ECCOnoob

Its comedic emphasis. Its basic comedy 101. Jokes have a punchline which generally means someone or something is the butt of them. I really do feel you need to lighten up and treat it for the pantomime villain style that the entire program is based on. Just think back to The Weakest Link back in the early 2000s or even going back to gladiators in the 1990s. It's all the same concept. The contestants having to beat the big baddy to win the prize.

Anna, you know full well that a fireman would not even get near a scene until they were fully and competently trained as required by the regulations. It's a ridiculous and childish comparison as is your suggestion that only the world of the internet has created this situation. Even if the net didn't exist they would still attend all mandatory training that they're employer deems necessary. That would be subject to the type of social distance safeguards in place at at many employers now. As has been pointed out by myself and others several times, these course exist for a reason. Pandemic or not, people expect the person jabbing vaccinations into their arms to be fully trained. Those moaning and creating a ruckus in the newspapers are just the type of self asured, self important types who feel it's all a waste of time and a load of red tape and they know better. Just the type of arrogant attitudes we don't want from people delivering vaccinations to the public. What else are they likely to flout because it's all "a waste of time" in their opinion?? We are not in the movie world fantasy of nurses going round in pretty uniforms being the darlings of the community. The world is spiteful, suspicious, disruptive, very litigious and resentful. Any organisation no matter how big or small is well aware of that and the potential pitfalls. These courses are a simple routine process which lots of employees healthcare or otherwise follow. There is no big drama apart from these whiny self-entitled prats who think it's beneath them. They either want to volunteer or they don't. If such a simple routine thing puts them off then quite frankly they were clearly never fully prepared to engage.

That I agree with.

Why are you so sure that this training is over the top and unnecessary. We are talking about diversity here. - probably the most spotlighted and contentious issue right now. We are talking about data protecton and data control - something which a mistake could leave to fines going into the millions of pounds. We are talking about vulnerable adult and child safeguarding procedures and radicalisation identifiers - something which is clearly a key issue which those administering injections into patients needs to be wholly alert to and be aware of the signs of duress, abuse, control, triggers or extreme views. A wrong move and someone could die from this. A step out of place and someone could be given a jab against their will opening up a whole range of outrage and litigation. A slip of the tounge and the whole world of race issues may implode. That red tape is there for good reason and the amount the NHS has to spend on litigation shows very clearly why. This is not just about simply jabbing a needle into someone's arm. If it was any village idiot off the street could be shown how to do it.

I do argue that they shouldn't be easily put off. In fact two "high level" nurses working up until very recently should be well aware of the reasons why such training is a necessity and consequencies of it not being fulfilled. The fact that they "are put off" despite leaving the industry quite recently, frankly says more about them and their attitude to the roles. In that circumstance, no I dont feel their input would be helpful at all. One would wonder though managerial eyes what other training/protocols/procedures they feel 'offputting' or just some waste of time tick box exercise which they subsequently may risk ignoring during their immunisation work.

What is the complaint? I dont even see what BG have done wrong other than send an auto-generated warning letter regarding an outstanding bill payment. The OP is so certain they know its not overdue despite the fact the letter says so. The OP says they have taken responsbility for the payments since April but curiously did not take the opportunity at the time to advise BG that their relative had gone into care and seek some way of dealing with them directly to avoid such a issue occurring. I maintain my opinion the OP is overreacting to such a simple routine issue. But hey, its not my debt issue and its up to them. I repeat with others that a simple phone call should resolve it. But if they want to spend time raising a formal complaint I feel it is only going to prolong the process unnecessarilly.

The charges were dropped because of the passage of time and investigation going cold. There was absolutely no discussion of so called "trumped up charges" Even the public prosecutor went on record to say that "...I would like to emphasise that the injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events. Her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed; however, my overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation..." One could argue that Assange's running and hiding act in the Ecudorian Embassay was a lucky move. He still proceeded to breach his bail conditions and now has had to face the consequences. Can we stop talking about this man as if he is some unfairly persecuted savior. He isnt.

Thanks Longcol. Got there ahead of me. The OP is clearly failing to understand there is a difference between a bill due date and the overdue warning letter grace period (which is the thing they are taking issue with) One clearly follows the other and the letter will have only been triggered as the original bill wasn't paid by the agreed time - which clearly it wasn't. To the OP just follow the advice given and give them a call. It is not a big issue and I'm sure they will be able to sort it out.

You still need a licence for both of those as well. Any live broadcast television. I've said before many times the BBC could be abolished tomorrow and the government will still find some way of taxing television broadcast.

I don't understand what's "disgusting". They provide a service. It comes with a charge and payment of that is overdue. They're entitled to send out a reminder with an extended payment date failing which they can start their debt collection. Apart from the fact that their letter will be very generic and automated process they won't know that your relative is in palative care. You say you have provided your email address to BG but very often that is not enough for a company to liaise directly with you in someone else's affairs . Unless you have directly told them about the circumstances of your relative's illness how would they know. I do feel you are overreacting. As others have pointed out - you simply need to ring them, explain the situation and I'm sure they will be able to sort something out. All the big utilities will most likely be very used to this situation and will have a procedure to resolve it.

No. I have addressed it. I have already said that there is no way that finite NHS monies would be spent on a mass recruitment programme and training until such time as a vaccine was approved. Do you really think it feesible to recruit and train all these people on say, diversity/safeguarding etc and then have them sat there for weeks or months until (or even if) approval gets granted. What then? Get them all back for a second batch of training on the specifics, by which time many will have forgotten the contents of the first training.... Hardly resourceful that. Now approval has been granted. Now the vaccines physically exist - we can get people in, get them trained and immediately get them administering. I really dont see the issue.

Well maybe that's why they are recruiting then? What is your obession with BEFORE the vaccine. Why on earth do you think the NHS would or even could spend money on a huge recruitment drive and training programme for a vaccination that didn't even exist. Have you stopped for one second to think that until such was approved and signed off the register - they would not even know what type of vaccine, its make up, its risks, its side effects, how to adminster, when to administer..... Do i need to go on? Vaccines are happening. Right now. The recruitment is happening. Right now. What more do you seriously expect to happen in less than three weeks. You really need to get an understanding of what is involved in the organisation of these things. The contractual arrangements and legal agreements alone can take days of work. There is no magic wand that gets waved.

They are not being asked to jump through hoops. They are being brought to the up to date standards that is required by the regulations and the law and the within the risked assessed liabilities expected to perform the role. A competent and long experienced nursing professional should be well versed in such continual mandatory training thoughout their career and should hardly be put off from having to do more when they sign up to re-enter the role again.

To do what? The first vaccine only got approved on or around 8 December. The Second approved vaccaine only started to get approved in the past few days. Training costs money. Recruitment programmes costs money and resources. Why would they start something before any approval gets signed off. If the regulator rejected Pfizer or Astra or both it could have been months and month before any other vaccine got developed. What were they supposed to do. Just have all these people sat on the books doing nothing? These things have to be approved in stages, planned, check and signed off through various levels of hierarchy. In any event, its not like vaccinations arn't happening. They are already taking place as we speak.

In my opinion threads like this are just a extended version of "waa waa health and safety gone mad..." This is not so simple as just "stick a needle into someone's arm". If it was then they would be scooping up junkies off the street to help out - after all many of them are well skilled in administering injectons. Several of the courses listed are absolutely standard for all employers no matter what the circumstances. Equality & Diversity is vital in view of recent events where one single action or even a simple turn of phrase could lead to mass complaint, outrage and legal action. Same with the redicalisation which for the record is not so simple as being wary of peole from a certain race in case they start shouting "infidel". It covers a whole range of potentially extreme right wing identifiers which could be rife in patients when dealing with an already highly contentious vaccine programme and crowds of people who even today are still denying that such disease and control methods are genuine. Safeguarding too is standard learning for protection of those vulnerable children, learning disability and elderly adults who will be subject to the vaccine and may be a high risk of being administered the same under duress, extreme control or harrassment by their parents/guardians/parter/spouses. Despite what the cocky dentist says in his BBC interview - children may very well be part of the group he has to administer to- so its quite right that he undergoes such training. I can guarantee the NHS dont like "bureaucracy" any more than the man on the street. However, they are also smart enough to know there is a good reason these training regimes exist and the consequences if they are not fulfilled either by breach of regulation, criminal negligence or civil litigation action. Those who feel put off by having to do some comprehensive training before they are given licence to conduct mass vaccinations in people quite frankly shouldn't be the type of people signing up to the do the job. Personally, I am especially appaulled by some of the whiny comments from the the BBC interviewee Dentist whom, as an already registered dental professional subject to the mandatory standards of the GMC with all its CPD requirements and presumably a holder of various negligence insurance policies, really should know better and the reasons why such "bureaucracy" needs to exist. Frustrating it may well be, but its the job. Emergency or not, people will expect a FULLY trained professional undertaking their jab. We all know full well that the second any one of these volunteers put a foot wrong the fallout and inevitable claim would all land on the NHS. There would be no "....oh he was only a volunteer trying to help...." get out clause.

For all I know it might have a legitimate purpose being in there. It might be incorporated text from an already pre standing and established historical agreement. I don't know I wasn't part of the negotiations nor am I a government lawyer. Just because a few pot stirring newspapers and some tech nerds start wetting themselves with excitement because they spot reference to outdated software doesn't mean it's necessarily incorrect. Even if it was an outdated reference it was used in a general narrative context as one of several examples of internet browser and email client software which did not in any way impact the primary subject of the rest of the paragraph. Good grief there is legislation still being used to this very day which goes back 30, 50, 70+ years . It's filled with their outdated references, names and terminology. Doesn't mean it's not valid legislation or statue. Anyway doesn't this Netscape reference just prove my point that clearly it is being read in detail otherwise it would have never been spotted and hyped up all over the papers.

That's their job Anna. It's what they get paid to do and it's why they have teams and teams of advisors and assistants working for them. Contents of the wording of the deal would have been well established in the lead up to it. You don't seriously think that Boris rocked up a couple of hours before desperately trying to run copies on the photocopier. That's not how it works. The discussions and reams of paperwork have been going on for years. Lawyers up and down the country have been scrutinising, researching and advising their clients on the various different scenarios for months. Fact is thst there are thousands of statutes, clauses, subclauses, rules which affect our lives everyday which the man on the street generally don't care a jot about and certainly won't put the effort in to actually read them. Brexit won't be any different. Perhaps those moaning about lack of time should have spent more effort in supporting the negotiations and engaging in the transition rather than protesting, blocking, disrupting and litigating every 5 seconds to seek to desperately overturn the referendum result.

It's a bit of an embarrassing slip but I think it's been completely blown out of proportion and will no doubt be used to death by some as another stick to beat the government with. The actual fact is that whilst Netscape is no longer in common use its original foundings and transfer into modern dat Mozilla open source software is still widely available and used. Netscape is still actively registered as a company under the Facebook conglomerate it's hard the greatest faux par in the world For those of us out there who are regularly using either Firefox browsers or Thunderbird email client software it's all the same thing just a different evolution of it. Given that some of the government computer systems are quite archaic and prone to heavy use of legacy software it would not surprise me if Netscape communicator is still not been used within some civil service platforms.

It's not rubbish at all. It's common sense. Lenders make their decisions based on an assessment of risk. If they are going in blind to someone who has no credit history many will be reluctant to lend or for those that do - lending is very limited to an initial low value credit limit often with a higher interest rate until they are satisfied that the card holder can be trusted and has the regular means to pay. Let's face it it's all just algorithms really. As long as someone has a credit card in their name over many years which remains either a low balance or clean balance it will still enhance their credit history, build it up and shows their responsibility which opens the doors to more frequent, available and better value credit in the future. That goes for mobile phone accounts, TV packages, utilities, catalogues and anything else which involves a deferred or rolling payment. It's a part of modern life and people who sit there insisting on clinging on to paying cash for everything and not letting "the man" snoop into their business unfortunately get left behind. In answer to the original post Capital One have a simple credit builder card with a low £300 limit which is good for establishing records. Either that or they may wish to try their own bank if they've been with them for a while as they will already have sight of their expected and regular earnings and may be keen to offer them additional services. As with all these things, my trick would be to buy something low value and regular that would normally be paid for out of their current account e.g. the weekly food shops and then pay it off as soon as the the statement comes in to avoid interest. Keep doing that for a few months and credit score will start to increase. There is no harm in having a card there just in case. Even with a low value they are useful particularly in giving extra protections when purchasing online or for some types of credit card they offer zero fees when spending in a different currency abroad. Back in the days when we were allowed to travel abroad I used to do that quite a lot on holiday instead of messing around taking wads of foreign currency.

Who really cares. For all that wannabe queen of scotland might think she is in charge, Sturgeon is nothing more than the branch manager whose strings very firmly get pulled from Westminster. The referendum was a vote across the whole of the United Kingdom. Scotland overwhelmingly voted to stay part of that said United Kingdom earlier. Clear fact is in the EU referendum that 'total' remain votes in Scotland and Northern Ireland amounts to merely 2 million compared to the overwhelming number of leave voters amounting to over 16 million from England and Wales. With that level of ratio do they think for one second that they have any sort of real influence to overrule. In any event , she has just spent the last few months banging on about how a deal is absolutely vital and must be obtained at all efforts. Now she's throwing a tantrum and some pathetic show of power by declaring they will vote against it . Considering her already precarious position and woeful performance with the Scottish population outside of a small circle of tartan clad nationalists, it's about time that their party stop with their ridiculous rhetoric and actually focus on the bigger picture. They voted to remain with us, they are with us and they will remain that way until such time as Westminster tell them they can to try and leave the union again. The UK voted to leave. That is the only result that counts. It's exactly the same with labour. They know full well that their MPs accepted a referendum would take place, accepted the result of the EU referendum, have voted on several motions during the lenghty negotiations and lead-up to the deal and quite rightly understand that they will be suicidal to go against the majority wishes of the electorate who overwhelmingly, irrelevant of MPs personal feelings, voted to leave. Is done. It's over. We are on the 48-hour countdown. Any party seeking to disrupt at this late stage is really going to be frowned upon.

Don't think I agree with that at all. If the Daily Mail, Take a Break magazine or 1001 websites are making money out of advertising whilst parading your embarrassing photographs of you tripping up on the street or showing your knickers getting into a car or pushing a trolley round a supermarket - why the hell shouldn't the celebrity concerned get some money from it. Just like I say earlier, it is us consumers who are wanting to see all these mishaps and 'real life' moments of our favourite stars. If we seek to treat them as our property to be followed around, snapped and gawped at on our whim then that comes with a price. After all, it is them and their image which is the product and attracts the value.

The unfortunate truth is that we the public are the ones who create such situation. We are the ones who actually do want to know every little detail about a personality's life. This is certainly not a new concept and the obsession over the famous and influential can be traced back decades. However I do feel that it has become worse as social media developed and there are now huge numbers of people who deludedly believe that they are in a friendship or have acquaintances with their chosen celebrity just because they have a read only connection with them on social media. That leads to people obsessively wanting to know every aspect of what their celebrity is doing. They go wild because some airhead gym obsessed lump of meat is "unknowingly" photoed taking the bins out with their shirt off and gets published in some magazine. They delight at seeing some blonde bimbo from that TV quiz being snapped walking around Tesco . ".....oh look it's that Brenda Giggleboobs from that show.....she shops in supermarkets just like us normal people do. Amazing" The more we lap it up, the more the media are willing to provide it. It's quick and easy fodder they can fill their papers with and sell copy. It's like the whole argument with the honours list that comes up up every year. The fact is that the list contains nearly 1500 people - many of whom will be from those worthy professions. However, celebrity obsessed public only care about the the handful of headline star names. Harsh as it is. In reality, nobody actually cares about Deirdre the cleaner and part-time charity fundraiser getting an honour, but a famous sports person or an established actor getting one for their services to Theatre is going to sell papers. We only really have ourselves to blame.

Have you actually been down town seeing it with your own eyes or have you just applied your own interpretation to some very carefully angled shots of these so-called "crowds" and "lack of social distancing"?? If it's the latter then I would be cautious of taking these images at face value. I've seen this happen many times before partucularly with sites like Mail Online and certain exaggerating local rags such as Yorkshire Live or The Star making complete mountains out of a molehills and picking carefully edited photographs to create some drama and sell their advertising space.

As someone else pointed out, no timing will be ideal for this and it makes sense for a store to get through the busy pre-christmas trading period before taking any necessary action. For those unfortunate employees, some of whom I hope will at least get another job elsewhere in the business group, the threat of redundancy has been well established for several weeks now. We were even talking about it on this very thread. Upsetting as it may be they knew it was coming. Also can we all just grow up here and stop with this silly "...Ashley did this..." "....Ashley does that..." "Ashley doesn't care...." nonsense. Mike Ashley is the chief executive of a business empire which has dozens of brands, hundreds of branches and thousands of staff. Can we stop talking about it like he is the owner of a small corner shop who is personally going around sacking his employees. House of Fraser is just one of his many companies which will have its own directors its own corporate structure and dozens and dozens of layers of management. The decision of the practicalities over how, why and when a store hands out redundancies won't even be anything on his office desk. All Ashley has been involved in is the high-level decision to close a number of branches including the decision to rebrand and repurpose the Meadowhall one. All other practicalities happens way way down the chain. People need to get a reality check here. He's not some pantomime villain. It's business and his is one of the few at the moment which is desperately trying to cling on on trading somehow.

What's nonsense you are talking. The 2019 election was exactly an opportunity for people to change their mind. If there was even a sniff that the tide turned and people were no longer wishing to leave the EU - any party with even a proposal of overturning would have absolutely stormed it come polling day. They didn't. Not only did the clearly brexit pushing Tories win the election they won with a huge increase in their majority share. If that's not a clear signal of what the majority wanted in relation to brexit I don't know what is. I don't particularly like the results of leaving myself. It certainly was never my choice. However, I'm also smart enough to see see the clear direction that things have taken. Whether it is actually disaster remains to be seen but you cannot possibly pretend that the public have not spoken. Who on earth are you to arrogantly declare that the majority electorate choice is wrong and your position is right? That sort of attitude doesn't doesn't sound much like 'democracy' to me. That's what dictators do isn't it.