Friday was interrupted by a bomb scare in Cambridge; two bombs were supposed to go off, one in the Town and one "in" the University. Remembering that I'd let some old lady into the building the previous day, I thought it would be prudent to flee. Passing the lorry marked "TNT" on my way out of the Department, I went to West, the University's diner, for lunch, and then home and logged back into my work machine from there and continued working. It's not clear that getting out of the Department and dining at West decreased my chances of dying horribly that afternoon.
The weekend took me to Brussels, for a meeting about intellectual property law at the EC level during the daytime. Non-life-threateningly, Saturday night was interrupted by attendance at a community radio station; the various national ex-pat communities in Brussels broadcast songs in their native languages, so I got to hear some great Greek hits from the 60s. These tracks had all been burnt onto CDs for more convenient rearrangement on the equipment in the studio. My DJ friend of course knew very little about recording technology or copyright law, but I did make a point of telling her how good it was to be able to hold in my hands the physical manifestation of what it was we were fighting for (in this case, the continued efficacy of EUCD Article 5(2)(d) or thereabouts).
It seems arrests were made in Cambridge, possibly in relation to the bomb scare.
Chris has found yet another instance of an all-too-common occurrence: misconstruction of written complaints. To the extent that this is deliberate, it's a mark of how much someone thinks they can get away with not answering the point in a letter at all. My own favourite example is a letter I received from a Minister who could "not condone [my] remarks on illegal filesharing", despite the fact the only remarks on that subject were a quotation of what he had told the BBC.