Junior8

7 hours ago, gareth said:

Have to take issue with this. No-one should ever not get paid if payment was - as it should always be - part of the deal when taking on any engagement. As long as you've got something in writing - on paper or on an e-mail  - noting what the agreement was, there's no way you should ever adopt the position of shrugging your shoulders and thinking "ah well, I'll just write this one off to experience".

That's true of course but I think you just have to accept the unpleasant reality of bad debts that simply aren't worth chasing through any system, and that applies in any business. If they won't pay, and serial non-payers are shameless, they won't pay.

47 minutes ago, Jivemaster said:

Sometimes you may not get paid! That's not how you planned it but that's how it happens sometimes. 

 

I am still owed £20 from 1972 but the lesson paid for itself many times over the years. On the other point I was called in for a MIlenium Ball event where the organiser was struggling and it was only at a meeting the day before in answer to a question about the licence all I got was in reply 'What Licence?' 

Bad shows can happen anywhere - I well recall seeing three actors of national renown heading for a stage door looking like they were on the way to the scaffold to appear in maybe the worst Shakespeare I have ever seen in a professional house. But they were heading there just like you've headed there because they were pros. That's why Jive's advice is bang on. I'd go further and venture that you're lucky to have had such a steep learning curve in such an obscure effort but be aware it could happen again at any time. That's live entertainment for you as dje so rightly points out.

Thanks for both tips. I gave up with the Reith Lectures a few years ago when they went through a bit of a trough. I usually avoid anything labelled Dimbleby but I will look this one out. 

On 12/2/2021 at 1:20 AM, Savoytheatre Tonyrefail said:

Yep, they will not let me use the ION. I am a professional of over 45 years. I have fitted out theatres and own one myself. I have used all types of desks and own a few. I have used an ION many times, but the reason they give for not letting me use it is that the company are amateur and therefore I am too. Oh well, if that is how it is.

Given the date this may already of passed but if I were you and If they persisted - I'd refuse to go. You know you are taking a potential problem, albeit highly unlikely, into a venue that apparently has none and no stake in solving yours. 

4 hours ago, themadhippy said:

 

I'm sure we called that nationalisation when I went to school

Agreed but we had governments then too...

And in another Johnsonian handbrake turn the changes in towing regulations due to take place on 15th November were pulled https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-rule...om-autumn-2021 without much of a fanfare. (Scroll down a bit on the link and you will find the announcement.)

This means that as it stands if you can't tow you can't get a test to tow either. 

And just two days later https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59373198

Reports now emerging but from 'un named sources' hint at a number of possible causes of the live round being present in the weapon including allegations that the guns were being used for 'recreational' shooting by the crew!

On 10/23/2021 at 6:59 PM, sunray said:

On 10/23/2021 at 7:36 AM, johnlinford said:

While the details are still unclear around this, it would seem there had been some reports of issues with firearm safety on the set which resulted in some of the camera crew walking off set.

 

It should also be noted that terminology can be a little confusing - a blank will often be referred to as a "live round" as opposed to an inert firearm.

So farI'd only been aware of walkouts due to accomodation for the crew being 50 miles away and the resulting long commute.

From LA Times

Safety protocols standard in the industry, including gun inspections, were not strictly followed on the “Rust” set near Santa Fe, the sources said. They said at least one of the camera operators complained last weekend to a production manager about gun safety on the set. Three crew members who were present at the Bonanza Creek Ranch set on Saturday said they were particularly concerned about two accidental prop gun discharges.Baldwin’s stunt double accidentally fired two rounds Saturday after being told that the gun was “cold” — lingo for a weapon that doesn’t have any ammunition, including blanks — two crew members who witnessed the episode told the Los Angeles Times.“There should have been an investigation into what happened,” a crew member said. “There were no safety meetings. There was no assurance that it wouldn’t happen again. All they wanted to do was rush, rush, rush.” A colleague was so alarmed by the prop gun misfires that he sent a text message to the unit production manager. “We’ve now had 3 accidental discharges. This is super unsafe,” according to a copy of the message reviewed by The Times.

Although it has been given wide coverage I think we ought to record the 2021 Film Set Shooting Fatality here as it raises so many of the pertinent issues around safety which don't ever go away. (I apologise for using this typically shoddily written BBC report but at least their stuff does stay up forever.)

I'm more interested in the processor circuit that makes all the announcers sound like Raymond Brookes-Ward.

Good luck - that' all I can add. There are several nightmare spaces around here where even the choice of building materials has added to the difficulties of multiple flat surfaces and angles and nothing seems to really work in remediation.

Thinking back I can recall a Junior 8 being installed - and never used actually - in 1974 (it went into a skip in 1992) and Furse carried on listing their version for a little longer iirc.

Your description is of the Mini 2 with the large fuse holders as shown in Bruce's link which I first came across in 1972. The price was high and not competitive with the Junior 8 which was still listed I think until 1970 and maybe even later though it doesn't appear in that 1971 brochure. I don't think the competition had anything quite so neat in the solid state portable line at the time. I beleiev the first version had 1 5A per channel.

 

Pressed post too late but let it stand.

To be fair to them the history of H&S in educational settings has developed through a number of cases of highly publicised complete reckless stupidity. After that twerp at Lands End in 1985 we had to risk assess all school trips - which we, to be honest, should probably have been doing before really. At that time pretty well all local authorities carried their own insurance risks not underwritten by any third party and they suddenly realised how things had changed after 1974 and with the easier access to negligence litigation and 36 years later we are where we are. To be honest I'd rather have things the way they are now than the way they were in 1975, even though it's added cost and time. Whether you should need this for a new piece of equipment though is a moot point I think....

The only people ""qualified"" to do an inspection like that would be the designer (basically you) or the manufacturer / supplier. Anyone else is going to be charging you for learning about your weird bit of kit and double checking / collating the specs on it for them to inspect it against.

 

Absolutely - and one would assume it has passed a design review and inspection before it was supplied. (But I heard a dafter story about design reviews recently - which I'd better not pass on here.) What is even more galling for Dan I suspect is that he did exactly the right thing to get the right solution to his access issues only to be faced with another hurdle.

VOIP phone systems can go down without warning and for long periods - I have personal experience of this through two family members - and that is without any sudden loss of power. I agree there should be a landline as back-up but you can't argue with some people. Wait till they've been without all phones for a morning then have a go...

How are you getting him/her on for the reveal?

It really isn't as simple as people seem to think. Trailers under 3500 Kg must by law be roadworthy and inspected by the owner before each use. This was brought home to me due to a case where Person A had loaned a trailer to Person B who side swiped a third party causing a lot of damage after something failed on the trailer. The insurers went after Person A who was found to be liable due to failure to maintain and check the trailer. People wouldn't be so sanguine after taking a casual look at many of the boat trailers parked up around here - or had one basically disintegrate next to them while innocently walking along the pavement just being missed by the wheel as it flew past.

 

I agree with Sunray - it's as important to test the trailer as the towing vehicle.

 

 

 

I agree with Tom. Too many times towers do a great job of lighting the generator brilliantly and throwing much else into shadow doubling the risks. The important thing is that people can see where they are walking and that is best done by decent festoon over designated walkways. It looks good too. The labelling of the rows clearly and decent clear signposting of the exit route is as important. At exit time in the dark marshalling the people is as important as marshalling the cars. (A bete noir of mine over twenty years of reporting outdoor events is the fact that many an organiser simply doesn't organise and marshall exiting properly. I have seen so much chaos that could have been avoided.)

There was an adage when I was a few years younger when we lost the tape echo machines and other effects became more prevalent... "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should"! Talking to someone else at the same show with macular degeneration who found the ultra bright beams sweeping the audience really painful and had to leave because of that plus they couldn't make out a word of the lyrics through the din.

 

Good to know it's not just me turning into Victor Meldew. ?

 

In 2019 I went to a small hog roast event in an open sided marquee where the entertainment was the typical backing track and two piece both with guitars. They were travelling as much PA as a six piece band would have done for a theatre forty years ago and not only was it too loud - until they were told enough times to damn well turn it down - but also quite awful quality. The problem wasn't the amplification it was the fact that the desk and other bits and bobs gave them too many choices and in each case they'd made the wrong one!

Not good news for anybody in my view. But the Tories have increasing 'form' in this area. Any government which permits vehicles to be used on the public road without an annual visit to a testing station - as this mob have with classics - is capable of anything. (The Vintage Vehicle sector did not ask for it and advised against it but hey that's what you get these days.) The consultation referred to is here by the way. However having seen the way many LGVs are driven I don't see it making much difference in the long run - sadly.

 

The biggest elephant in the room with all this has always been the granting of 'grandfather rights' to existing licence holders when new tests are introduced. It is quite ludicrous that I can't climb into the cab of a modern artic which miss J8 who did the LGV training says is a piece of cake but I can into a pre 1960 Scammell Pioneer and set off down the road.

If I was doing it all (and with amateurs in someone else's space I'd probably think twice and then not bother) I'd follow what Tom says especially about quantities. You could of course take the easy way out and simply have a stagehand in overalls come on and tip the water over her!

Agreed but if you wanted to put together a theoretical environmentally unfriendly event surely you'd very likely come up with something very like the average three day festival. I am talking about the environment in its widest sense not the limited carbon agenda we hear so much about. I am thinking of one which turns a very pleasant part of the countryside into something that looks like a POW camp, causes incredible traffic and transport dislocation for those wanting to go about their normal business, and ends with a fingertip search of the ground after the get out before its safe to put the sheep back in. That's ignoring the fact that 'revellers' leave the area with so much refuse it would need a new landfill site.

 

I have no doubt that with a bit of effort you could cut the carbon footprint of the event itself to satisfy any target - but that doesn't seem to me to be the point.

 

I am neither for or against the things, though their appeal has always perplexed me, I just wonder if the right environmental questions are ever asked.