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.
If only 200 can join then why would they send out 600 invites
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.
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.
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?
How can this be put at the door of the fans? Absolutely absurd to suggest that.
Clogging up the system, not turning off camera and mic.
As far as I'm aware only invitees joined, so there should have been no clogging up the system. 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.
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.
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.
Its not CAFC fans that are the problem here. Probably down to Teams or whatever it is that is delaying it all.
Exactly, 1,000 people turn up and do you get it? No you don't.
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.
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.
If only 200 can join then why would they send out 600 invites
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.
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.
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?
Exactly. You would think the clerk would notice that she had filled the room to capacity but the judge had yet to bloody join.
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?
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 again
How can this be put at the door of the fans? Absolutely absurd to suggest that.
Clogging up the system, not turning off camera and mic.
As far as I'm aware only invitees joined, so there should have been no clogging up the system. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Indeed, I doubt they expected 200+ Charlton fans to turn up? Perhaps Jill the court usher is still stuck in her ways with Skype?
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
Courts being open to the public is a pretty important part of our legal system..:
It is open to the public. But if you all turned up in reality would everyone get in? No.
Right, so there would be a capacity in the public gallery. No reason that can’t be established in exactly the same way here.
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.
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.
Comments
Letting people in one by one wouldn't have taken that long. 5-10 minutes?
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.
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.
edited before I saw, automated response I guess?
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.
What is going on? Can someone summarise please so I don't have to read the previous 17 pages of this thread
This is the courts / judiciary of our great nation. What a shambles.
Oh except Paige got told off.
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
Hope she gets sacked in the morning
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.