The World is Going Bonkers

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

w124nut

Active Member
Joined
May 9, 2004
Messages
568
Location
Somerset
Car
Mercedes W124 E320 cabriolet
On Sky news:

A 92 year old great-grandmother from Harlow, Essex, who was purchasing a bottle of whisky initially believed that the cashier serving her at the local One Stop shop was complimenting her when she was asked for ID.

The shop cashier was not joking, her request was serious. She wanted proof that the customer was over 18 years old. :rolleyes:

Has the world gone bonkers! :doh:
 
Last edited:
I can confirm that it has. My opinion is based on reading the daily newspapers, watching the news on television and seeing what my fellow earthlings do to each other on a daily basis.

As a brief example how about the following:-

I share an office with the Deputy Project Manager on a large construction project.
I use a laptop linked to a flat screen monitor and this was in place first thing this morning.
I left our office to talk to a colleague and heard a large crash which sounded like someone falling off a ladder. Went to investigate and saw flat screen monitor lying on the floor in bits on the DPM's side of the desk.

Asked what happened and he said "he had left a note for me from our Client which he had placed on my keyboard. Walked away and the monitor fell off the desk but he didn't touch it at any time." Right then I'll place an order for a new one shall I? After I picked up the bits of course!
 
I'd be more worried about the woman that age buying whisky
 
On Sky news:

A 92 year old great-grandmother from Harlow, Essex, who was purchasing a bottle of whisky initially believed that the cashier serving her at the local One Stop shop was complimenting her when she was asked for ID.

The shop cashier was not joking, her request was serious. She wanted proof that the customer was over 18 years old. :rolleyes:

Has the world gone bonkers! :doh:

It was bad enough when you said 91...but 92...that really is ridiculous.;)
 
The Americans are good at this.

When I visted Boston we decided to go to the Cheers Bar, at the entrance every single person was required to produce ID, even the silver haired retired couple stood in front of us.

Everyone produced without question or confrontation.

The thinking behind this is, if everyone is asked, regardless of appearance, then no one is offended or has cause to be offended. Makes a lot of sense to me.
 
Because of these sorts of stories, I barely look at any sort of newspaper nowadays and get my news from the BBC mostly.
 
..because they would never put any bias or spin into a story, now would they? :rolleyes:


:D

In my opinion they're as balanced as can be.

Journalism by its nature is opinion and, besides the odd bit of tabloid reporting, I think they're pretty good.
 
On Sky news:

A 92 year old great-grandmother from Harlow, Essex, who was purchasing a bottle of whisky initially believed that the cashier serving her at the local One Stop shop was complimenting her when she was asked for ID.

The shop cashier was not joking, her request was serious. She wanted proof that the customer was over 18 years old. :rolleyes:

Has the world gone bonkers! :doh:

I bet she was glad she had her mother with her to verify her age!
 
I was in Staples a while ago and the cashier refused to sell a small girl some paper scissors (you know those little plastic ones) despite the fact she was with her father. She made the girl give the cash to the father and then to her. The girl kept hold of the scissors the whole time. Company policy sir... :doh:
 
I was in Staples a while ago and the cashier refused to sell a small girl some paper scissors (you know those little plastic ones) despite the fact she was with her father. She made the girl give the cash to the father and then to her. The girl kept hold of the scissors the whole time. Company policy sir... :doh:

And if that was Trading standards they would have passed.
If the cashier had taken the girls money then the girl would have legally paid and the cashier would have faced the sack a heavy fine (£5000) and possibly even prison.

We have had trading standards visit us where we work and try something similar.
 
Last edited:
I want to know who provides the jobs to these pr1cks in the first place.
 
I understand that she was buying it for her son :thumb:

Think she may have changed her mind...

taylorwhisky.png
 
Red C220 said:
The thinking behind this is, if everyone is asked, regardless of appearance, then no one is offended or has cause to be offended. Makes a lot of sense to me.
It makes no sense whatsoever unless the objective is to a) employ the otherwise unemployable to carry out unnecessary tasks and/or b) to make entrance to the bar 10 times slower than it need be.

This is exactly the same sort of flawed logic that sees thousands of people go through laborious "security" checks administered by disinterested drones at airports all over the world every day, instead of using intelligence-led profiling and screening of only those who realistically represent a risk by a small number of highly skilled people who really know what they're looking for.

All in the name of not causing offence.
 
This is exactly the same sort of flawed logic that sees thousands of people go through laborious "security" checks administered by disinterested drones at airports all over the world every day, instead of using intelligence-led profiling and screening of only those who realistically represent a risk by a small number of highly skilled people who really know what they're looking for.

The problem with appreciating the security drones at the airports is you don't get to see what they achieve because they are primarily a deterrent.

A successful deterrent appears to be pointless because it deters.
 
A successful deterrent appears to be pointless because it deters.
I understand that, but it's not beyond the wit of of the determined to breach it, either - as has been proven - nor for undetected unintentional breaches to happen every day.

There's a world of difference between providing a visible deterrent backed up by targeted, intelligence-led, security that doesn't impinge on the legitimate actions of the law-abiding majority and what we have at our airports today. The first is about providing effective security, the second is about convincing the herd that they're safe to fly - at massive cost and inconvenience.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom