If no news is good news, is received news always bad news?
Mmm, the beginning of May.
Another sign that this is rapidly coming to an end.
My last exam is on Monday the 11th of June. A quick check on my wall calender indicates that this Friday is the 11th of May which means I'll be entering the last month of the course.
I'm going to miss it so much it's almost worth failing just so that I can retake in August.
Well, not quite-but almost...(you get the idea).
It's fair to say that I was not at my focused best this week what with the thought of my impending job interviews popping into my mind every few minutes.
Monday went how I thought it may go; there was a 'clashing of opinions' about certain aspects of the discrimination part of the employment course.
Law should have certainly.
If the law is uncertain how can a lawyer (for an example) advise anyone else? That is not to say that law should be static-it must be able to adapt to changes in society.
So saying, it took 255 years from when the legal position was settled in 1736 for the law to accept that it was possible for a husband to rape his wife-so don't expect lightning quick decisions.
But the law should be decided upon reasoned rules and maxims not by what is perceived by the court as 'just' and then relying on tortured logic and indiscriminate statistics to justify the decision.
The problem that this creates follows from the fact that lower courts are bound to follow the essence of decisions of higher courts (it is called precedent). So, if a higher court makes a decision that is, shall we say of 'doubtful provenance' then this dubious decision MUST be followed if the case in the lower courts 'is on all fours' (a wonderful term meaning that all the relevant details are essentially the same, sadly it is not used very much)
The basis for this rant is the same 'London Underground' case that I moaned about before. We had to use it this week in our workshop to justify the advice that we were going to give to a client.
This is what I mean-Law is certainty (discuss, 2000 words before next week please)
So the advice we gave was based on this case (higher court cases must be followed, right?)-even though every fibre in my body was screaming,
So, the tutor and I had what may be classed as 'a full and frank discussion where various points were forcefully argued'. The problem being that this FFD was with Temp-loyment (still no sign of our proper tutor yet) so it was akin to shadow boxing a waterfall-you expend a lot of energy but you achieve absolutely nothing.
The discussion went on between us through part of the break but she could not argue the logic for the case because the answer wasn't on her sheet.
Yes, she has an answer sheet for all the problems that are set in the workshop.
Which is great if we stick to the questions but we are a;
Well, not much...
Sometimes however, it is great to have a tutor who has to carry the answers around with her on printed A4 sheets-especially if she comes to our table, puts the sheet down (those A4 sheets do weigh a lot), so I can sneakily read them and then repeat what I just read to her.
Pauls handy tips for lawyers number 1: Practice reading upside down-bosses always leave important sheets on their desk-but believe you can't read them if the sheet is not facing you.
For sheer amusement value the highlight had to be the young lady on our table who was getting more and more 'wound up' when we started doing disability discrimination.
In every other area of discrimination the person who is claiming that they are being disciminated has their position analysed in relation to a comparator-someone who does not have the feature that they believe is the source of the discrimination but is identical in every other way. (so if a gay employee feels they are being discriminated against for reason of their sexuality they are compared to a straight employee of the same age/sex/religion etc)
But not for disabled people who believe that they have experienced discrimination on account of something that happened related to their disability.
The example we discussed was a guy who had to go to a therapist every day before starting work. This made him late and he was dismissed for timekeeping.
Ideally his comparator should be an employee who was late (for a perfectly good reason) but not in disability discrimination-his comparator is in fact someone who always turns up on time. So, the court then examines if the two have been treated differently.
I think I can.
Absolutely farcical.
The test is made so that the finding is 100% always going to show discrimination. The theory being that the employer then has a chance to justify why they acted discriminately and the tiny lickle bit of positive discrimination is simply to get to that stage.
And that was what so wound up this young woman-everyone in life has 'hot buttons'; topics that they feel passionately about, one way or the other. If you can engage and empathise with them on these (and they are things that the person is excited about) then you will make a friend for life.
But if they are subjects that the person is angered about then by tickling their hot button (I really should stop this thread or go and have a cold shower) then they will get very heated indeed (and you will have to work really hard to get them back onside).
Well, it appears that 'positive discrimination' is one of her angry hot button topics. It was wonderful to watch, like being an observer at your own personal volcanic eruption. First we had a little gentle smoke, followed by some deep rumblings leading up to a full pyrotechnic display and once deep buried residue spraying around the room...
Tuesday, a good turn out for our workshop-all 20 of us were present and it went swimmingly. I have been wondering why my table is so intimidating and this week I finally found out.
As an aside, I put the boot into him myself by telling him that one of the facts on an OHP he used was wrong.
Well, if you can't beat 'em...
One thing I have noticed is how much more vocal I have become on this course. I seem to interrupt in most (if not all) of our workshops at some stage, however this may not be such a good thing since if someone does it in a workshop/lecture that I'm attending and what they say is toss I have a tendency to class them as purveyors of toss...
Oh no, that nice man accused of growing and selling dope has pleaded guilty and that nice young man accused of rape has been found guilty.
Gosh, am I a bad judge of character-I would have let 'em both off!
Of course as I mentioned last week that gives us an excellent chance to look into appealing against sentence and/or conviction.
So why those two poor souls languish in gaol, swinging their legs, running their tin-cups against the bars and singing 'ole man river', (What do you meam, romantic notion of prison?) we start to represent a new client in a new area of law-driving offences.
This is so exciting-it's almost a class in black letter law! Our large group lecture was about offences, endorsements and disqualifications-wonderful!
(Although quite why anyone would want to use our firm since our last 2 clients are now serving long sentences, I do not know...) Don't these people ever listen to word of mouth?
Wednesday and more benefits. Things are getting seriously sticky and smelly. The class have started to have that glazed 'you say, we'll write it and maybe understand it one day'. This week we looked at Contributory non-means tested benefits (contribution based-jobseekers allowance and incapacity benefit) and although the class exercises were fairly straightforward, it wouldn't take too much variation from them in the exam to throw us off completely.
It did give Tigger the chance to role-play a confused, depressed middle aged woman though. I have noticed a trend that he enjoys playing all the female parts and he never plays the male ones. I shall monitor this situation closely. I am starting to get disturbing visions of him waiting for his wife to go out to choir practice so he can nip upstairs and try on her clothes.
I produced a list of questions that I had prepared to show an interest in the firm-and some of their answers in reply were pish-poor (so take that!)
The only thing is that I discovered very quickly that I really didn't want to work for them.
The phrase 'smug bankers' summed them up. Their firm exists to make people who have a lot of money to make more money and then to scoop a fair sized wodge out of it.
That's not for me-I realise that someone has to do it but it's not for me.
Plus the job was to take over as the 'case management assistant' from the chick with the cleavage who was going to start a training contract. The idea being that if you did well then they would consider you for a TC 'after a suitable time'-which in their view would not be before 2010.
So 3 years of writing memos and helping people who are earning vastly more than me to use Excel and Word.
That's not to say that I would have turned it down if it had been offered to me (I am nothing if not a hypocrite) but I knew that I would get an 'Unfortunately, we..' letter.
That afternoon I started to do some consolidation from the week and to focus on my next interview-the important one, my first with the CPS.
Friday-an early start for me. I was out of the house by 8.30 having done some cramming on the CPS and the 'cut n paste' answers that I had sent them. As I reviewed this a cold chill went down my spine.
I hadn't updated the application details from when I was working at Specsavers so I wrote it as if I still worked for them.
Now this might not be so bad, except in the application I spoke of my attention to detail and how I check and double check everything.
Another sign that this is rapidly coming to an end.
My last exam is on Monday the 11th of June. A quick check on my wall calender indicates that this Friday is the 11th of May which means I'll be entering the last month of the course.
I'm going to miss it so much it's almost worth failing just so that I can retake in August.
Well, not quite-but almost...(you get the idea).
It's fair to say that I was not at my focused best this week what with the thought of my impending job interviews popping into my mind every few minutes.
Monday went how I thought it may go; there was a 'clashing of opinions' about certain aspects of the discrimination part of the employment course.
Law should have certainly.
If the law is uncertain how can a lawyer (for an example) advise anyone else? That is not to say that law should be static-it must be able to adapt to changes in society.
So saying, it took 255 years from when the legal position was settled in 1736 for the law to accept that it was possible for a husband to rape his wife-so don't expect lightning quick decisions.
But the law should be decided upon reasoned rules and maxims not by what is perceived by the court as 'just' and then relying on tortured logic and indiscriminate statistics to justify the decision.
The problem that this creates follows from the fact that lower courts are bound to follow the essence of decisions of higher courts (it is called precedent). So, if a higher court makes a decision that is, shall we say of 'doubtful provenance' then this dubious decision MUST be followed if the case in the lower courts 'is on all fours' (a wonderful term meaning that all the relevant details are essentially the same, sadly it is not used very much)
The basis for this rant is the same 'London Underground' case that I moaned about before. We had to use it this week in our workshop to justify the advice that we were going to give to a client.
This is what I mean-Law is certainty (discuss, 2000 words before next week please)
So the advice we gave was based on this case (higher court cases must be followed, right?)-even though every fibre in my body was screaming,
'This case is complete Barclays!!.'
God bless my late Cockney father)So, the tutor and I had what may be classed as 'a full and frank discussion where various points were forcefully argued'. The problem being that this FFD was with Temp-loyment (still no sign of our proper tutor yet) so it was akin to shadow boxing a waterfall-you expend a lot of energy but you achieve absolutely nothing.
The discussion went on between us through part of the break but she could not argue the logic for the case because the answer wasn't on her sheet.
Yes, she has an answer sheet for all the problems that are set in the workshop.
Which is great if we stick to the questions but we are a;
- Young (**cough**)
- Blossoming (**double cough**) collection of intellectual heavyweights (**collapses coughing**)
- Who all have enquiring minds (**I'll have to stop here to get some water**)
Well, not much...
Sometimes however, it is great to have a tutor who has to carry the answers around with her on printed A4 sheets-especially if she comes to our table, puts the sheet down (those A4 sheets do weigh a lot), so I can sneakily read them and then repeat what I just read to her.
Pauls handy tips for lawyers number 1: Practice reading upside down-bosses always leave important sheets on their desk-but believe you can't read them if the sheet is not facing you.
For sheer amusement value the highlight had to be the young lady on our table who was getting more and more 'wound up' when we started doing disability discrimination.
In every other area of discrimination the person who is claiming that they are being disciminated has their position analysed in relation to a comparator-someone who does not have the feature that they believe is the source of the discrimination but is identical in every other way. (so if a gay employee feels they are being discriminated against for reason of their sexuality they are compared to a straight employee of the same age/sex/religion etc)
But not for disabled people who believe that they have experienced discrimination on account of something that happened related to their disability.
The example we discussed was a guy who had to go to a therapist every day before starting work. This made him late and he was dismissed for timekeeping.
Ideally his comparator should be an employee who was late (for a perfectly good reason) but not in disability discrimination-his comparator is in fact someone who always turns up on time. So, the court then examines if the two have been treated differently.
- Disabled chap, always late, dismissed
- Comparator, always on time, kept in work.
I think I can.
Absolutely farcical.
The test is made so that the finding is 100% always going to show discrimination. The theory being that the employer then has a chance to justify why they acted discriminately and the tiny lickle bit of positive discrimination is simply to get to that stage.
And that was what so wound up this young woman-everyone in life has 'hot buttons'; topics that they feel passionately about, one way or the other. If you can engage and empathise with them on these (and they are things that the person is excited about) then you will make a friend for life.
But if they are subjects that the person is angered about then by tickling their hot button (I really should stop this thread or go and have a cold shower) then they will get very heated indeed (and you will have to work really hard to get them back onside).
Well, it appears that 'positive discrimination' is one of her angry hot button topics. It was wonderful to watch, like being an observer at your own personal volcanic eruption. First we had a little gentle smoke, followed by some deep rumblings leading up to a full pyrotechnic display and once deep buried residue spraying around the room...
Tuesday, a good turn out for our workshop-all 20 of us were present and it went swimmingly. I have been wondering why my table is so intimidating and this week I finally found out.
- first woman-has worked 2 years as a Crown court clerk
- second woman-has worked 5+ years as a legal executive in a firm that does criminal law only
- 3rd woman-worked 2 years as a paralegal in criminal only firm
- me-a blob, who has worked in shops
As an aside, I put the boot into him myself by telling him that one of the facts on an OHP he used was wrong.
Well, if you can't beat 'em...
One thing I have noticed is how much more vocal I have become on this course. I seem to interrupt in most (if not all) of our workshops at some stage, however this may not be such a good thing since if someone does it in a workshop/lecture that I'm attending and what they say is toss I have a tendency to class them as purveyors of toss...
Oh no, that nice man accused of growing and selling dope has pleaded guilty and that nice young man accused of rape has been found guilty.
Gosh, am I a bad judge of character-I would have let 'em both off!
Of course as I mentioned last week that gives us an excellent chance to look into appealing against sentence and/or conviction.
So why those two poor souls languish in gaol, swinging their legs, running their tin-cups against the bars and singing 'ole man river', (What do you meam, romantic notion of prison?) we start to represent a new client in a new area of law-driving offences.
This is so exciting-it's almost a class in black letter law! Our large group lecture was about offences, endorsements and disqualifications-wonderful!
(Although quite why anyone would want to use our firm since our last 2 clients are now serving long sentences, I do not know...) Don't these people ever listen to word of mouth?
Wednesday and more benefits. Things are getting seriously sticky and smelly. The class have started to have that glazed 'you say, we'll write it and maybe understand it one day'. This week we looked at Contributory non-means tested benefits (contribution based-jobseekers allowance and incapacity benefit) and although the class exercises were fairly straightforward, it wouldn't take too much variation from them in the exam to throw us off completely.
It did give Tigger the chance to role-play a confused, depressed middle aged woman though. I have noticed a trend that he enjoys playing all the female parts and he never plays the male ones. I shall monitor this situation closely. I am starting to get disturbing visions of him waiting for his wife to go out to choir practice so he can nip upstairs and try on her clothes.
Note to self: I shall have to get out more, or stop visiting so many interweb sites.
And to be fair, I did do this. I answered the questions as best as I could, flipping a few back to them when the chance arose. I showed my supportive qualities, I went over my experience; my teaching, my tutoring and was positive throughout.STOP PRESS: Looking at this weeks prep about Income support/Income-based Jobseekers allowance/Tax credits and housing benefit/council tax benefit the brown stuff is about to hit the rotating device.
OK, well we have reached Thursday.
Interview day 1. This post is based in Guildford, only about 1/2 a mile as the crow flies but a mile as the pedestrian walks. This is the one that requires knowledge of Excel 'as an intermediate' as well as Word 'as an intermediate'.
The Word part I can probably handle since I've done all my notes on it this year as well as all my assessed work for the two previous years.
The good news is that I did spend Tuesday afternoon testing myself on Excel formula and putting together a few spreadsheets from my business accounts work. That went very well, I was surprised how much I remembered and how good it looked.
The interview had been arranged by phone but was not confirmed in writing. I had been invited for a chat with the HR guy. I expected an informal talk with perhaps me being given a chance to prove my skills.
First impressions-it looks very swish. All glass and chrome. A little warm for me perhaps-I am the sort of guy who sweats in the freezer section of Sainburys but OK.
I go to reception then sit and wait-my appointment time comes and goes.
Not a good sign.
Eventually HR guy comes out shakes my hand and we go to an empty office.
First bad sign, there are two people there already. One has the suit and moustache that says 'I am a senior partner', the other is a young lady who is displying waaaay too much cleavage for me to concentrate properly.
Is this a test?
Look her in the eyes, Paul! Dammit!
Informal chat my buttcheeks-this is a real full-blown interview!
During the week I had taken the chance to scan a few books that I have downloaded from the net about interview technique and questions. In the past I have been too passive, so this week I tried to be a bit more positive in the interview and take charge.
Interview day 1. This post is based in Guildford, only about 1/2 a mile as the crow flies but a mile as the pedestrian walks. This is the one that requires knowledge of Excel 'as an intermediate' as well as Word 'as an intermediate'.
The Word part I can probably handle since I've done all my notes on it this year as well as all my assessed work for the two previous years.
The good news is that I did spend Tuesday afternoon testing myself on Excel formula and putting together a few spreadsheets from my business accounts work. That went very well, I was surprised how much I remembered and how good it looked.
The interview had been arranged by phone but was not confirmed in writing. I had been invited for a chat with the HR guy. I expected an informal talk with perhaps me being given a chance to prove my skills.
First impressions-it looks very swish. All glass and chrome. A little warm for me perhaps-I am the sort of guy who sweats in the freezer section of Sainburys but OK.
I go to reception then sit and wait-my appointment time comes and goes.
Not a good sign.
Eventually HR guy comes out shakes my hand and we go to an empty office.
First bad sign, there are two people there already. One has the suit and moustache that says 'I am a senior partner', the other is a young lady who is displying waaaay too much cleavage for me to concentrate properly.
Is this a test?
Look her in the eyes, Paul! Dammit!
Informal chat my buttcheeks-this is a real full-blown interview!
During the week I had taken the chance to scan a few books that I have downloaded from the net about interview technique and questions. In the past I have been too passive, so this week I tried to be a bit more positive in the interview and take charge.
I produced a list of questions that I had prepared to show an interest in the firm-and some of their answers in reply were pish-poor (so take that!)
The only thing is that I discovered very quickly that I really didn't want to work for them.
The phrase 'smug bankers' summed them up. Their firm exists to make people who have a lot of money to make more money and then to scoop a fair sized wodge out of it.
That's not for me-I realise that someone has to do it but it's not for me.
Plus the job was to take over as the 'case management assistant' from the chick with the cleavage who was going to start a training contract. The idea being that if you did well then they would consider you for a TC 'after a suitable time'-which in their view would not be before 2010.
So 3 years of writing memos and helping people who are earning vastly more than me to use Excel and Word.
That's not to say that I would have turned it down if it had been offered to me (I am nothing if not a hypocrite) but I knew that I would get an 'Unfortunately, we..' letter.
That afternoon I started to do some consolidation from the week and to focus on my next interview-the important one, my first with the CPS.
Friday-an early start for me. I was out of the house by 8.30 having done some cramming on the CPS and the 'cut n paste' answers that I had sent them. As I reviewed this a cold chill went down my spine.
I hadn't updated the application details from when I was working at Specsavers so I wrote it as if I still worked for them.
Now this might not be so bad, except in the application I spoke of my attention to detail and how I check and double check everything.
WHOOP WHOOP Catastrophe alert. 'Iceberg approaching Captain'.
I should take evasive action-I could go home an hide under the duvet...
Oh well, I better go and face the music-it's too late to turn back now. The job was based close to Southampton working in the office that handles Crown Court cases.
The building itself was difficult to find (in fact it was only about 50 metres from the station) but I went far too far up the road and had to come rushing back as time was going against me.
I took the life up to the third floor-at least two of the floors below were abandoned (not a good sign) and I couldn't help but notice the presence of 'Heightened Threat' posters up in the reception. (make that two not good signs).
A problem developed. I had brought with me what I had been told to bring. A passport (never had one) or a birth certificate (to prove that I have been born, I guess).
This was not enough (whuh?) and I should have brought a utility bill (I kid you not), how was I supposed to know? Amazingly my NUS ID was not good enough-even though it has my photo on it.
Eventually they decided that since I was there they ought to interview me. This time I knew that I would be facing a panel of 3 interviewers. (two female with a male 'chair') so no sneakily ambushing me!
We started with the usual, 'what do you know of the CPS' and 'why do you want to work for us?' before the interview proper started.
They asked me exactly the same questions as were on the application form. I had the form with me, I could have read out my answers! Why did they bother? Did they think that I had forgotten what I had written?
Anyhow I answered as well as I could. I expanded on what I had written and tried to include examples from both work and college. By the end I though that the chair and one of the panel were definitely pro-me with the other being anti.
When I was asked if I had any questions I produced a list (not the same one as for the day before, I was smart enough to write a fresh one!) but time was against me and I only got to ask 4 of the better ones. Again I had the joy of watching the panel flounder when the boot was on the other foot!
The interview had gone well, I had been positive and been in control even though I was outnumbered 3-1.
I was told that they would let me know the result that day at 3pm and could I give them a number where I could be contacted at that time.
So, I tootled off home and got back to working. I got the call at about 3:40 (a very bad sign) and
I should take evasive action-I could go home an hide under the duvet...
Oh well, I better go and face the music-it's too late to turn back now. The job was based close to Southampton working in the office that handles Crown Court cases.
The building itself was difficult to find (in fact it was only about 50 metres from the station) but I went far too far up the road and had to come rushing back as time was going against me.
I took the life up to the third floor-at least two of the floors below were abandoned (not a good sign) and I couldn't help but notice the presence of 'Heightened Threat' posters up in the reception. (make that two not good signs).
A problem developed. I had brought with me what I had been told to bring. A passport (never had one) or a birth certificate (to prove that I have been born, I guess).
This was not enough (whuh?) and I should have brought a utility bill (I kid you not), how was I supposed to know? Amazingly my NUS ID was not good enough-even though it has my photo on it.
Eventually they decided that since I was there they ought to interview me. This time I knew that I would be facing a panel of 3 interviewers. (two female with a male 'chair') so no sneakily ambushing me!
We started with the usual, 'what do you know of the CPS' and 'why do you want to work for us?' before the interview proper started.
They asked me exactly the same questions as were on the application form. I had the form with me, I could have read out my answers! Why did they bother? Did they think that I had forgotten what I had written?
Anyhow I answered as well as I could. I expanded on what I had written and tried to include examples from both work and college. By the end I though that the chair and one of the panel were definitely pro-me with the other being anti.
When I was asked if I had any questions I produced a list (not the same one as for the day before, I was smart enough to write a fresh one!) but time was against me and I only got to ask 4 of the better ones. Again I had the joy of watching the panel flounder when the boot was on the other foot!
The interview had gone well, I had been positive and been in control even though I was outnumbered 3-1.
I was told that they would let me know the result that day at 3pm and could I give them a number where I could be contacted at that time.
So, I tootled off home and got back to working. I got the call at about 3:40 (a very bad sign) and
got told the bad news-not this time, thanks but no thanks. The chairman very kindly gave me some feedback-apparently a couple of my answers had been vague and not specific enough for them.
The questions were (paraphrasing) 'give an example of a time where you had to meet a deadline' and 'give an example of when you had to prioritise your work'. With the greatest respect to the CPS these are really stupid questions. Everyone who works, whether its paid work/study or even a hobby does these things dozens of times a day-without being conscious of it. You may as well ask,
The questions were (paraphrasing) 'give an example of a time where you had to meet a deadline' and 'give an example of when you had to prioritise your work'. With the greatest respect to the CPS these are really stupid questions. Everyone who works, whether its paid work/study or even a hobby does these things dozens of times a day-without being conscious of it. You may as well ask,
'give an example of when you thought breathing was a good idea', OR
'explain how standing up plays a part in your working day'
'explain how standing up plays a part in your working day'
And yes, I am bitter!
All this means is that for my next interview I will have to invent a couple of bogus examples from my imagination-which is particularly amusing when I was told that one of the main characteristics they want from the applicants is honesty!
The following day I got a letter rejecting me from my previous interview and a rejection from a CPS post in Cheshire.
Can I please have no news for a week or so? Thanks.
All this means is that for my next interview I will have to invent a couple of bogus examples from my imagination-which is particularly amusing when I was told that one of the main characteristics they want from the applicants is honesty!
The following day I got a letter rejecting me from my previous interview and a rejection from a CPS post in Cheshire.
Can I please have no news for a week or so? Thanks.
posted by Paul Salmon at
4:41 pm
1 Comments:
ur a good writer. lovin ur blog.
By
caz, at 11:30 pm
Post a Comment
<< Home