>> true in all respects to the best of your knowledge and belief
>> and, insofar as the contribution contains any opinions, these
>> opinions are your own and are genuinely and truly held by you;
>> (v) nothing in your Contribution will infringe the copyright
>> or any other right of any person, brach any contract or duty of
>> confidence, constitute a contempt of court, be defamatory,
>> and/or otherwise bring us or any other party into disrepute;
>> and (vi) you will advise us of any information which might
>> compromise or call into question the integrity of the
>> Programme (for example, factual errors).
>>
> IANALE, but 2.1 might be a useful get-out for some of the
> people, if one is needed. Irrevocably giving up all rights
> seems a bit ominous, especially the right to object to their
> editing of people's performances. OTOH, media exposure is media
> exposure, something any theatre troupe might want.
Well, everyone involved is a legal adult, but many of us would
> people, if one is needed. Irrevocably giving up all rights
> seems a bit ominous, especially the right to object to their
> editing of people's performances. OTOH, media exposure is media
> exposure, something any theatre troupe might want.
only understand a document like that, even one in Plain English,
with assistance and explanations from others (as described in [I
think it's] section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act). 2.1 would only
apply if they couldn't understand it with the explanations - if
you can't understand what you're giving away, even with
assistance, you are not considered capable of making an informed
decision to give it away. However, the assistance is readily
available, and I don't think anyone would fail to understand if
each clause was explained to them.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
Larry Moore
May 18, 2012, 9:12:43 PM5/18/12
to
On 2012-05-18, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:po6dna_iYPcS4yvS...@wightman.ca:
>
>> On 2012-05-18, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> One of his kids won't talk, some sort of cognition problem which they're
>>> working on. Can talk, just chooses not to.
>>>
>>> How do you get through that one? My friend is trying but he lives with
>>> it everyday and a few hours off was necessary.
>>>
>>
>> You are (also) a Bujold fan: "one damn thing after another"
>> and "play the hand you're dealt" has worked, so far.
>>
>>
>
> The Pictsies have it right - "Yez maun drau yer aun weird". spelling is
> probably off but the sentiment remains the same.
>
> gary
>
As I can't imagine a Heaven [1] that I'd be happy in, they are probably
> Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:po6dna_iYPcS4yvS...@wightman.ca:
>
>> On 2012-05-18, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> One of his kids won't talk, some sort of cognition problem which they're
>>> working on. Can talk, just chooses not to.
>>>
>>> How do you get through that one? My friend is trying but he lives with
>>> it everyday and a few hours off was necessary.
>>>
>>
>> You are (also) a Bujold fan: "one damn thing after another"
>> and "play the hand you're dealt" has worked, so far.
>>
>>
>
> The Pictsies have it right - "Yez maun drau yer aun weird". spelling is
> probably off but the sentiment remains the same.
>
> gary
>
right on the other point too. :-)
[1] wings, harps, 24/7 adoration of Him with the Long Grey Beard,
perfect, unchanging and complete.
--
I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one.
GaryN
May 18, 2012, 10:32:44 PM5/18/12
to
Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:JfmdnacT0t4WbivS...@wightman.ca:
religious beliefs apart from "All religions are bastards" (does that
count?). I'm probably a Nac Mac Feegle - apart from being nearly 6'
with brown hair and not blue skin
I wouldn't know what to do with wings (apart from flap Paul McCartney to
death for "Mull of Kintyre"[1]), I really don't want x number of virgins
because it's so difficult getting them trained.
When I die Medical Science can have my body. Probably give them a
laugh. And a big lump of titanium.
gary
[1]Everyone has a dream!
Robert Miles
May 19, 2012, 2:40:51 AM5/19/12
to
On Friday, May 18, 2012 9:32:44 PM UTC-5, GaryN wrote:
> Larry Moore <sshirleyallan1...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:JfmdnacT0t4WbivSnZ2dnUVZ_qadn...@wightman.ca:
>
> > On 2012-05-18, GaryN <webmas...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> >> Larry Moore <sshirleyallan1...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:po6dna_iYPcS4yvSnZ2dnUVZ_ridn...@wightman.ca:
> >>
> >>> On 2012-05-18, GaryN <webmas...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> gary
I've found some information on people who actually do have blue skin.
Methemoglobinemia
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000562.htm
Robert Miles
> Larry Moore <sshirleyallan1...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:JfmdnacT0t4WbivSnZ2dnUVZ_qadn...@wightman.ca:
>
> > On 2012-05-18, GaryN <webmas...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> >> Larry Moore <sshirleyallan1...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:po6dna_iYPcS4yvSnZ2dnUVZ_ridn...@wightman.ca:
> >>
> >>> On 2012-05-18, GaryN <webmas...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> As I've stated before. I've had a good time here, got no particular
> religious beliefs apart from "All religions are bastards" (does that
> count?). I'm probably a Nac Mac Feegle - apart from being nearly 6'
> with brown hair and not blue skin
[snip]
> religious beliefs apart from "All religions are bastards" (does that
> count?). I'm probably a Nac Mac Feegle - apart from being nearly 6'
> with brown hair and not blue skin
> gary
I've found some information on people who actually do have blue skin.
Methemoglobinemia
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000562.htm
Robert Miles
Robert Miles
May 19, 2012, 2:21:04 AM5/19/12
to
On Friday, May 18, 2012 10:17:17 AM UTC-5, GaryN wrote:
> Larry Moore <sshirleyallan1...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:k8idnQcks-TU3yvSnZ2dnUVZ_qydn...@wightman.ca:
> Larry Moore <sshirleyallan1...@gmail.com> wrote in
> We went for lunch with an old mate of mine today. Oddly both of us were
> wearing torn combat rags!
>
> Got him a break from being a househusband working from home.
>
> One of his kids won't talk, some sort of cognition problem which they're
> working on. Can talk, just chooses not to.
>
> How do you get through that one? My friend is trying but he lives with
> it everyday and a few hours off was necessary.
>
> And yes we got so drunk that the SO had to carry/drag me home.
>
> gary
Looks likely to be what is ordinarily known as autism.
> wearing torn combat rags!
>
> Got him a break from being a househusband working from home.
>
> One of his kids won't talk, some sort of cognition problem which they're
> working on. Can talk, just chooses not to.
>
> How do you get through that one? My friend is trying but he lives with
> it everyday and a few hours off was necessary.
>
> And yes we got so drunk that the SO had to carry/drag me home.
>
> gary
I suspect that trying to communicate with that child in ways other than spoken
words, and which allow the child to choose the speed of absorbing the
information, might help. For example, written notes if the two can read each
other's handwriting well.
Robert Miles
Warwick
May 19, 2012, 2:38:52 AM5/19/12
to
On Sat, 19 May 2012 01:26:39 +0100, Sabremeister Brian wrote:
> In a speech called jp5u6t$2a7n$1...@mud.stack.nl, Lesley Weston
> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> said:
>> On 05-17-12 1:40 PM, Sabremeister Brian wrote:
> <snip>
>>>
<snip>
> In a speech called jp5u6t$2a7n$1...@mud.stack.nl, Lesley Weston
> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> said:
>> On 05-17-12 1:40 PM, Sabremeister Brian wrote:
> <snip>
>>>
>
> Well, everyone involved is a legal adult, but many of us would only
> understand a document like that, even one in Plain English, with
> assistance and explanations from others (as described in [I think it's]
> section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act). 2.1 would only apply if they
> couldn't understand it with the explanations - if you can't understand
> what you're giving away, even with assistance, you are not considered
> capable of making an informed decision to give it away. However, the
> assistance is readily available, and I don't think anyone would fail to
> understand if each clause was explained to them.
In the last decade or so I've signed a couple of employment contracts.
> Well, everyone involved is a legal adult, but many of us would only
> understand a document like that, even one in Plain English, with
> assistance and explanations from others (as described in [I think it's]
> section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act). 2.1 would only apply if they
> couldn't understand it with the explanations - if you can't understand
> what you're giving away, even with assistance, you are not considered
> capable of making an informed decision to give it away. However, the
> assistance is readily available, and I don't think anyone would fail to
> understand if each clause was explained to them.
I always asked to take them home to 'consider'. You'd be surprised at how
easy it is to rewrite a 'not' or remove one from a document written with
Times New Roman. Adding and removing clauses is a little more difficult
to keep the page flow. HR always signed second so my version was the one
on file.
I used a modified clause in anger on just one occasion and it caused hell
(which was the intention).
Warwick
GaryN
May 19, 2012, 7:08:07 AM5/19/12
to
Robert Miles <robertm...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:691d6150-b2e0-4ab3...@googlegroups.com:
Don't know, from what I was told the child is capable of coherent
communication, just chooses not to. Since my mate is a professor of summat
or other involving medical stuff at Oxford University
http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/
I have to assume he knows what he's doing. I'm an engineer, when I need my
body fixing I see a doctor, they need their car fixing they see me.
news:691d6150-b2e0-4ab3...@googlegroups.com:
communication, just chooses not to. Since my mate is a professor of summat
or other involving medical stuff at Oxford University
http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/
I have to assume he knows what he's doing. I'm an engineer, when I need my
body fixing I see a doctor, they need their car fixing they see me.
Chris Zakes
May 19, 2012, 8:35:26 AM5/19/12
to
at the classic Christian notion of heaven. It's... interesting.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
--
It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defence, the
rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical governments.
-Texas Declaration of Independence
Larry Moore
May 19, 2012, 3:21:41 PM5/19/12
to
On 2012-05-19, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have you read "Job" by Heinlein? Near the end, he takes a close look
> at the classic Christian notion of heaven. It's... interesting.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
In my youth I read all the Heinlein I could find; it turns out
> Have you read "Job" by Heinlein? Near the end, he takes a close look
> at the classic Christian notion of heaven. It's... interesting.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
that was about two/thirds of everything but I missed Job.
I'll add it to my wish list, thanks.
Larry Moore
May 19, 2012, 3:36:39 PM5/19/12
to
On 2012-05-19, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> As I've stated before. I've had a good time here, got no particular
> religious beliefs apart from "All religions are bastards" (does that
> count?).
Works for me - 'gilded sepulchre' .
> As I've stated before. I've had a good time here, got no particular
> religious beliefs apart from "All religions are bastards" (does that
> count?).
> I really don't want x number of virgins
> because it's so difficult getting them trained.
>
> When I die Medical Science can have my body. Probably give them a
> laugh. And a big lump of titanium.
>
> gary
>
> [1]Everyone has a dream!
>
exactly as described in the menu, and I thank the chef,
(if there is anyone behind that swinging door.)
But I didn't ask for dessert, especially one so bland.
Larry Moore
May 19, 2012, 3:39:43 PM5/19/12
to
On 2012-05-19, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
hands, eye contact?
Chris Zakes
May 19, 2012, 10:20:48 PM5/19/12
to
On Sat, 19 May 2012 14:21:41 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
Publication date was 1984.
>On 2012-05-19, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Have you read "Job" by Heinlein? Near the end, he takes a close look
>> at the classic Christian notion of heaven. It's... interesting.
>>
>> -Chris Zakes
>> Texas
>
>In my youth I read all the Heinlein I could find; it turns out
>that was about two/thirds of everything but I missed Job.
>I'll add it to my wish list, thanks.
Depending on when your youth was, it might not have been written yet.
>
>
>> Have you read "Job" by Heinlein? Near the end, he takes a close look
>> at the classic Christian notion of heaven. It's... interesting.
>>
>> -Chris Zakes
>> Texas
>
>In my youth I read all the Heinlein I could find; it turns out
>that was about two/thirds of everything but I missed Job.
>I'll add it to my wish list, thanks.
Publication date was 1984.
Larry Moore
May 20, 2012, 7:20:06 AM5/20/12
to
On 2012-05-20, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 14:21:41 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> to write:
>
>>On 2012-05-19, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Have you read "Job" by Heinlein? Near the end, he takes a close look
>>> at the classic Christian notion of heaven. It's... interesting.
>>>
>>> -Chris Zakes
>>> Texas
>>
>>In my youth I read all the Heinlein I could find; it turns out
>>that was about two/thirds of everything but I missed Job.
>>I'll add it to my wish list, thanks.
>
> Depending on when your youth was, it might not have been written yet.
> Publication date was 1984.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
The "Number of the Beast", and Friday were the last I read.
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 14:21:41 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> to write:
>
>>On 2012-05-19, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Have you read "Job" by Heinlein? Near the end, he takes a close look
>>> at the classic Christian notion of heaven. It's... interesting.
>>>
>>> -Chris Zakes
>>> Texas
>>
>>In my youth I read all the Heinlein I could find; it turns out
>>that was about two/thirds of everything but I missed Job.
>>I'll add it to my wish list, thanks.
>
> Depending on when your youth was, it might not have been written yet.
> Publication date was 1984.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
Friday was a good romp but tNotB lead me to think that the
RAH well had gone dry. I'll see if I can find a copy of Job.
--
as Oscar Wilde puts it,
“A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone’s feelings,
unintentionally.”
Lesley Weston
May 20, 2012, 9:14:27 AM5/20/12
to
On 05-20-12 4:20 AM, Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-05-20, Chris Zakes<dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 14:21:41 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused Larry Moore<sshirley...@gmail.com> to write:
>>
>>> On 2012-05-19, Chris Zakes<dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Have you read "Job" by Heinlein? Near the end, he takes a close look
>>>> at the classic Christian notion of heaven. It's... interesting.
>>>>
>>>> -Chris Zakes
>>>> Texas
>>>
>>> In my youth I read all the Heinlein I could find; it turns out
>>> that was about two/thirds of everything but I missed Job.
>>> I'll add it to my wish list, thanks.
>>
>> Depending on when your youth was, it might not have been written yet.
>> Publication date was 1984.
>>
>> -Chris Zakes
>> Texas
>
> The "Number of the Beast", and Friday were the last I read.
> Friday was a good romp but tNotB lead me to think that the
> RAH well had gone dry. I'll see if I can find a copy of Job.
>
>
It's a bit different from his other work, perhaps an attempt to get out
> On 2012-05-20, Chris Zakes<dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 14:21:41 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused Larry Moore<sshirley...@gmail.com> to write:
>>
>>> On 2012-05-19, Chris Zakes<dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Have you read "Job" by Heinlein? Near the end, he takes a close look
>>>> at the classic Christian notion of heaven. It's... interesting.
>>>>
>>>> -Chris Zakes
>>>> Texas
>>>
>>> In my youth I read all the Heinlein I could find; it turns out
>>> that was about two/thirds of everything but I missed Job.
>>> I'll add it to my wish list, thanks.
>>
>> Depending on when your youth was, it might not have been written yet.
>> Publication date was 1984.
>>
>> -Chris Zakes
>> Texas
>
> The "Number of the Beast", and Friday were the last I read.
> Friday was a good romp but tNotB lead me to think that the
> RAH well had gone dry. I'll see if I can find a copy of Job.
>
>
of the Lazarus Long rut. By the time he wrote /Job/ every Methusalah had
slept with every other one in increasingly-complex combinations. There's
sex in /Job/ but it's between just two people who aren't related at all.
Larry Moore
May 20, 2012, 11:04:27 AM5/20/12
to
On 2012-05-20, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> There's
> sex in /Job/ but it's between just two people who aren't related at all.
>
> Lesley.
>
In that case, I'll put it much higher on the 'want' list.
> There's
> sex in /Job/ but it's between just two people who aren't related at all.
>
> Lesley.
>
Both RAH and LL, incestuous clones, and relatives, were getting dry.
--
Time flows upstream as well as down, which is the message brought to
Oedipus by blind Tiresias and by St. Augustine’s noticing that both
past and future, “wherever they are, whatever they are,” exist nowhere
else except in the minds of their beholders. Lewis H Lapham
GaryN
May 20, 2012, 2:29:24 PM5/20/12
to
Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Zt2dnQqEWeRiayrS...@wightman.ca:
In the meantime my niece H has Chicken Pox, my sister is down with an
allergic reaction to Oilseed Rape Pollen[1] and her partner has broken a
finger. One of the usual helpers is out with a damaged leg (making yet
another walking stick for her - got to start charging for them!).
The Old Dear's place is temporarily a hospital as well as a farm!
gary
[1]I'm not allergic to anything except nicotine patches, she's allergic
to everything[2] except red wine.
[2] Really. Buggered if I know how one of us can be pretty much immune
to anything and the other vulnerable to everything.
Grymma
May 20, 2012, 3:04:05 PM5/20/12
to
--
--
Grymma AFPOh Goddess Of Hangovers; DAcFD, BF (UU)
I'm really easy to get along with once people learn to see it my way.
GaryN
May 20, 2012, 9:11:42 PM5/20/12
to
Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Zt2dnQuEWeTaayrS...@wightman.ca:
> On 2012-05-19, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> As I've stated before. I've had a good time here, got no particular
>> religious beliefs apart from "All religions are bastards" (does that
>> count?).
>
> Works for me - 'gilded sepulchre' .
>
>> I really don't want x number of virgins
>> because it's so difficult getting them trained.
>>
> And all they want to do is play video games.
>
>> When I die Medical Science can have my body. Probably give them a
>> laugh. And a big lump of titanium.
>>
>> gary
>>
>> [1]Everyone has a dream!
>>
>
> What I ordered was interesting, if not
> exactly as described in the menu, and I thank the chef,
> (if there is anyone behind that swinging door.)
> But I didn't ask for dessert, especially one so bland.
>
two fire breathing whores"
I did go out with a virgin once (possibly the only time I went out with
a woman younger than myself).
It was not an enjoyable experience! "No, your legs are supposed to be
there, and it helps if you can spread them a bit wider". "What do you
mean you don't like it doggy style? How do you know that if you're a
virgin?"
If it's all the same to Islam I'll stick with experienced, interesting,
intelligent women who don't look like small perambulating tents and know
how to fuck and enjoy it!
If that makes me sound like a mysogynist (which I've been accused of
before now) then so be it.
Killed the wasp nest in the SO's shed yesterday (machete, heavy gloves,
white spirit[1], match). How many of you would respond inside 30
minutes to get the kit together and travel 2 miles? Then buy dinner
from the local chippy after the job is done?
Obviously I really hate her and treat her like shit.
gary
[1] Sometimes worries me the amount of inflammable/explosive materials
we have in the place. So I just make sure that I don't smoke in the
garage.
Larry Moore
May 21, 2012, 8:26:07 AM5/21/12
to
On 2012-05-20, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>
> Again, unknown, Harding is a loving parent and will be doing his best.
>
That is all he can do, innit?
>>
>
> Again, unknown, Harding is a loving parent and will be doing his best.
>
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are
not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. Ike.
Larry Moore
May 21, 2012, 8:34:57 AM5/21/12
to
On 2012-05-21, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> If it's all the same to Islam I'll stick with experienced, interesting,
> intelligent women ...
> If it's all the same to Islam I'll stick with experienced, interesting,
>
Sure, why would my tastes change just because I've died? :-)
> [1] Sometimes worries me the amount of inflammable/explosive materials
> we have in the place. So I just make sure that I don't smoke in the
> garage.
>
well as the smoking.
GaryN
May 21, 2012, 10:30:47 AM5/21/12
to
Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Cv2dnXKTXJ7sqyfS...@wightman.ca:
> On 2012-05-21, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> If it's all the same to Islam I'll stick with experienced,
>> interesting, intelligent women ...
>>
>
> Sure, why would my tastes change just because I've died? :-)
>
>
>> [1] Sometimes worries me the amount of inflammable/explosive
>> materials we have in the place. So I just make sure that I don't
>> smoke in the garage.
>>
>
> I'd pay attention to proper handling of the cleanup rags as
> well as the smoking.
>
innocuous and noticed the gallon can of something labelled "Toxic and
Flammable" which is plugged by a bit of rag stuffed in the neck. I am
not going to light the blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance
(not knowing what a safe distance may be).
I may live in the only house in the country where it's considered normal
for a packet of highly toxic root kill to be part of the stuff left in
the living room because someone bought it but nobody used it.
OTOH I have a machete and knife within arms reach as I type this so I
probably shouldn't complain.
gary
Lesley Weston
May 21, 2012, 12:28:11 PM5/21/12
to
On 05-20-12 11:29 AM, GaryN wrote:
<snip>
> In the meantime my niece H has Chicken Pox, my sister is down with an
> allergic reaction to Oilseed Rape Pollen[1] and her partner has broken a
> finger. One of the usual helpers is out with a damaged leg (making yet
> another walking stick for her - got to start charging for them!).
>
> The Old Dear's place is temporarily a hospital as well as a farm!
Mmm... country life! I hope they all feel better soon.
<snip>
> In the meantime my niece H has Chicken Pox, my sister is down with an
> allergic reaction to Oilseed Rape Pollen[1] and her partner has broken a
> finger. One of the usual helpers is out with a damaged leg (making yet
> another walking stick for her - got to start charging for them!).
>
> The Old Dear's place is temporarily a hospital as well as a farm!
GaryN
May 21, 2012, 12:39:03 PM5/21/12
to
Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:jpdqes$nca
$1...@mud.stack.nl:
> On 05-20-12 11:29 AM, GaryN wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> In the meantime my niece H has Chicken Pox, my sister is down with an
>> allergic reaction to Oilseed Rape Pollen[1] and her partner has broken a
>> finger. One of the usual helpers is out with a damaged leg (making yet
>> another walking stick for her - got to start charging for them!).
>>
>> The Old Dear's place is temporarily a hospital as well as a farm!
>
> Mmm... country life! I hope they all feel better soon.
>
> Lesley.
>
Meh. Paul will live with the finger (he's been working down in Kent), H
will live with the Chicken Pox, Sian will live with walking with a stick
(I'm making it now) and my Nearly Beloved sister will get through the
allergy because nothing short of a tactical nuke will stop the bitch[1].
gary
[1]Not sibling rivalry, we just genuinely don't get on. I think it's
because I shagged one of her first real friends.
$1...@mud.stack.nl:
> On 05-20-12 11:29 AM, GaryN wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> In the meantime my niece H has Chicken Pox, my sister is down with an
>> allergic reaction to Oilseed Rape Pollen[1] and her partner has broken a
>> finger. One of the usual helpers is out with a damaged leg (making yet
>> another walking stick for her - got to start charging for them!).
>>
>> The Old Dear's place is temporarily a hospital as well as a farm!
>
> Mmm... country life! I hope they all feel better soon.
>
> Lesley.
>
will live with the Chicken Pox, Sian will live with walking with a stick
(I'm making it now) and my Nearly Beloved sister will get through the
allergy because nothing short of a tactical nuke will stop the bitch[1].
gary
[1]Not sibling rivalry, we just genuinely don't get on. I think it's
because I shagged one of her first real friends.
Alec Cawley
May 21, 2012, 2:43:15 PM5/21/12
to
GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:Cv2dnXKTXJ7sqyfS...@wightman.ca:
>
>> On 2012-05-21, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> If it's all the same to Islam I'll stick with experienced,
>>> interesting, intelligent women ...
>>>
>>
>> Sure, why would my tastes change just because I've died? :-)
>>
>>
>>> [1] Sometimes worries me the amount of inflammable/explosive
>>> materials we have in the place. So I just make sure that I don't
>>> smoke in the garage.
>>>
>>
>> I'd pay attention to proper handling of the cleanup rags as
>> well as the smoking.
>>
>
> You think you're joking! I went in this morning, looking for something
> innocuous and noticed the gallon can of something labelled "Toxic and
> Flammable" which is plugged by a bit of rag stuffed in the neck. I am
> not going to light the blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance
> (not knowing what a safe distance may be).
>
> I may live in the only house in the country where it's considered normal
> for a packet of highly toxic root kill to be part of the stuff left in
> the living room because someone bought it but nobody used it.
>
> OTOH I have a machete and knife within arms reach as I type this so I
> probably shouldn't complain.
>
This
> Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:Cv2dnXKTXJ7sqyfS...@wightman.ca:
>
>> On 2012-05-21, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> If it's all the same to Islam I'll stick with experienced,
>>> interesting, intelligent women ...
>>>
>>
>> Sure, why would my tastes change just because I've died? :-)
>>
>>
>>> [1] Sometimes worries me the amount of inflammable/explosive
>>> materials we have in the place. So I just make sure that I don't
>>> smoke in the garage.
>>>
>>
>> I'd pay attention to proper handling of the cleanup rags as
>> well as the smoking.
>>
>
> You think you're joking! I went in this morning, looking for something
> innocuous and noticed the gallon can of something labelled "Toxic and
> Flammable" which is plugged by a bit of rag stuffed in the neck. I am
> not going to light the blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance
> (not knowing what a safe distance may be).
>
> I may live in the only house in the country where it's considered normal
> for a packet of highly toxic root kill to be part of the stuff left in
> the living room because someone bought it but nobody used it.
>
> OTOH I have a machete and knife within arms reach as I type this so I
> probably shouldn't complain.
>
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with/
Which I just came across may give you some amusement. It puts your exploits
in the shade.
Larry Moore
May 22, 2012, 8:36:13 AM5/22/12
to
On 2012-05-21, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> You think you're joking! I went in this morning, looking for something
> innocuous and noticed the gallon can of something labelled "Toxic and
> Flammable" which is plugged by a bit of rag stuffed in the neck. I am
> not going to light the blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance
> (not knowing what a safe distance may be).
>
Nope, words of experience - luckily it was a pottingshed/outbuilding
> You think you're joking! I went in this morning, looking for something
> innocuous and noticed the gallon can of something labelled "Toxic and
> Flammable" which is plugged by a bit of rag stuffed in the neck. I am
> not going to light the blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance
> (not knowing what a safe distance may be).
>
that was well away from the house.
> I may live in the only house in the country where it's considered normal
> for a packet of highly toxic root kill to be part of the stuff left in
> the living room because someone bought it but nobody used it.
>
You mean it isn't considered normal?
--
What you have here is an example of that well known phenomenon, A Bookshop
Assistant Who Knows Buggerall But Won't Admit It (probably some kind of
arts graduate).
(Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
GaryN
May 22, 2012, 11:55:53 AM5/22/12
to
Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:uN2dnRHJUvSgFSbS...@wightman.ca:
> On 2012-05-21, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> You think you're joking! I went in this morning, looking for
>> something innocuous and noticed the gallon can of something labelled
>> "Toxic and Flammable" which is plugged by a bit of rag stuffed in the
>> neck. I am not going to light the blue touch paper and retire to a
>> safe distance (not knowing what a safe distance may be).
>>
>
> Nope, words of experience - luckily it was a pottingshed/outbuilding
> that was well away from the house.
goes it'll probably set off all the other flammable/explosive stuff in
there. Hence the strict no smoking rule.
The bloody nuisance is getting anyone to dispose of any of it.
"Can't take that mate it's dangerous"
"I know, that's why I want to get rid of it"
"We can't take it, try the bomb squad"
Call police and after fighting through multiple layers of automated crap
get told, "Not our job you need to call the council"
So, great, I've got a garage full of enough assorted dangerous shit to
make 7/7 look like a sparkler in the hand of a kid but nobody will
either take it away or assist in disposing of it. Can't even take it to
the council tip.
"We can't accept noxious substances"
Temptation is to take it down there, chuck the lot in a skip, light the
blue touch paper and make bloody sure the engine is running before I do.
>> I may live in the only house in the country where it's considered
>> normal for a packet of highly toxic root kill to be part of the stuff
>> left in the living room because someone bought it but nobody used it.
>>
>
> I was married to a Norfolk lass for a decade in the 80s.
> You mean it isn't considered normal?
loaded shotgun to be immediately available but out of the reach of
children.
gary
--
"Man with a crossbow in the proper place at the proper time
is worth a corps of heavy artillery half an hour late
and ten miles down the road from where it should be"
Gordon R. Dickson in "Tactics of Mistake"
Larry Moore
May 22, 2012, 5:43:00 PM5/22/12
to
On 2012-05-22, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> So, great, I've got a garage full of enough assorted dangerous shit to
> make 7/7 look like a sparkler in the hand of a kid but nobody will
> either take it away or assist in disposing of it. Can't even take it to
> the council tip.
>
I'd suggest shifting all the Hazardous Household Waste into an
> So, great, I've got a garage full of enough assorted dangerous shit to
> make 7/7 look like a sparkler in the hand of a kid but nobody will
> either take it away or assist in disposing of it. Can't even take it to
> the council tip.
>
out-building instead of having them in an attached garage.
Here, I'd call the county waste, get the date of the next/nearest
HHW collection day and location; let them worry about it.
> Dunno. In my uncomplicated country way I consider it normal for a
> loaded shotgun to be immediately available but out of the reach of
> children.
>
> gary
>
I found a box of shotgun rounds in my lilac bed - we think some child
discarded them as it's next to the school-bus pickup spot.
I'd prefer to have found gout weed.
steveski
May 22, 2012, 7:50:42 PM5/22/12
to
GaryN wrote:
> Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:uN2dnRHJUvSgFSbS...@wightman.ca:
>
>> On 2012-05-21, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> You think you're joking! I went in this morning, looking for
>>> something innocuous and noticed the gallon can of something labelled
>>> "Toxic and Flammable" which is plugged by a bit of rag stuffed in the
>>> neck. I am not going to light the blue touch paper and retire to a
>>> safe distance (not knowing what a safe distance may be).
>>>
>>
>> Nope, words of experience - luckily it was a pottingshed/outbuilding
>> that was well away from the house.
>
> If only! It's a garage contiguous with the house, if that container
> goes it'll probably set off all the other flammable/explosive stuff in
> there. Hence the strict no smoking rule.
>
> The bloody nuisance is getting anyone to dispose of any of it.
>
> "Can't take that mate it's dangerous"
>
> "I know, that's why I want to get rid of it"
>
> "We can't take it, try the bomb squad"
>
> Call police and after fighting through multiple layers of automated crap
> get told, "Not our job you need to call the council"
Try the Fire Brigade, although there might be a charge.
> Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:uN2dnRHJUvSgFSbS...@wightman.ca:
>
>> On 2012-05-21, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> You think you're joking! I went in this morning, looking for
>>> something innocuous and noticed the gallon can of something labelled
>>> "Toxic and Flammable" which is plugged by a bit of rag stuffed in the
>>> neck. I am not going to light the blue touch paper and retire to a
>>> safe distance (not knowing what a safe distance may be).
>>>
>>
>> Nope, words of experience - luckily it was a pottingshed/outbuilding
>> that was well away from the house.
>
> If only! It's a garage contiguous with the house, if that container
> goes it'll probably set off all the other flammable/explosive stuff in
> there. Hence the strict no smoking rule.
>
> The bloody nuisance is getting anyone to dispose of any of it.
>
> "Can't take that mate it's dangerous"
>
> "I know, that's why I want to get rid of it"
>
> "We can't take it, try the bomb squad"
>
> Call police and after fighting through multiple layers of automated crap
> get told, "Not our job you need to call the council"
--
Steveski
GaryN
May 22, 2012, 10:08:37 PM5/22/12
to
steveski <stev...@invalid.com> wrote in news:a22n3qFgnU1
@mid.individual.net:
<snip>
Nobody (except me) wants to take responsibility for the crap in my
garage that doesn't belong to me. Fucking WMD - my garage could take
out the entire street. Bastards can invade Iraq but not take charge of
explosives on my property.
I'm trying to get rid of dangerous stuff, they're supposed to be looking
for dangerous stuff.
*IT'S HERE> you stupid cunts, I told you*
I think they're not happy unless they can make a dramatic dawn raid,
which would be a waste of time and effort here because I'd be at the
SO's place and the Landlord will be at work.
Mind you, we could get the window fixed, next to the door. Paramedics
had to break it when I had a fit[1] while my keys were still in the
lock.
gary
[1]Fits aren't fun, I wake up in hospital wondering "What the fuck
happened?"[2]
[2]Sometimes 3 days later.[3]
[3]One time I woke up in prison, took me a month to get out.
@mid.individual.net:
<snip>
> Try the Fire Brigade, although there might be a charge.
I've even tried The Samaritans.
Nobody (except me) wants to take responsibility for the crap in my
garage that doesn't belong to me. Fucking WMD - my garage could take
out the entire street. Bastards can invade Iraq but not take charge of
explosives on my property.
I'm trying to get rid of dangerous stuff, they're supposed to be looking
for dangerous stuff.
*IT'S HERE> you stupid cunts, I told you*
I think they're not happy unless they can make a dramatic dawn raid,
which would be a waste of time and effort here because I'd be at the
SO's place and the Landlord will be at work.
Mind you, we could get the window fixed, next to the door. Paramedics
had to break it when I had a fit[1] while my keys were still in the
lock.
gary
[1]Fits aren't fun, I wake up in hospital wondering "What the fuck
happened?"[2]
[2]Sometimes 3 days later.[3]
[3]One time I woke up in prison, took me a month to get out.
Robert Carnegie
May 23, 2012, 6:40:03 AM5/23/12
to
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:08:37 AM UTC+1, GaryN wrote:
> I'm trying to get rid of dangerous stuff, they're supposed to be looking
> for dangerous stuff.
>
> *IT'S HERE> you stupid cunts, I told you*
>
> I think they're not happy unless they can make a dramatic dawn raid,
> which would be a waste of time and effort here because I'd be at the
> SO's place and the Landlord will be at work.
>
> Mind you, we could get the window fixed, next to the door. Paramedics
> had to break it when I had a fit[1] while my keys were still in the
> lock.
You could phone a warning with the special
> I'm trying to get rid of dangerous stuff, they're supposed to be looking
> for dangerous stuff.
>
> *IT'S HERE> you stupid cunts, I told you*
>
> I think they're not happy unless they can make a dramatic dawn raid,
> which would be a waste of time and effort here because I'd be at the
> SO's place and the Landlord will be at work.
>
> Mind you, we could get the window fixed, next to the door. Paramedics
> had to break it when I had a fit[1] while my keys were still in the
> lock.
code word in to the local newspaper.
I think it probably wouldn't matter what
the code word is, as long as there is one,
depending on where you are, they won't get
very many. But I'm not sure what the
etiquette is.
Another way is to take the stuff down to
the police station, as long as it isn't
going to explode on the way. This will
get the local newspaper involved as well,
they often have the jolly story of the
pensioner who hears about a knife amnesty
and decides it's time to dispose of the
German WWII grenade that he brought home
as a souvenir, and finds himself sitting
alone in the waiting room with it in his
lap while the local force are maintaining
a 200 metre evacuation zone around him.
If you don't see this ending well for you,
perhaps you could recruit someone else
for that role.
Either way, the snag will be other stuff
that you want to keep but that they would
want to have off you.
Chris Zakes
May 23, 2012, 7:35:36 AM5/23/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:08:37 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:
>steveski <stev...@invalid.com> wrote in news:a22n3qFgnU1
>@mid.individual.net:
>
><snip>
>> Try the Fire Brigade, although there might be a charge.
>
>I've even tried The Samaritans.
>
>Nobody (except me) wants to take responsibility for the crap in my
>garage that doesn't belong to me. Fucking WMD - my garage could take
>out the entire street. Bastards can invade Iraq but not take charge of
>explosives on my property.
Googling for "hazardous waste disposal Oxford" brings up a couple of
caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:
>steveski <stev...@invalid.com> wrote in news:a22n3qFgnU1
>@mid.individual.net:
>
><snip>
>> Try the Fire Brigade, although there might be a charge.
>
>I've even tried The Samaritans.
>
>Nobody (except me) wants to take responsibility for the crap in my
>garage that doesn't belong to me. Fucking WMD - my garage could take
>out the entire street. Bastards can invade Iraq but not take charge of
>explosives on my property.
possibilities:
http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/content/hazardous-household-waste
http://www.aawaste.co.uk/Oxfordshire.html
GaryN
May 23, 2012, 10:01:33 AM5/23/12
to
Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:lkipr75mbak1a5i2c...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:08:37 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:
>
>>steveski <stev...@invalid.com> wrote in news:a22n3qFgnU1
>>@mid.individual.net:
>>
>><snip>
>>> Try the Fire Brigade, although there might be a charge.
>>
>>I've even tried The Samaritans.
>>
>>Nobody (except me) wants to take responsibility for the crap in my
>>garage that doesn't belong to me. Fucking WMD - my garage could take
>>out the entire street. Bastards can invade Iraq but not take charge
>>of explosives on my property.
>
> Googling for "hazardous waste disposal Oxford" brings up a couple of
> possibilities:
>
> http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/content/hazardous-household-waste
>
> http://www.aawaste.co.uk/Oxfordshire.html
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
I'll probably just leave it there. It's doing no harm and I might need
it at some point. The amount of beuareacracy involved in getting rid of
it is more of a problem than just leaving it sitting there.
It's like weapons amnesties: "I want to give up this weapon that my
husband brought back from the Falklands"
Takes hours and then they raid your place anyway in case there are more.
Many years ago there was a weapons amnesty and a copper turned up to
collect the luger, or whatever, that the little old ladies husband
brought back from WW1 as a souvenir
He didn't expect a tripod mounted, watercooled, Vickers heavy machine
gun complete with 1000 rounds of ammunition..:-)
Can't get that bastard on a pushbike (this story may sound unbelieveable
but is true! My grandfather helped dismantle the weapon and load it for
transport).
gary
news:lkipr75mbak1a5i2c...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:08:37 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:
>
>>steveski <stev...@invalid.com> wrote in news:a22n3qFgnU1
>>@mid.individual.net:
>>
>><snip>
>>> Try the Fire Brigade, although there might be a charge.
>>
>>I've even tried The Samaritans.
>>
>>Nobody (except me) wants to take responsibility for the crap in my
>>garage that doesn't belong to me. Fucking WMD - my garage could take
>>out the entire street. Bastards can invade Iraq but not take charge
>>of explosives on my property.
>
> Googling for "hazardous waste disposal Oxford" brings up a couple of
> possibilities:
>
> http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/content/hazardous-household-waste
>
> http://www.aawaste.co.uk/Oxfordshire.html
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
it at some point. The amount of beuareacracy involved in getting rid of
it is more of a problem than just leaving it sitting there.
It's like weapons amnesties: "I want to give up this weapon that my
husband brought back from the Falklands"
Takes hours and then they raid your place anyway in case there are more.
Many years ago there was a weapons amnesty and a copper turned up to
collect the luger, or whatever, that the little old ladies husband
brought back from WW1 as a souvenir
He didn't expect a tripod mounted, watercooled, Vickers heavy machine
gun complete with 1000 rounds of ammunition..:-)
Can't get that bastard on a pushbike (this story may sound unbelieveable
but is true! My grandfather helped dismantle the weapon and load it for
transport).
gary
GaryN
May 24, 2012, 4:46:51 AM5/24/12
to
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
news:abbb4d05-4202-4f61...@googlegroups.com:
<snip>
> Either way, the snag will be other stuff
> that you want to keep but that they would
> want to have off you.
>
Given that there is practically no household or garden chemical that can't
be turned into explosives you're probably right. We have 5 gallons of red
diesel and a 10 litre bag of fertiliser containing ammonium nitrate in the
garage.
Guess what you get if you mix those two!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_disaster
That one was just the nitrate going up. Nearly 1000 killed[1], 5000
injured, 3 ships destroyed.
Think about that the next time you buy fertiliser for your flowers.
gary
[1]Number is uncertain because they couldn't find enough bits to identify.
news:abbb4d05-4202-4f61...@googlegroups.com:
<snip>
> Either way, the snag will be other stuff
> that you want to keep but that they would
> want to have off you.
>
be turned into explosives you're probably right. We have 5 gallons of red
diesel and a 10 litre bag of fertiliser containing ammonium nitrate in the
garage.
Guess what you get if you mix those two!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_disaster
That one was just the nitrate going up. Nearly 1000 killed[1], 5000
injured, 3 ships destroyed.
Think about that the next time you buy fertiliser for your flowers.
gary
[1]Number is uncertain because they couldn't find enough bits to identify.
Alec Cawley
May 24, 2012, 2:23:39 PM5/24/12
to
GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:abbb4d05-4202-4f61...@googlegroups.com:
>
> <snip>
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:abbb4d05-4202-4f61...@googlegroups.com:
>
> <snip>
> Given that there is practically no household or garden chemical that can't
> be turned into explosives you're probably right. We have 5 gallons of red
> diesel and a 10 litre bag of fertiliser containing ammonium nitrate in the
> garage.
>
> Guess what you get if you mix those two!
I believe connoisseurs add a pinch or two of powdered charcoal. You weren't
> be turned into explosives you're probably right. We have 5 gallons of red
> diesel and a 10 litre bag of fertiliser containing ammonium nitrate in the
> garage.
>
> Guess what you get if you mix those two!
planning on having a barbecue, were you?
Sabremeister Brian
May 24, 2012, 3:37:11 PM5/24/12
to
In a speech called a1l62c...@mid.individual.net,
Sabremeister Brian <bpwak...@hotmail.com> said:
> As you may or may not know, I am currently sort-of-employed by a
> theatre company called Mind The Gap, who work with people with
> learning disabilities. We have two big projects for the cultural
> olympiad, which means management throw their toys out the pram
> if anything dares to threaten their grant for completing the
> projects. Since MTG have two things to do this summer, they have
> somehow managed to persuade ITV's This Morning to come and do a
> feature piece on us.
Well, they came and did the filming, and it was all relatively
painless. It's one of those strange cases where my concerns and
those of the admin staff at MTG coincide nicely, and ITV have
therefore been notified that legalese is Not Good when dealing
with people who have learning difficulties. I also passed it on to
the Plain English Campaign, nominating ITV for a Kick Up The
Pants.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"Two wrongs don't make a right, but they make a good excuse."
- Thomas Szasz
Sabremeister Brian <bpwak...@hotmail.com> said:
> As you may or may not know, I am currently sort-of-employed by a
> theatre company called Mind The Gap, who work with people with
> learning disabilities. We have two big projects for the cultural
> olympiad, which means management throw their toys out the pram
> if anything dares to threaten their grant for completing the
> projects. Since MTG have two things to do this summer, they have
> somehow managed to persuade ITV's This Morning to come and do a
> feature piece on us.
Well, they came and did the filming, and it was all relatively
painless. It's one of those strange cases where my concerns and
those of the admin staff at MTG coincide nicely, and ITV have
therefore been notified that legalese is Not Good when dealing
with people who have learning difficulties. I also passed it on to
the Plain English Campaign, nominating ITV for a Kick Up The
Pants.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"Two wrongs don't make a right, but they make a good excuse."
- Thomas Szasz
GaryN
May 24, 2012, 5:08:39 PM5/24/12
to
Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote in
news:30969421359575552.139...@news.individual.net:
I was planning on keeping the two items well apart unless I require
them. Since the red diesel was aquired illegally, not by me, and I
haven't got a clue who bought the fertiliser but, and it's a big but, I
can't prove that.
We have it, I can't prove that I didn't buy it.
One of the wonders of the criminal justice system is "If you have it
then you must have bought it"
"Wot the handgun in the loft where we never go?"
"You must have known it was there"
This is what passes for Police Intelligence.
Actually I do own a handgun but it's not in my loft.
gary
news:30969421359575552.139...@news.individual.net:
them. Since the red diesel was aquired illegally, not by me, and I
haven't got a clue who bought the fertiliser but, and it's a big but, I
can't prove that.
We have it, I can't prove that I didn't buy it.
One of the wonders of the criminal justice system is "If you have it
then you must have bought it"
"Wot the handgun in the loft where we never go?"
"You must have known it was there"
This is what passes for Police Intelligence.
Actually I do own a handgun but it's not in my loft.
gary
0 new messages