The question should be do your eyes have to be closed for you to be asleep?
The other night I watched a documentary that investigates air crashes. Here is what happened. A 737 crew in Brazil took off and instead of heading to a city NE of their position
they set their computer system on a westerly course. Then got totally lost, ran out of fuel and crashed into the Amazon rainforest at night. Ok that was a real FUBAR event.
But to make it even more incredible was the fact that they took off late in the day and headed off into the setting sun. The passengers, who clearly werent asleep kept asking the stews are we flying in the correct direction? The comments were never forwarded to the cockpit.
Ok, were they asleep with their eyes wide open?? What new regulation should the bureaucrats think up?
Am I imagining things, or do I remember correctly that the cabin crew can use a code to open the cockpit door, but the crew can override that code? If so, why would they have to bang on the door…surely they’d just open it and make less of a fuss in front of the passengers?
A member of the cabin crew has the code but the pilot can flip a switch to disable the door keypad. That’s how Germanwings was done.
In this case, yes, it doesn’t make sense. Either the cabin crew didn’t have the code (or the right code) or the switch got flipped.
Long duty days and being alone (you and the other guy) in the cockpit is probably a disaster waiting to happen. I am not familiar with airline operations but I can imagine such things in combination with the inability to enter due to security to happen.
only a solicitor has that, and then only for non-major stuff
That is not quite so.
The supreme court has very recently ruled in respect of tax privilige and there is debate as to the seal of the confessional. There are also areas of medical privilige but not necessarily where disclosure is in the public interest.
A complete aside of course.
Off topic still 
but I don’t think many an accountant will overtly stick up for a client’s confidentiality because the Revenue will just stab him in the back, by setting off “enquiries” on a bunch of his clients 
And they always find something. The smallest mistake is enough to run an “enquiry”. After a year of this harrassment, the inspector walks off with a £10k-50k cheque from each small business he has harrassed. Accordingly, every accountant I have ever worked with will throw you to the lions at the first sign of trouble. A solicitor doesn’t have this problem because there isn’t anybody out there who can get him, no central authority which knows who his other clients are, etc.
I can’t speak for the UK, but demands for information (outside a routine audit) is very unusual here. If Revenue sought to exercise powers to demand details of advice here from an accountant, I imagine the first port of call for the accountant would be to their solicitor, as they are effectively caught in the middle.
Don’t comply with a legally enforcable order, and there is often signficant penalties (here they include imprisonment, though that’s never happened to an accountant as far as I’m aware), but comply when it wasn’t necessary and you are likely to be sued by your client.
At a less legal end, where info is demanded but without legal force, I’d be surprised at an accountant handing it over unless it was with the clients permission and in their best interest. I’d certainly not have fear in standing up to revenue for a client (do it all the time). Fear of retrebution would be very low on my list of priorties. Such “payback” would be easily detected, and a complaint easily made with serious consequences for the tax office. Often the inspectors might get a bee in their bonnet, but reference to someone higher almost always brings quick sense to the situation.
The Revenue don’t have to make any demand of the accounting firm: they already have information in their system to connect the accounting firm to individuals who have given their (registered) agency to the firm…
