Jump to content

Things that piss you off that shouldn't


AVFCforever1991

Recommended Posts

I rotated to help out a new department in January. Then I got sick as a dog in february and was on and off until the 15th of March. Now I'm in the office trying to catch up, and I'm doing some reports that require calculations I've never done before and I'm absolutely bewildered as to how I'm suppose to solve this. Have 2000 questions and nothing makes sense. Then everyone that I'm supposed to ask are working from home, so I have to skype or call or chat to figure shit out. Assuming I can get hold of them without a baby screaming it's head off it's kinda difficult to show them the exact formula issues as it's all on file electronically. When they get the files in question they struggle to see where I'm at a loss. After 7 hours today I've finally solved something that should have taken 5 minutes talk.

Swear this corona bullshit is driving me mental at work. I HATE being ineffective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, veloman said:

Ah, I didn't know that chrisp and as you say would throw  a different light on it. My wife had to serve on a jury ,a couple of years ago, involving an accusation of rape and although there was compelling evidence that the the defendant was innocent (and found so)  the woman was never named. Just seems a little unfair to me.

I think the over riding issue is to do with statistics. They are trying to get some sort of ‘fairness’ based on a numbers game.

First off, not enough women are persuaded they will get a fair hearing and sex crimes are apparently massively under reported. So allowing women anonymity gives some inducement to complain as they won’t have the ‘shame’ of being a victim.

But, such a small number of prosecutions are successful, that if they then named the women, there would still be such a strong chance of women making allegations eventually being ‘named and shamed’. That’s why they don’t get named other than in the most exceptional circumstances.

Why do the men get named? Again statistically many convicted offenders have offended against multiple victims, so a case can be strengthened when 13 other women discover there’s a case and gain that extra ounce of bravery to add their voice.

It can look like its loaded against a male defendant. Which it is for some of them. There must be cases of multiple malicious claims. But overall, statistically, it’s currently the least bad option.

I think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to Tesco at lunch, and as well as many other things, decided to top up on beer. there's a sign up saying "due to demand, etc, etc, each product is restricted to 3 per customer". No problem,. I got 8 different individual bottles of ale.

I got to the checkout and it turns out their policy is actually 3 beer products, total. So I put my 8 bottles back, and got 3 six-packs. That was fine. And 3 bottles of rum, while I was at it.

I get they're doing what they can to prevent hoarding, but what a silly rule. 

Edited by Davkaus
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I went to Tesco at lunch, and as well as many other things, decided to top up on beer. there's a sign up saying "due to demand, etc, etc, each product is restricted to 3 per customer". No problem,. I got 8 different individual bottles of ale.

I got to the checkout and it turns out their policy is actually 3 beer products, total. So I put my 8 bottles back, and got 3 six-packs. That was fine. And 3 bottles of rum, while I was at it.

I get they're doing what they can to prevent hoarding, but what a silly rule. 

It's done on the SKU number, not the "type of item".

There's a line that's got to be drawn somewhere, without the man power to cover all the grey areas.

I agree it's a silly rule though, it should be 1 multi pack, or 3 individual things (which is probably what you're talking about!) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

It's done on the SKU number, not the "type of item".

 

Ah, just a misinformed checkout person then, I guess. 

It worked out ok. I'm usually the type of contrary bastard that'd enjoy standing there arguing the toss, pointing out the absurdity of putting stuff back to end up with a larger quantity but it just didn't seem the time :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, veloman said:

Now , I have no particular liking or affinity with Alex Salmond but he has been found 'not guilty' ,by a Court of Law , of the charges levelled against him. However , his accusers still bask in anonymity. So is this fair because if he was found not guilty it is possible that some or all of his accusers were lying and on the premise that mud sticks is his reputation may be forever tarnished. Realise it happens quite frequently but this high profile case emphasises the situation. Thoughts ?

The fair solution for rape trials is to not name the accused until a guilty verdict.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, veloman said:

Now , I have no particular liking or affinity with Alex Salmond but he has been found 'not guilty' ,by a Court of Law , of the charges levelled against him. However , his accusers still bask in anonymity. So is this fair because if he was found not guilty it is possible that some or all of his accusers were lying and on the premise that mud sticks is his reputation may be forever tarnished. Realise it happens quite frequently but this high profile case emphasises the situation. Thoughts ?

Being found not guilty is not the same as being innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, veloman said:

Now , I have no particular liking or affinity with Alex Salmond but he has been found 'not guilty' ,by a Court of Law , of the charges levelled against him. However , his accusers still bask in anonymity. So is this fair because if he was found not guilty it is possible that some or all of his accusers were lying and on the premise that mud sticks is his reputation may be forever tarnished. Realise it happens quite frequently but this high profile case emphasises the situation. Thoughts ?

Simply because the accused is found not guilty does not mean that any witnesses or accusers have lied or broken any law.

Edited by snowychap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So ; if the defendant was found not guilty but could still be guilty and the accusers are not believed by the jury but haven't lied ....... where does that leave the English Criminal Law system ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, veloman said:

So ; if the defendant was found not guilty but could still be guilty and the accusers are not believed by the jury but haven't lied ....... where does that leave the English Criminal Law system ?

Where it has always been. Guilty must be beyond reasonable doubt

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, veloman said:

So ; if the defendant was found not guilty but could still be guilty and the accusers are not believed by the jury but haven't lied ....... where does that leave the English Criminal Law system ?

Just as Bicks says above (though the wording is different now, I think).

In order not to convict, there must just be some doubt as to the guilt - that doesn't have to come about by a witness or complainant or (potantial) victim lying.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Davkaus said:

I went to Tesco at lunch, and as well as many other things, decided to top up on beer. there's a sign up saying "due to demand, etc, etc, each product is restricted to 3 per customer". No problem,. I got 8 different individual bottles of ale.

I got to the checkout and it turns out their policy is actually 3 beer products, total. So I put my 8 bottles back, and got 3 six-packs. That was fine. And 3 bottles of rum, while I was at it.

I get they're doing what they can to prevent hoarding, but what a silly rule. 

 

6 hours ago, lapal_fan said:

It's done on the SKU number, not the "type of item".

There's a line that's got to be drawn somewhere, without the man power to cover all the grey areas.

I agree it's a silly rule though, it should be 1 multi pack, or 3 individual things (which is probably what you're talking about!) 

Yeah it’s just a rough rule Hastily brought in to stop hoarding. It doesn’t really matter if you’re buying 3 multipacks instead of 8 bottles. They don’t really care about that. 
 

As long as it stops people buying 39 packets of loo roll then it works

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went into get our weeks supplies yesterday. Got 2 full fat normal milk for the baby, and an oat milk for me and Mrs A. to have in our coffee.

I was told I was only allowed to get 2 milks. I tried to explain that one wasn't real milk. Young girl looked terrified so I relented and just took the two for the nipper. Who was right there? 🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

I went into get our weeks supplies yesterday. Got 2 full fat normal milk for the baby, and an oat milk for me and Mrs A. to have in our coffee.

I was told I was only allowed to get 2 milks. I tried to explain that one wasn't real milk. Young girl looked terrified so I relented and just took the two for the nipper. Who was right there? 🤷‍♂️

Me and my GF both react to lactose in different ways, so I agreed to try this out and we've kept buying it. It's quite alright. But waaay too expensive. I think with the economic downturn it might be one of the products I will look to cut. It's £ 4,5 a bottle here (1 litre). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

It's £ 4,5 a bottle here (1 litre). 

Ouch. I don't bother because it's less than a third of the price here, but it's quite easy to make your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, rjw63 said:

Realising the rocket polishers next door are shit-music-listening chavs that I can't escape.

I suspect the feeling is mutual.

They are realising that the twunt next door wants to wear Hawaian shirts and ride the wave :mrgreen:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, rjw63 said:

Realising the rocket polishers next door are shit-music-listening chavs that I can't escape.

My daughter has just discovered the same thing about her neighbours. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

I suspect the feeling is mutual.

They are realising that the twunt next door wants to wear Hawaian shirts and ride the wave :mrgreen:

Hey, I could drown the words removed out with Slayer at volume 11, but the fact is I like to listen to my stuff when I want, not when I'm forced.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â