[Inverse]

(Original post by zaliack)
Most people don't expect a virus to destroy your computer. It happens. If he was in employment, what would the employer think if he said 'Oh, umm, police seized my computer away for evidence against a friend of mine, so I don't have that important report for you'. He should of saved it on his USB or an external hard drive, like most people do.

Should have*

[Abbseh]

Extenuating circumstances can work in weird ways... I had a horrific 4 day migraine right on my PE exam and so couldn't go in for the exam, as hard as I tried. We let the exam board know and sent off a medical note and they took my B through from my coursework for my overall GCSE, no exam needed.
You don't know until you try, I'd say let the head know anyway and the worst thing that is said is 'no'. No harm done!

[EllaBella<3]

I would consider the emotional stress of your mother being arrested more than enough to affect your performance - at such an age as well! And by the sounds of things, he witnessed it too? I would definitely advise telling your head teacher, and even if it isn't classed an extenuating circumstances, they will take note of this and pass it on to, for example, his chosen college/sixth form, even university, explaining why (if!) he underachieves. An exam board may not consider it extenuating circumstances, however, admissions officers do take things like this in to account.

Best of luck to your friend.

And those that are digging at this kid about not backing up - have some compassion?

[cl_steele]

might just be my way of looking on this but i dont think the exam boards are going to be to leniant seeing as it was the police who seized his computer...

[tty]

It IS most definitely an extenuating circumstance. Obviously, he can't just use his word, he'll need evidence such as a police report etc to show the exam board.

[zaliack]

(Original post by Frasier)
People on here make me laugh. How could you possibly know what the exam board would say in this case? Sounds to me that your friend, if the story is true, might well have a case, but obviously they will have to ask. I just love the amount of people on this site who think they know what an exam board etc. will say even though they clearly have no idea what they're taking about.

If you were in employment, and your computer got seized by the police, your employer might well think that was a fair enough excuse. Most employers would think it was. Most human beings would think it was fair enough, given it was unlikely to happen, and backing up procedures aren't generally conducted every day. I wish people would just talk about what they knew on here, rather than guess so that they have something to say.

Because every single exam board says losing work doesn't count as extenuating circumstances. Regardless of how it happens (unless the examiners/school lose it). I doubt any employer who is financially relying on a report being handed in on time would think it was 'fair enough'. It's just not the same as someone falling ill through no fault of their own.

I understand why someone would want to feel sorry for him because it wasn't his fault, but it just takes 30 seconds to email work to yourself.

[Data]

(Original post by Frasier)
No one has cited the relevant rule in this case. I'm guessing, to be honest, people are just pulling it out their ****s because they want to say something, but fair play if someone has bothered to read the section about what happens when your computer is taken by the police and your mother is prison, hopefully they'll cite it in the next post.

I mentioned what it will come under in post 17, the reference is
http://www.jcq.org.uk/attachments/pu...2011102011.pdf p72.

[zaliack]

(Original post by Data)
I mentioned what it will come under in post 17, the reference is
http://www.jcq.org.uk/attachments/pu...2011102011.pdf p72.

They also specifically rule out 'consequences of committing a crime' - 9.3.5 I wonder if they would stretch that to parents committing a crime?

[Data]

(Original post by zaliack)
They also specifically rule out 'consequences of committing a crime' - 9.3.5 I wonder if they would stretch that to parents committing a crime?

Parents committing a crime is OK (we had a lad who's Mum was sentenced to jail on the day of one of his A levels and the exam board accepted that as a reason for special consideration).

[zaliack]

(Original post by Data)
Parents committing a crime is OK (we had a lad who's Mum was sentenced to jail on the day of one of his A levels and the exam board accepted that as a reason for special consideration).

Ah okay, then I can see him getting extenuating circumstances for his exams due to stress etc, but not for the report.

[Data]

(Original post by zaliack)
Ah okay, then I can see him getting extenuating circumstances for his exams due to stress etc, but not for the report.

Agreed.

[Frasier]

(Original post by zaliack)
Because every single exam board says losing work doesn't count as extenuating circumstances. Regardless of how it happens (unless the examiners/school lose it). I doubt any employer who is financially relying on a report being handed in on time would think it was 'fair enough'. It's just not the same as someone falling ill through no fault of their own.

Well that depends on the circumstances doesn't it? As I say, back up procedures are generally not undergone every day, and so if something gets lost between that period it's hardly that person's fault. That's my point here, and indeed, most employers probably would think it was fair enough if, for example, an extreme scenario arose. What happens, for example, if your back up is simultaneously, and by some freak accident, also deleted? What would this hypothetical employer do then? Have you got *any* experience of employment on which your guesses are based?

The wider point is this: (a) you didn't reference the rules which are relevant in this case and (b) you focussed on what happened with the computer, with no mention of the mother being arrested. If you were acquainted with the rules, you would have thought (b) to be pertinent. The clear implication of this is that you wanted to come on the thread to tell everyone how stupid it was not to back up your files and your guess on what would happen were someone to be employed. You weren't being helpful, you were just, as with a lot of people on this site, guessing. Why post if you're just going to do that?

Instead of banging on about what he 'should of (sic)' done, why didn't you use your obviously vast amounts of knowledge of the procedures of examinations boards to help the poor guy?

[ThatPerson]

I'm fairly sure this is extenuating circumstances that would give your friend special consideration. I think it will could as a "domestic crisis".

[A100whoo]

i'd say it is. worth a shot anyway

[zaliack]

(Original post by Frasier)
Well that depends on the circumstances doesn't it? As I say, back up procedures are generally not undergone every day, and so if something gets lost between that period it's hardly that person's fault. That's my point here, and indeed, most employers probably would think it was fair enough if, for example, an extreme scenario arose. What happens, for example, if your back up is simultaneously, and by some freak accident, also deleted? What would this hypothetical employer do then? Have you got *any* experience of employment on which your guesses are based?

The wider point is this: (a) you didn't reference the rules which are relevant in this case and (b) you focussed on what happened with the computer, with no mention of the mother being arrested. If you were acquainted with the rules, you would have thought (b) to be pertinent. The clear implication of this is that you wanted to come on the thread to tell everyone how stupid it was not to back up your files and your guess on what would happen were someone to be employed. You weren't being helpful, you were just, as with a lot of people on this site, guessing. Why post if you're just going to do that?

Instead of banging on about what he 'should of (sic)' done, why didn't you use your obviously vast amounts of knowledge of the procedures of examinations boards to help the poor guy?

And as I've said, he'd get extenuating circumstances for the exams, but not his report. It's simple as that. If your back up fails as well, tough ****. The world isn't kind. And I don't need to reference any rules regarding the data being lost, as it is common knowledge. I've recently had to go through extenuating circumstances for my University due to falling ill on an exam day, but they specifically point out that data being lost does not count.

Stop trying to defend his friend. Yes, it's unfair what happen but a back up doesn't take much nowadays, whether that's on a different computer, USB, external hard drive, emails, or even using Microsoft office via Hotmail.

[AishaTara]

probably not, if someones ill its only worth like 3% and bereavement is 5% max and those circumstances are more serious than your friends (or probably yours OP :P)

[Frasier]

(Original post by zaliack)
And as I've said, he'd get extenuating circumstances for the exams, but not his report. [It's simple as that. If your back up fails as well, tough ****. The world isn't kind. And I don't need to reference any rules regarding the data being lost, as it is common knowledge. I've recently had to go through extenuating circumstances for my University due to falling ill on an exam day, but they specifically point out that data being lost does not count.

Irrelevant. The rules for Universities and exam boards are different. But you're clearly missing my point. You clearly came onto to the thread, rather than be helpful and to point out where the guy would get dispensation (or at least might be able to) and instead chose to say how stupid his friend was for not buying a back up and store it in Fort Knox. Why did you bother making a normative assessment of the situation at all?

Stop trying to defend his friend.

This says a lot about your mentality: it makes my point for me. Why don't you want to 'defend' this person's friend? What's driving you to come onto this thread and the only thing you can say is 'oh, he should have back up his files'? Don't you see what I'm driving at here? The guy's mother went to prison and the only thing you can say is the guy is an idiot for not backing up files and making some frankly wild guesses about what would happen to a person in a job which you clearly have no experience of at all. Why did you bother to post?

[zaliack]

(Original post by Frasier)
Irrelevant. The rules for Universities and exam boards are different. But you're clearly missing my point. You clearly came onto to the thread, rather than be helpful and to point out where the guy would get dispensation (or at least might be able to) and instead chose to say how stupid his friend was for not buying a back up and store it in Fort Knox. Why did you bother making a normative assessment of the situation at all?



This says a lot about your mentality: it makes my point for me. Why don't you want to 'defend' this person's friend? What's driving you to come onto this thread and the only thing you can say is 'oh, he should have back up his files'? Don't you see what I'm driving at here? The guy's mother went to prison and the only thing you can say is the guy is an idiot for not backing up files and making some frankly wild guesses about what would happen to a person in a job which you clearly have no experience of at all. Why did you bother to post?

The principles behind university and exam boards are the same - to protect students from unforeseen circumstances. However, losing work is a foreseen circumstance - even if the specific circumstances are unusual, they are of the same category. I've pointed out that he'd likely get extenuating circumstances for the exams, but not the report.

Your being driven by the fact the guys mother went to prison - yes, that's unfortunate, but it's not a defence for him not keeping his work backed up. Your just making wild guesses based upon your feelings. I've read the guidance, and there is no allowances for failing to provide work. He could argue that his work he done within the day time frame needed extenuating circumstances for serious home problems, but not for having it deleted.

Why did I bother posting? I have a right to post. I've backed up my reasoning, and I'm sure his friend will apply for extenuating circumstances. I think he won't get it for the report, but would for the exams. That's a fair assessment, and someone has agreed. I'd be happy if you would actually give me your opinion of what the exam board would do rather then attempting to disprove the technicalities of my posts.

[Frasier]

(Original post by zaliack)
The principles behind university and exam boards are the same - to protect students from unforeseen circumstances. However, losing work is a foreseen circumstance - even if the specific circumstances are unusual, they are of the same category. I've pointed out that he'd likely get extenuating circumstances for the exams, but not the report.

Yes but your *initial* reaction was to make a *guess* about the guy's computer and not about the far more important issue of what happened to his mother. That's what the OP needed to be informed about. You didn't mention that until after someone who knew what they were talking about actually posted, and even then you made some wild assessment about how the potential 'criminal activities' of his mother would be somehow held against him. You weren't being helpful, and I just find it strange that people on here generally tend to make these kind of snap normative assessments rather than being helpful. It's annoying and frustrating.

Your being driven by the fact the guys mother went to prison - yes, that's unfortunate, but it's not a defence for him not keeping his work backed up. Your just making wild guesses based upon your feelings.

I've not made any 'guesses'. I'm just pointing out that your initial reaction to the thread was unhelpful to the OP and was based (a) on guesswork (b) weirdly fixated on the (relatively) unimportant issue. I'm not saying he can get dispensation for what happened with the computer. What I'm saying is you coming onto the thread, making wild guesses about something you clearly don't know about and making pointless and unhelpful judgments is not helpful to anyone.

Why did I bother posting? I have a right to post.

Erm, where's the person trying to take away your right to post? You have the right to jump off a bridge. Doesn't mean you should do it.

I've backed up my reasoning, and I'm sure his friend will apply for extenuating circumstances. I think he won't get it for the report, but would for the exams.

And it would have been far more helpful, rather than make unhelpful normative assessments, to say this at first. In reality, you didn't actually know what the exam boards' rules were. You only made this extra addition when Data posted.

[`God]

Can we please not argue. Thanks for everyone's opinion, my friend will really appreciate it, I spoke to him and he said that his solicitor can write him a letter about his mums situation as well as the seizure of his computer (although, from replies it seems as that is irrelevant). Would the letter be helpful when telling the teacher to contact the exam board(s).