Wonder what 1st years and their parents think of this use of everyone’s time

but when there’s a whole set of wonderful administrative support colleagues, it does seem a strange use of skills and resources

but we needed to save millions so allowed them to take “voluntary” redundancy, there’s now nowhere near enough to keep the university going

Good point - no idea

All UK discussion I’ve heard is premised on iPlayer

We rewatched about four years ago

Splendid BBC work

Sorry - I’m getting my NZ Andrews confused

The post I saw was by @acgeddis.bsky.social

I just saw that, Andrew, in a post of yours

It puts me in a bind as I’m generally against location based restrictions but strongly believe (and have written about it previously) that there is a public/social value to politicians have protectable private lives/spheres

Yes, Carl, agreed. Hogsback looks like it shouldn’t be…as if overly fizzy and insipid but I’ve always enjoyed it

Of course proving that will be hard unless someone says something

Of course, it will be open to potential policing abuse

Or, unless I’ve missed it, when they happened

There’s no back-end date that I can see

For that reason alone, I cannot see that passing muster on human rights basis before court

R v Taylor (Paul) 2001 EWCA Crim 2263

I seem to recall an early days of the HRA challenge by committed smoker to smoking ban…or am I imagining it…of the “let’s have a punt” type like R v ???? the art 9 challenge to drug possession charge brought against a Rastafarian

Absolutely Geoff when you think of say Hardman v R, almost anything can count

Costs of removal I’m sure specially referred to as damage in that or similar case