Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ESI 1 v ESI 2 - Initial Hearing 01-02/09/2020, Court of Appeal 17/09/2020 (p127)
Comments
-
Seems like they still haven't sorted it out, and we've all been out for ages now.0
-
If only 200 can join then why would they send out 600 invitesCL_Phantom said:There's a limited amount of slots on Teams, say 200 people can join and theres 600 trying to log in, it creates a queuing system, people that need to be there will get caught in the queue - causing delays- you then have to take into consideration the courts ability to host, connection speeds, bandwith, server... sure Teams and the courts hardware can host 200 people - but not necessarily successfully.
I've sat in a team training meeting on Teams, 42 people, one person sharing a screen so we can watch.. it was shite.5 -
Right but you can set the meeting up so that everyone waits in the lobby before being admitted. You could then admit the people who have to be on the call (in this case our solicitors and Paul Elliott) first and then the remaining capacity goes to joe public.CL_Phantom said:There's a limited amount of slots on Teams, say 200 people can join and theres 600 trying to log in, it creates a queuing system, people that need to be there will get caught in the queue - causing delays- you then have to take into consideration the courts ability to host, connection speeds, bandwith, server... sure Teams and the courts hardware can host 200 people - but not necessarily successfully.
I've sat in a team training meeting on Teams, 42 people, one person sharing a screen so we can watch.. it was shite.1 -
This is well tragic0
-
I thought the whole idea of logging into a virtual lobby is that the Clerk of the Court can pull in individuals to the hearing in priority order. Those with Mics/cameras on can be immediately evicted until they learn to read the instructions on using the service properly.
Letting people in one by one wouldn't have taken that long. 5-10 minutes?6 -
Elliott must be loving the thought of adjournment.2
-
CAFC Facts took that tweet down, so I can only assume that means the statement about it being delayed/cancelled is false1
-
As far as I'm aware only invitees joined, so there should have been no clogging up the system.Nadou said:
Clogging up the system, not turning off camera and mic.jacob_CAFC said:How can this be put at the door of the fans? Absolutely absurd to suggest that.
Anyone not turning off camera & mics was neither here nor there.
It didn't proceed because the judge, solicitors & Elliot couldn't join.
This is down to the court's procedures and no one else.5 -
That assumes they are included on the priority list on the new invite.Richard J said:I don't blame anyone, but as Lee says It is what it is.
I agree it is farcical.
Please leave the call and let Rich and Rick report on Twitter.1 -
Exactly, 1,000 people turn up and do you get it? No you don't.golfaddick said:
But why not. This is the British justice system & everyone has the right to see/hear what is happening. In real life you would probably have to lock the doors & turn people away, but as its being held virtually surely that makes it even easier to let people "into" the hearing.cafcfan1990 said:Yes please just leave it. You don't have to hear every word, there will be a report, we really need this to go ahead.
Its not CAFC fans that are the problem here. Probably down to Teams or whatever it is that is delaying it all.
I agree that the IT is the issue, but why keep trying purely for the sake of it? Pointless and completely against what we have to achieve today.1 - Sponsored links:
-
Leeds_Addick said:
If only 200 can join then why would they send out 600 invitesCL_Phantom said:There's a limited amount of slots on Teams, say 200 people can join and theres 600 trying to log in, it creates a queuing system, people that need to be there will get caught in the queue - causing delays- you then have to take into consideration the courts ability to host, connection speeds, bandwith, server... sure Teams and the courts hardware can host 200 people - but not necessarily successfully.
I've sat in a team training meeting on Teams, 42 people, one person sharing a screen so we can watch.. it was shite.
edited before I saw, automated response I guess?0 -
Precisely.se9addick said:
Right but you can set the meeting up so that everyone waits in the lobby before being admitted. You could then admit the people who have to be on the call (in this case our solicitors and Paul Elliott) first and then the remaining capacity goes to joe public.CL_Phantom said:There's a limited amount of slots on Teams, say 200 people can join and theres 600 trying to log in, it creates a queuing system, people that need to be there will get caught in the queue - causing delays- you then have to take into consideration the courts ability to host, connection speeds, bandwith, server... sure Teams and the courts hardware can host 200 people - but not necessarily successfully.
I've sat in a team training meeting on Teams, 42 people, one person sharing a screen so we can watch.. it was shite.0 -
Exactly. You would think the clerk would notice that she had filled the room to capacity but the judge had yet to bloody join.Addickted said:I thought the whole idea of logging into a virtual lobby is that the Clerk of the Court can pull in individuals to the hearing in priority order. Those with Mics/cameras on can be immediately evicted until they learn to read the instructions on using the service properly.
Letting people in one by one wouldn't have taken that long. 5-10 minutes?4 -
Only with someone's hand up his bottom allegedly.roseandcrown said:
Does Elliot talk?AndyG said:
Knowing Elliottttttttt he will say we are all there to support him lolStig said:
You're right we don't want it adjourned, but it's no bad thing for the court to understand the level of interest in this.SheedyCAFC said:Best that none of us join and just follow the updates, we don’t want this adjourned2 -
I know we never kick off on time but this is ridiculous4
-
A shame they didn't let the parties, legal representatives and press in first and then open it up to the public.
Having left when the clerk decided to reset everything, I agree it's best not to try and rejoin - too much in the way of delay and disruption already.6 -
What is going on? Can someone summarise please so I don't have to read the previous 17 pages of this thread
0 -
Yup - asked all of the "players" to be in at 1.30 and the rest of us afterwards. Only problem is if one of the connections drops - like the judge or barrister and then they cant get back in againAddickted said:I thought the whole idea of logging into a virtual lobby is that the Clerk of the Court can pull in individuals to the hearing in priority order. Those with Mics/cameras on can be immediately evicted until they learn to read the instructions on using the service properly.
Letting people in one by one wouldn't have taken that long. 5-10 minutes?
0 -
Who threw the pigs on to the pitch?
1 - Sponsored links:
-
People are openly sharing links.....Covered End said:
As far as I'm aware only invitees joined, so there should have been no clogging up the system.Nadou said:
Clogging up the system, not turning off camera and mic.jacob_CAFC said:How can this be put at the door of the fans? Absolutely absurd to suggest that.
Anyone not turning off camera & mics was neither here nor there.
It didn't proceed because the judge, solicitors & Elliot couldn't join.
This is down to the court's procedures and no one else.0 -
Nadou said:
Clogging up the system, not turning off camera and mic.jacob_CAFC said:How can this be put at the door of the fans? Absolutely absurd to suggest that.
The system should be able to cope, it's in no way on the fans.Nadou said:
Clogging up the system, not turning off camera and mic.jacob_CAFC said:How can this be put at the door of the fans? Absolutely absurd to suggest that.
2 -
Sitting here thinking I need to get a life lol2
-
Never fail to be unsurprised that some Charlton fans instant reaction is to blame other Charlton fans.
This is the courts / judiciary of our great nation. What a shambles.24 -
Relevant people couldn't get in and nothing has happened.flyingkiwiDK said:What is going on? Can someone summarise please so I don't have to read the previous 17 pages of this thread
Oh except Paige got told off.3 -
I was told about an hour ago on the phone by one of the court staff who take the requests, that the number is 300.CL_Phantom said:There's a limited amount of slots on Teams, say 200 people can join and theres 600 trying to log in, it creates a queuing system, people that need to be there will get caught in the queue - causing delays- you then have to take into consideration the courts ability to host, connection speeds, bandwith, server... sure Teams and the courts hardware can host 200 people - but not necessarily successfully.
I've sat in a team training meeting on Teams, 42 people, one person sharing a screen so we can watch.. it was shite.
And I imagine the email request and invite from the court is automated, I doubt a secretary sat there and counted through 200+ emails.0 -
se9addick said:
Right but you can set the meeting up so that everyone waits in the lobby before being admitted. You could then admit the people who have to be on the call (in this case our solicitors and Paul Elliott) first and then the remaining capacity goes to joe public.CL_Phantom said:There's a limited amount of slots on Teams, say 200 people can join and theres 600 trying to log in, it creates a queuing system, people that need to be there will get caught in the queue - causing delays- you then have to take into consideration the courts ability to host, connection speeds, bandwith, server... sure Teams and the courts hardware can host 200 people - but not necessarily successfully.
I've sat in a team training meeting on Teams, 42 people, one person sharing a screen so we can watch.. it was shite.
Indeed, I doubt they expected 200+ Charlton fans to turn up? Perhaps Jill the court usher is still stuck in her ways with Skype?
Perhaps, they're just useless
And Teams is sh!t
0 -
The clerk of the court (if that's who it was talking) was being instructed by someoen else whispering to her, so maybe she was learning?
Hope she gets sacked in the morning0 -
I agree to a point. Maybe a failsafe in place for no. Of people when x have asked to join. Teams doesn’t work this way however.se9addick said:
Right, so there would be a capacity in the public gallery. No reason that can’t be established in exactly the same way here.esseffect said:
It is open to the public. But if you all turned up in reality would everyone get in? No.se9addick said:
Courts being open to the public is a pretty important part of our legal system..:esseffect said:Why can’t we just let it happen and stop trying to join? Cawley and others will report the truth to us stop delays matters more
Now if you think the court should have given out x amount of invites based on what the severs could handle, that would make no sense.
Do you send out invites to a party and stop when you’ve reached capacity, or do you logically expect some people won’t come so over invite and then turn away at the door.
0 -
Absolutely nothing, typical Charlton never kick off on time.flyingkiwiDK said:What is going on? Can someone summarise please so I don't have to read the previous 17 pages of this thread
4
This discussion has been closed.
