Generic Virus Thread

[chrisp65]

Just now, Genie said:

If I were caught breaking the rules in a way that endangered peoples whilst the viral footage had me wearing my employers uniform I expect I’d be getting some disciplinary action up to dismissal.

Theres no excuse for that kind of behaviour. They are old enough to know better and to deal with the fall out.

No, not some disciplinary action, sacked. Not wearing your employers uniform, that’s irrelevant. if you have a job and you fail to comply, you should be sacked.

There is no excuse remember.

We can’t sack pensioners. We’ll just have to stop their pension, or deny access to the NHS. They’re definitely old enough to know better.

 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

24 minutes ago, bickster said:

Only four of the 63 clauses in Magna Carta are still valid today - 1 (part), 13, 39 and 40

 39 and 40 must be the right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers drawn from the area of your alleged offence. 

13 is the the rights of Skincare shops. 
 

1 is the Monarch’s right to use anyone’s toilet without permission and then leave without flushing it or striking a match.  
 

But I am only guessing on the first 2. 

Edited November 2, 2020 by Mandy Lifeboats
Speeling Mishsteaks

[Genie]

53 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

No, not some disciplinary action, sacked. Not wearing your employers uniform, that’s irrelevant. if you have a job and you fail to comply, you should be sacked.

There is no excuse remember.

We can’t sack pensioners. We’ll just have to stop their pension, or deny access to the NHS. They’re definitely old enough to know better.

 

I’m pretty sure I’d be sacked to be honest if I was caught behaving in a way that then lead to the infection of my fellow colleagues and management. 

The silly bit about pensioners is completely irrelevant. You can’t not punish students who infect other students and staff through reckless, stupid and dangerous behaviour because if a pensioner did it they can’t be sacked.

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by Genie

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

One of my favourite legal in-jokes is “Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you.  Did she die in vain.”

Edited November 2, 2020 by snowychap
Changed to correct Hancock picture

[snowychap]

"We need to get the Ya down, okay!"

[Dodgyknees]

2 hours ago, Chindie said:

I know that people who care about Magna Carta to any extent will definitely spell it wrong.

He was the best one in the Backstreet Boys tbf 

[snowychap]

Blimey, surely they're going to change this? It's absolute nonsense otherwise.

[PaulC]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

No, not some disciplinary action, sacked. Not wearing your employers uniform, that’s irrelevant. if you have a job and you fail to comply, you should be sacked.

There is no excuse remember.

We can’t sack pensioners. We’ll just have to stop their pension, or deny access to the NHS. They’re definitely old enough to know better.

 

Yes but there might be some moral issues as to how we treat our elderly  I understand how the young must feel though. Pensioners have had all the benefits of early retirement, tripple lock pensions and the youngsters have got work until they are in their 70s and pay off the huge debts which they have had nothing to do with. 

[Chindie]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Blimey, surely they're going to change this? It's absolute nonsense otherwise.

As a complete aside, this has reminded me that can't recall a personality that I've turned on as much as Dunt.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Blimey, surely they're going to change this? It's absolute nonsense otherwise.

I think you misunderstand.  It's because its absolute nonsense that they're doing it. For a sensible approach theyd have to actually think about things and that's just not how they roll. They come up with a momentary weeze, regret it almost instantly when its pointed out how daft it is, but bluster on anyway.

[Davkaus]

25 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think you misunderstand.  It's because its absolute nonsense that they're doing it. For a sensible approach theyd have to actually think about things and that's just not how they roll. They come up with a momentary weeze, regret it almost instantly when its pointed out how daft it is, but bluster on anyway.

And I can already predict the farce of PMQ's.

"Sensible question about lockdown restrictions"

*splutters of disbelief* "coming from the leader of a party that expelled their ex leader, mr speaker!"

Edited November 2, 2020 by Davkaus

[KentVillan]

My guess on the takeaway beers point is that it was so widely abused first time round that they just don’t want to give people any room for manoeuvre. Shame though for people who were doing in the right spirit.

[Genie]

3 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

My guess on the takeaway beers point is that it was so widely abused first time round that they just don’t want to give people any room for manoeuvre. Shame though for people who were doing in the right spirit.

I’d assume people would just stand on the car park drinking. Or if they were by a nice canal or countryside just drink them in an ad-hoc beer garden.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned it’s that people can’t be trusted to be sensible.

[villakram]

4 minutes ago, Genie said:

I’d assume people would just stand on the car park drinking. Or if they were by a nice canal or countryside just drink them in an ad-hoc beer garden.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned it’s that people can’t be trusted to be sensible.

Hence, the nonsensical mania.

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, Chindie said:

As a complete aside, this has reminded me that can't recall a personality that I've turned on as much as Dunt.

For anything in particular?

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, KentVillan said:

My guess on the takeaway beers point is that it was so widely abused first time round that they just don’t want to give people any room for manoeuvre. Shame though for people who were doing in the right spirit.

Surely that's easily rectified by saying that any abuse of it will mean the loss of the licence?

I didn't see many reports of it being abused last time, let alone widely so - at least to sufficiently justify imperilling businesses already on the very edge.

[ml1dch]

13 minutes ago, snowychap said:

For anything in particular?

I'll guess two words, first word Jeremy. 

[Wainy316]

Why would anyone want a takeaway beer?  Just get one from a shop.  You accept the hit of 500% mark up for the pub atmosphere. 

[Mark Albrighton]

2 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

Why would anyone want a takeaway beer?  Just get one from a shop.  You accept the hit of 500% mark up for the pub atmosphere. 

Maybe it’s a particular beer that’s not widely available from the shops? Kinda different but I’ve just coincidentally been looking at Joules brewery who do a lager that I quite like - you can’t buy it in shops. Anyway, they’re selling 9 pint barrels of it along with others.

Also, if I thought one of my local pubs was truly desperate I’d probably buy a few pints to take home if it helped them out and they stood more chance of existing when (if) this ever ends.

[Chindie]

36 minutes ago, snowychap said:

For anything in particular?

His position on Labour is like the epitome of the ludicrous 'centrist' position that just hated the former leadership.  A few months ago he put out a tweet that pretty much said a position on Brexit that coincidentally the old regime had held that he had relentlessly attacked was basically right, but then didn't see the issue with him having been critical of that position under Corbyn and now suggesting it's a good idea. Apologies for the vaguery but I can't remember the details, I just remember instantly thinking that summed up a lot of problems with political discourse here. The problem was the speaker but they had to pretend it wasn't.

Off topic anywho.