Cup runs over, disappears in rising liquid...

An exchange comes back to me from the ATA conference, in which a principal at an agency I've been known to work for asks how the work flow has been, and I respond that it's been pretty good, though I've recently had to refuse work from her agency two or three times. "Well," she says, "don't keep saying 'no' or else we'll stop calling."

This wasn't expressed as any kind of threat, just a fact of life. And it's not any kind of spiteful act on the part of the agency; it's simply that project managers tend to assign projects to people who can do the job (rare enough) who can be counted on to be available.

I have known this for quite some time, and didn't need reminding, but it occurs to me that when the only jobs this agency keeps called me up for are of the oh-crap-we-need-four-thousand-words-by-tomorrow-morning kind, maybe I'd be better off?

Anyway, client #2 has sent about 7K words for ASAP, but my ASAP is Sunday night right now. Then client #1 sends 20K words. This is on top of the 4K words I have from my best client for tonight, and three days of interpretation support starting tomorrow.

The only way this is going to work is if #1 - who is pretty good with deadlines (meaning, he hardly ever imposes any) - doesn't have an urgent need to see translations until next week.

No time to worry about that, though. I've just finished OCRing the PDF for today's ration of paycheck, so I better get to it.

Cheers...

Strict liability...

Apparently, limp-mindedness is not exclusively a disease of those addle-brained bozos who embrace zero-tolerance on this side of the Big Pond. From This Is Surrey Today:

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.

[...]

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.

Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.

Apparently, the cops had distributed a leaflet warning citizens that the only thing they should do if they found a firearm was to call the police and not touch it and (goodness gracious) not even think about turning in the weapon to the police.

The article concludes:

Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."

What ever happened to the concept of mens rea, commonly stated as "guilty intent"?

Sentencing is scheduled for December. It'd be interesting to see if the court throws the book at Clarke, or dishes out a slap on the wrist.

Cheers...

P.S. Curiously, the site states that "Comments on this story have been disabled for legal reasons."