(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address.
| schestowitz | https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/12/peb-confirms-that-candidates-will-not.html?showComment=1607870407286 | Dec 20 02:35 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | " | Dec 20 02:35 |
| schestowitz | Saturday, 12 December 2020 at 21:15:00 GMT | Dec 20 02:35 |
| schestowitz | Graver Tank, I'm afraid your comments will not gain much traction here. Sarah Boxall's comments have been appalling. To say otherwise is to wilfully misread them. The PEB rules in relation to the breaks were entirely clear and not at all ambiguous. To say that they are open to interpretation is frankly incorrect. | Dec 20 02:35 |
| schestowitz | Yes, she was very active trying to answer questions and that is commendable indeed. But does that mean she has not made a hash of things? She has made a mistake and the right thing to do would be to apologise. To say that "demanding apologies" is arrogant is sheer arrogance in itself. Do you believe that all conduct by the PEB is above reproach? | Dec 20 02:35 |
| schestowitz | Sarah has also said that how much time candidates take has no bearing on whether they pass or fail. If that is correct, what is the need to have an insanely time-pressured FD4? Which is presumably set / approved by Sarah herself? It makes no sense. Moreover, for the same reasons, what is the need to worry whether candidates took an extra 15 mins to complete the papers online? | Dec 20 02:35 |
| schestowitz | Do you know why the vast majority of attorneys who qualify want nothing to do with the PEB? It is because of the poor reputation PEB has. Who in their right mind would want to be associated with an organisation that is incompetent, lacks transparency, shows no willingness to modernise and to top it all, is incredibly arrogant? | Dec 20 02:35 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Dec 20 02:35 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousSunday, 13 December 2020 at 10:29:00 GMT | Dec 20 02:35 |
| schestowitz | I agree that demanding removal is unwarranted. | Dec 20 02:35 |
| schestowitz | I have volunteered in the past and it is largely a thankless task. So hats off to Sarah and associates for getting the exams running during a very trying year. | Dec 20 02:35 |
| schestowitz | I am qualified so have no skin in the game. I understand the need to treat all candidates equally. However, I am concerned that it's seemingly under consideration to retroactively interpret the rules to insist that time allocated for printing, scanning, and screen breaks, should have been used for only those purposes. Take the example of screen breaks. Assuming a candidate did use the time for screen breaks, how could you | Dec 20 02:35 |
| schestowitz | even prove they did not think about the exam question. (I assume this is the rationale behind the EPO's approach in not letting you return to answer pre screen break.) This has the potential to get very messy. Given 2020 has been trying for all, wouldn't the best solution be to tighten up the rules for 2021? At worse, compensate the candidates who did "adhere" to the rules rather than punish those that did "not". | Dec 20 02:35 |
| schestowitz | As and aside, you would be hard pressed to find a plausible argument that the PEB rules as they were written are the same as the EPO's proposed rules, which is seemingly what you suggesting by reference to wrongly interpreting the rules. | Dec 20 02:35 |
| schestowitz | Finally, focusing on whether a critic could to do better does nothing to address the criticism itself. Assuming also that critics are not qualified is at best irrelevant and at worst patronising, and once again sidesteps the criticism. | Dec 20 02:35 |
| schestowitz | If the exams don't require "improvement", what is the point of the Mercer Review? Perhaps it is just to appease all those unqualified critics out there who think they know better. Respect is not a two way street. | Dec 20 02:35 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Dec 20 02:35 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousSunday, 13 December 2020 at 15:40:00 GMT | Dec 20 02:35 |
| schestowitz | The age old defence can be summarised as one of the following (but never said together): if you are fit to practise, you will pass the exams; if you pass the exams, you are fit to practise. | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | It is circular reasoning at its finest that conveniently avoids defining what fit to practice means and any debate as to how the exams in the current format are determinative. | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | Graver TankSunday, 13 December 2020 at 19:12:00 GMT | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | No, I am not Sarah and I do not knw her personally. But I have been involved in teaching and making exams and evaluation tests for many years. | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | I agree there are many issues with the UK Exams - hopefully, the move to online will be the catalyst. But as legal professionals, you know the info on blogs in not necessarily accurate, final and official. | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | The PEB has to take decisions, which will be "fair" to most and "unfair" to some. I hope also that they are very lenient this year because of all the chaos. | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | But the starting points must be the official instructions, and not blogs (whoever is posting). And the patchwork of applicable health and safety regulations. | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 14 December 2020 at 14:35:00 GMT | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | So then, Graver Tank, if we cannot rely on information provided by the Chief Examiner on an unofficial blog, what is the point in providing information in such a way? In your earlier comment you asked if silence is preferable. The answer to that is a resounding yes if the information that is being provided is unhelpful or downright incorrect, as we have seen. | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | Graver TankMonday, 14 December 2020 at 19:04:00 GMT | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | Strange - everyone else has to admit their mistakes. But you will not admit yours by relying on such info. From the instructions for Candidates: "In the event that you make a Special Consideration request or apply for an Enquiry about Results, or your script is reviewed as part of a Malpractice Investigation, you will not be able to support any case you might wish to make on the basis that you relied on information about the | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | examinations from sources other than PEB, such as internet blogs or posts on social media." | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousTuesday, 15 December 2020 at 22:51:00 GMT | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | Graver Tank - Sarah Boxall is PEB Chief Examiner, as she has expressly asserted in her IPKat posts on numerous occasions. How could information Sarah supplies be said to be "from sources other than PEB"? Surely information from the PEB Chief Examiner is as much "information from PEB" as it is possible to be? If we can't trust the Chief Examiner, who can we trust? | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | More generally, what is the point you are trying to make in your posts? Your argumentation would appear to suggest that you are not a patent attorney. If that is correct, your opinions aren't a valid or useful contribution to the debate. If on the other hand you are a patent attorney, that would probably demonstrate the exams not to be a useful test for fitness/ability to practice. | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 16 December 2020 at 08:51:00 GMT | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | Umm.. I'm not sure I understand you, and I don't think you have understood the main issue here. Most candidates learnt early on not to rely on Sarah Boxall's pre-exam comments after they found out that they were incorrect. As for the main point of contention - her comments which implied that candidates may be subject to disqualification for following PEB guidelines - I don't think anyone is relying on them. Most are just | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | really irritated at the thoughtlessness, particularly as they were made by the Chief Examiner. I really don't think this is too hard to understand. The extract you have pasted above is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. What exactly would you like me/us to apologise for? | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousTuesday, 15 December 2020 at 15:03:00 GMT | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | Stepping aside from the PEB and looking at the wider examination programme, I do think there are too many exams and the burden on candidates in recent times have been mighty. Yes, there were those who had to do alot of exams before but I honestly don't think the exams have helped me developed into a better attorney. Probably a discussion for the wider community. | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousTuesday, 15 December 2020 at 17:37:00 GMT | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | So we've gone from the official PEB guidelines saying you can use a screen break as you wish, to unsubstantiated comments on blog suggesting you would be disqualified for doing so, to an opaque statement from PEB neither confirming or denying either route. Glad we've cleared that up then.... | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 17 December 2020 at 17:11:00 GMT | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | There is now an apology from Sarah Boxall issued on the PEB general communications page. | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousFriday, 18 December 2020 at 12:44:00 GMT | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | I'm glad Sarah Boxall has apologised. Rightly so. Lets put this matter behind us all. | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousFriday, 18 December 2020 at 12:48:00 GMT | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | Sarah has now offered an apology. It shouldn't happen but I've accepted it and considered this matter closed. | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | I'm not sure I entirely understand PEB's statement as a chief examiner of PEB must surely be related to PEB. Anyway - matter closed for me. | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousFriday, 18 December 2020 at 12:54:00 GMT | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | An apology from Sarah is received and accepted. | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | I'm more concerned about the disconnection between the PEB GB board and the PEB examiners. There doesn't seem to be much communication as evidently shown here where Sarah did not know what the PEB exam guidelines were. In future, there needs to be better co-ordination and communication. There has been enormous damage and distrust between candidates (attorneys) and the PEB out of this unfortunate episode. | Dec 20 02:36 |
| schestowitz | An apology from Sarah is a good start in recovering the relationship between PEB and the wider trainee/attorneys profession. | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousFriday, 18 December 2020 at 12:57:00 GMT | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | Hats off for the apology, and we can go back to the pre-existing and more global issues with the UK system. I sincerely hope PEB will not disrupt the EQEs with the sort of drama, which we have seen in previous years including poor timing of controversial announcements. Let's hope the 2020 papers are examined to a reasonable standard without said controversy. This year has already been hard, the shift to online exams a | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | significant but necessary change which brought with it uncertainty affecting preparations - let's hope for some simplicity where it can be afforded. | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | " | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/11/weel-done-cutty-sark-from-poem-to.html?showComment=1607889171160#c6387304127550031763 | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | "So what was Vic Chestnut talking about in his song Cutty Sark? I can find nothing explaining this song or it's reference to "the only thing I've been sleeping with is the Cutty Sark"." | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/12/chappelles-show-on-netflix-unforgiving.html?showComment=1608063947535#c2330012951904939674 | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | " | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | Chief Content Officer of HBO/HBOMax announced that they will stop streaming Chappelle's Show at the end of the year, honoring Dave Chappelle's request. | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/chappelles-show-hbo-max-1234853533/ | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | " | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/12/artists-speak-out-at-uk-economics-of.html?showComment=1608290163219#c7765871836620944892 | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | "PRS are not in this calculation. PRS collect on behalf of their memebers (songwriters, composers and music publishers) and make royality payments when the copyright in the musical compositions and lyrics is communicated to the public (e.g. a bar pays a PRS licence to play in their venue). Equitable remuneration would be dealt with by PPL who's members are performers and record companies for the use of the soundrecording. " | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/12/guest-post-translations-of-article-17.html?showComment=1608037188062#c8171795710707794508 | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | " | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | I like this Article, but I still believe that this is more or less theoretical exercise. | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | From English law point of view it is indeed important as there is clear distinction between „best efforts“ and „reasonable efforts“ or „commercially reasonable efforts“. | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | This is not the case in most other jurisdictions, to my best knowledge. When it comes to the Czech Republic, hell knows how would be „best efforts“ interpreted under the Czech law, the same applies to the currently proposed term that can be roughly translated as „every effort“. Both can mean literally anything | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | " | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/12/artists-speak-out-at-uk-economics-of.html?showComment=1608018210295#c3857552523156838824 | Dec 20 02:37 |
| schestowitz | "Thank you for the clarification. The blog post makes several references to songwriters, which got me confused. Also, when you speak of the splits: "Spotify keep 30%, and give 55% to the record label and 15% goes to the publisher (who owns the copyright in the musical work)", where are PRS and the songwriters in this? " | Dec 20 02:37 |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell-social | Dec 20 02:41 | |
| *asusbox2 (~rianne@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell-social | Dec 20 02:41 | |
| *asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Dec 20 02:44 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) | Dec 20 02:44 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection) | Dec 20 18:36 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell-social | Dec 20 18:36 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Dec 20 20:37 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell-social | Dec 20 20:37 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Dec 20 20:53 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell-social | Dec 20 20:53 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Client Quit) | Dec 20 20:55 | |
| *viera has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) | Dec 20 20:55 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell-social | Dec 20 20:56 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Dec 20 20:58 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell-social | Dec 20 20:58 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address.