Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Publish and be Damned? – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    malcolmg said:

    I don't give a shit about evidence, anything that can even have the chance to have been stuffed with growth hormones they can stick up their jacksies.
    No, no it doesn’t get shoved up there, it’s an implant in the neck.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Carnyx said:

    I'm beginning to think some people don't know what "food security" means.
    How does banning perfectly safe, perfectly scientific, well tested hormone supplements aid our food security?

    Especially considering that the hormone supplement ban was protectionist unscientific bullshit that the EU imposed on us, as UK farmers were using hormone supplements until the EU instituted its ban that the UK opposed at the time in the Council of Ministers?

    Maybe the UK farmer should just go back to doing what they were before the EU started meddling, and thus improve our food security?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,233
    Selebian said:

    Is that middle carrier really tiny or just far away?

    Also, I suppose the one on the right is one of the British ones for which we could afford the carrier, but not the aircraft?
    It's the two British carriers (QE and Kuznetsov) with the French CdG in the middle. The CdG has been shopped to look much smaller than it really is for reasons of dank memes.
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    Knew fred
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    The Truss's leadership prospects are surely in tatters. The Tories would never risk her - an absolutely vilified character within Britain's rural communities. Truss the Farmer's Cuss she'll be known as.
    Truss is going from strength to strength. Would make a second brilliant female Tory Prime Minister.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547

    How does banning perfectly safe, perfectly scientific, well tested hormone supplements aid our food security?

    Especially considering that the hormone supplement ban was protectionist unscientific bullshit that the EU imposed on us, as UK farmers were using hormone supplements until the EU instituted its ban that the UK opposed at the time in the Council of Ministers?

    Maybe the UK farmer should just go back to doing what they were before the EU started meddling, and thus improve our food security?
    Nah, you want labelling and for British beef to have the reputation of being more “natural” and higher quality. Steal the high welfare end of the market in Oz.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,220
    edited May 2021
    Carnyx said:

    Just published a follow up tweet. A joke, that image. Not that the Marine, never mind M. Macron. will agree.
    Heh, I knew I should have put in a smiley... But now I see the small/far away joke had already been done in reply, too.

    (With my limited knowledge of the Brit and French ships, I did think UKDJ was dissing (one of) the Brit one, not the French)

    Incidentally, is the 'P' for Prince of Wales and the 'Q' for Queen Elizabeth? I was going to make a lame joke about the parking zone on the one on the right, but I hadn't noticed the Q on the one of the left (which I'd assumed was de Gaulle anyway).
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 29,846
    Selebian said:

    Is that middle carrier really tiny or just far away?

    Also, I suppose the one on the right is one of the British ones for which we could afford the carrier, but not the aircraft?
    The giveaway is the relative size of the planes.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 18,171
    Carnyx said:

    Is that a joke or is it reality? I can't work it out any more ...
    What is it they say about revolutions and their children?

    Still, if the alternative thing to devour is Australian beef...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,785
    edited May 2021
    Cyclefree said:

    Before I


    An investigation - a good one - should find out what went wrong. Whether or not someone gets disciplined or sacked should be a secondary consideration. And a good investigation should - if there are reasons for sacking someone, be good enough to provide that evidence. Obviously that depends in part in internal policies and evidence of medical malpractice is very different to the sort of stuff I was dealing with so I defer to you on that.

    Some of the problems you describe can arise because there is a lack of focus on what the investigation is for. And poor management in dealing with the issues arising as a result of an investigation happening. That too is something which investigators need to help manage.

    I believe that an investigation should be there primarily to understand what happened, put matters right and learn lessons to stop the same thing happening again. Discipline is an important part of that. But an investigation should not be primarily an employment issue.

    In all the ones I did which led to disciplinaries or sackings, not one was challenged or overturned on appeal. Nor was an employment case ever lost.

    But the NHS has I think even more complexity and I suspect that sometimes doctors and nurses are scapegoated for failings of management.
    A lot of the problems are to do with the nature of the work. So, if there is an electronic record of fraud or embezzlement it is fairly clear cut. I did once investigate a case where a doctor was doing locums for another Trust while on paid admin time for my own. There really is little defence possible for that.

    More frequently it is dealing with cases of workplace personnel issues. Bullying, harassment, victimisation, poor performance, time keeping, poor productivity, sexual harassment etc. These issues tend to be less cut and dried, and witnesses rare and often inconsistent. Is this a whistle-blower over bullying and poor clinical performance? or a subordinate trying to cover their own poor performance? for example.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,459
    ping said:

    Dunno about that. The Tory members in the SE couldn’t give a damn about the farmers.
    £3bn a year in subsidies and more in protectionism says somebody cares.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,003

    That's the difference between you and me. 🤷‍♂️
    YOu will not be so happy when you have a pair of knockers and your todger is the size of a thimble
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,003

    How does banning perfectly safe, perfectly scientific, well tested hormone supplements aid our food security?

    Especially considering that the hormone supplement ban was protectionist unscientific bullshit that the EU imposed on us, as UK farmers were using hormone supplements until the EU instituted its ban that the UK opposed at the time in the Council of Ministers?

    Maybe the UK farmer should just go back to doing what they were before the EU started meddling, and thus improve our food security?
    You really do button up the back, can I sell you a used bridge
This discussion has been closed.