above: DISTORTED screenshot of my photo (no design infringements contained therein, but if I turned it over…)
It’s cold out there, innit…
Didn’t she make herself look like a silly hoe as if tilling her ground like that’d make good…
please don’t ask… but in case you’re wondering, that hoe pictured above is not staged and just happened to be there, behind my bathroom door. I photographed it during February just as it stood, wondering about a conversation with it, like when i wrote a conversation i had to have with my rake, for a university driven creative writing excercise (moocs! – one of the best writing outputs I ever made actually!) Reminding me I should get back to some creative writing. Seeing and snapping. Objects.
By the way, happy New Year for yesterday! And the one a couple of months ago!! Apols for not getting around to it before…!
Why would anyone ever hire ‘professional services’ from litigation hungry, capitalist cultured people who might turn out to be so inhuman as this bbc news story seems to demonstrate? N.B: I am not seeking work whilst so decrepid and am only trying and failing not to exhaust myself while I practise some skill-building/retention however shit you might think IT.is. Art is meant to be. And Rubbish. So be it.
I read and could have wept for the family who have now become victims of such apparent injustice in the face of what appears to be gross unprofessionalism and the closing quote said it all really:
“I want to prove to people that they have to face any consequences when they say something on the internet.” the human(?) as quoted by the BBC, after an overseas court decided they should be compensated* following the personal expressions by their
British client of complaint and dissatisfaction upon personal social media at the service failures and assuming significant emotional distress at the time of posting whatever remarks, understandably.
Makes no sense to me that! *They made a choice to close their business! They’ve now been ‘awarded’ enough money by an overseas court decision for a start-up creative to have enough cashflow to take ten years earning little or no money restarting another one! (If they were in Britain).
I’d hope the TDA prevents them seeking clients as a ‘professional’ in the UK ever again because consumer protection rights are so critical and most families cannot afford such FINE. And while such unprofessionalism exists as shown in this news write-up… The TDA covers a wide-range of things. Taking that court action doesn’t appear professional standard of conflict resolution, it appears as if taking advantage of an opportunity for financial gain+!
It’s as if we may not be human in our interactions anymore! While others might make advantage of a ‘financial win:win’ situation. This is just stringing along varying twists and turns of how to interpret the words of Law.
I admit I am in ignorance of the full-facts so really am sparing my opinion for another day, elsewhere. But the apparent motivations of the litigator/appellant’s legal action being to erode a British** person’s right to personal freedom of speech+! and (a) in any appeal process it should be clear that the judgement issued should be overturned. If only courts could ever be relied on for fairness! and (b) I may profess (as a non-professional) that a lot of people use that word professional not really understanding our British English very well and we mustn’t forget the breadth and scope in the meaning of our words in an ever-complicated world and use them freely!