Jump to content
AVFCforever1991

Things that piss you off that shouldn't

Recommended Posts

Well, given the title of the thread, the boy done good!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Genie said:

I think she’s a liar.

this was a widely publicised video and story. I feel that if she was lying, a colleague would make this known. No one has called out the 48 hour figure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual words she used, not quoted in that article are:

Quote

‘I’m a critical care nurse and I’ve just finished 48 hours of work and I just wanted to get some stuff in for the next 48 hours.

I can only imagine she means it's been 2 long days, and those aren't fun, even when they're meant to be 12 hour shifts on a standard day they turn in to 14+. There's no way in the world she's worked 48 continuous hours though, none.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I am wrong I should have looked beyond headlines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

The actual words she used, not quoted in that article are:

I can only imagine she means it's been 2 long days, and those aren't fun, even when they're meant to be 12 hour shifts on a standard day they turn in to 14+. There's no way in the world she's worked 48 continuous hours though, none.

I know a few doctors and nurses, and they do work some crazy hours at the best of times - and exceptionally so in times of crisis. OK, '48 hours' doesn't mean literally non-stop on their feet. But it still means 48 hours without going home for a full night's sleep. They'll probably catch short much-needed nap breaks every now and then (if they can find a spare bed), but it's still incredibly full-on. Not many of us could handle it. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When my wife gave birth to my first son, it was Jan 24/25th, there was a shortage of staff on duty because one of the staff had a birthday and half the staff booked that night off.

The midwife who helped with our labour legit worked over 24 hours (helping mom's deliver babies) and ours was her last before finishing that day.

I hate myself for forgetting her name, but she was amazing.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes 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 ?

Unfortunately, I think this might potentially only be half time. 

His own solicitor has been taped saying the guy is an obnoxious bully and a sex pest, but that all they needed to do was insinuate some dirt on the witnesses and it would be enough of a seed of doubt to get him off. 

So I think maybe there’s more than we know about so its a tricky one to jump in with any conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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!) 

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â