Jobs-worth LOLs

[StottyEvo]

Moonhawk said:

HereBeMonsters said:

StottyEvo said:

She told me that she needed to see the IDs of my friends as we were in a group -_- despite them being and looking older than me and one having a particularly large beard. Awkward old bint

Er, no. Following the law, actually. And if she's a personal licence holder, she could lose her licence for not doing that.

For not IDing people who clearly look over the age of 18. Which law states that?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/licensing_of_al...

She could be prosecuted if she supplies alcohol to somebody under 18 - or if the person buying the alcohol does so (especially if she suspects it may be being bought for that purpose).

But a licence holder cannot be prosecuted for supplying alcohol to somebody who is and appears to be over the age of 18 - just because they didn't verify that the person they were supplying were actually over the age of 18. The minimum requirement for licence holders is that they implement an age verification policy which requires people who appear to be under the age of 18 to be challenged for ID. Whether somebody appears to be over the age of 18 or not is highly subjective.

Also - it's not actually illegal for under 18s to consume alcohol bought by an adult. Children over the age of 5 are allowed to consume alcohol at home under the supervision of a parent or guardian. Also 16-17 year olds can legally consume alcohol on a licensed premises as long as the drink (beer, wine or cider) accompanies a table meal and has been bought by somebody over 18.

Shops and supermarkets refusing to serve adults just because they have a child with them goes directly against what the law allows - unless the shop/supermarket suspect the alcohol is going to be given to the child to consume unsupervised.

Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 29th October 10:14

Thank you for making the effort to write this post so I didn't have to

Also, she only asked me for ID the first time, specifically me.

Then when I went and got it she said she needed everyones, despite not caring previously. She only asked as she knew they were in the car waiting for me.

She was being an top for the sake of it.

[Carlton Banks]

StottyEvo said:

Moonhawk said:

HereBeMonsters said:

StottyEvo said:

She told me that she needed to see the IDs of my friends as we were in a group -_- despite them being and looking older than me and one having a particularly large beard. Awkward old bint

Er, no. Following the law, actually. And if she's a personal licence holder, she could lose her licence for not doing that.

For not IDing people who clearly look over the age of 18. Which law states that?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/licensing_of_al...

She could be prosecuted if she supplies alcohol to somebody under 18 - or if the person buying the alcohol does so (especially if she suspects it may be being bought for that purpose).

But a licence holder cannot be prosecuted for supplying alcohol to somebody who is and appears to be over the age of 18 - just because they didn't verify that the person they were supplying were actually over the age of 18. The minimum requirement for licence holders is that they implement an age verification policy which requires people who appear to be under the age of 18 to be challenged for ID. Whether somebody appears to be over the age of 18 or not is highly subjective.

Also - it's not actually illegal for under 18s to consume alcohol bought by an adult. Children over the age of 5 are allowed to consume alcohol at home under the supervision of a parent or guardian. Also 16-17 year olds can legally consume alcohol on a licensed premises as long as the drink (beer, wine or cider) accompanies a table meal and has been bought by somebody over 18.

Shops and supermarkets refusing to serve adults just because they have a child with them goes directly against what the law allows - unless the shop/supermarket suspect the alcohol is going to be given to the child to consume unsupervised.

Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 29th October 10:14

Thank you for making the effort to write this post so I didn't have to

Also, she only asked me for ID the first time, specifically me.

Then when I went and got it she said she needed everyones, despite not caring previously. She only asked as she knew they were in the car waiting for me.

She was being an top for the sake of it.

Reminds me of that inbetweeners scene where Will points this out!

[HereBeMonsters]

StottyEvo said:

Thank you for making the effort to write this post so I didn't have to

Also, she only asked me for ID the first time, specifically me.

Then when I went and got it she said she needed everyones, despite not caring previously. She only asked as she knew they were in the car waiting for me.

She was being an top for the sake of it.

And she may have suspected your friends were underage, if she suspected you were underage

[ChemicalChaos]

Ej74 said:

Wife was in hospital with Appendicitis

We are directed towards the bed she has been allocated

At said bed a nurse is sat in the visitors chair doing paperwork

We both sit on the bed as she leaves she states "Visitors can't sit on he bed must use the chairs provided.."

Epic fail where do we find these people...

Actually, there is a very good reason for not sitting on hospital beds, and that is to prevent the spread of bacteria or infection to and from your trousers. If the nurse was occupying the char, you could have stood up instead.

[andygo]

We were at the Formula Ford Festival at the weekend.

I had driven my car with the pitboard etc and parked it adjacent to a couple of moveable metal crowd barriers.

I was on the pitwall, hanging out the pitboard during qually when a marshall asked if it was my car parked next to the barriers. He wanted me to move it as they had opened up a vacant pit garage and wanted to be able to use it as a drive through for cars failing noise check at the other end of the pitlane.

I said, no probs, can I just finish qually, I'm doing the pitboard for my son, there's 5 minutes to go.

Nope, it had to be now, right now. Realising through past experience how hard it is to reason with someone who thrives on their power, I rushed off to move my car 2 feet.

Nobody used the drive through that I saw all weekend.

I understand that marshalls do a valuable job, but I'm afraid a proportion seem to be utter jobsworths. Such a pity. The reasonable ones are fantastic though!

[StottyEvo]

HereBeMonsters said:

StottyEvo said:

Thank you for making the effort to write this post so I didn't have to

Also, she only asked me for ID the first time, specifically me.

Then when I went and got it she said she needed everyones, despite not caring previously. She only asked as she knew they were in the car waiting for me.

She was being an top for the sake of it.

And she may have suspected your friends were underage, if she suspected you were underage

My flat mate has a beard that Dan Bilzerian would be proud of and the other friend is 26 and looks it.

I didn't put this in my first post as I didn't want to long the story out, but when we left the supermarket I said "She was being funny with me then, I'm sure of it" when I came back empty handed the second time my friends were pissing themselves and agreed that she defiantly was.

Could you trust me judgement that she was being very awkward as I was there and could pick up on the body language and tone of voice etc and you weren't.

To add, she didn't ask us for ID the first time, she specifically asked me. Only cared about the others once I came back in alone.

Edited by StottyEvo on Wednesday 29th October 16:16

[PHmember]

OpulentBob said:

Could have guessed the username from the tone of the post. Typical PH Member...

He said in a condescending manner...

[Adam B]

AbarthChris said:

RobinBanks said:

AbarthChris said:

stuff about bikes and cars on ferry

I don't see the problem. The girl on the phone is following her instructions and her job is to do that. The computer system she uses probably doesn't allow her to include bikes.
And she even mentioned that the targeted demographic is car users. The company decided to target car users. Why should she circumvent the rules she has to follow?

You come across as equally jobsworth. Targeted demographic of car users, thats virtually every single bloody person in Australia, how do you 'target' 99% of people?

Also, this idea of blaming computer systems is usually bullsh*t.

Common sense would allow the two customers to book a bike, thus saving room, gaining two happy customers and increasing the effectiveness of the marketing campaign. Jobsworths just say 'computer says no'

don't see the issue here either

presumably bikes get on for a cheaper rate than a car, ferry company wants to promote ferry use by cars by offering a discount, and doesn't feel the need to discount the cheaper bike rate

[greygoose]

ChemicalChaos said:

Ej74 said:

Wife was in hospital with Appendicitis

We are directed towards the bed she has been allocated

At said bed a nurse is sat in the visitors chair doing paperwork

We both sit on the bed as she leaves she states "Visitors can't sit on he bed must use the chairs provided.."

Epic fail where do we find these people...

Actually, there is a very good reason for not sitting on hospital beds, and that is to prevent the spread of bacteria or infection to and from your trousers. If the nurse was occupying the char, you could have stood up instead.

That's what I was thinking, hardly an epic fail.

[Zoobeef]

Adam B said:

don't see the issue here either

presumably bikes get on for a cheaper rate than a car, ferry company wants to promote ferry use by cars by offering a discount, and doesn't feel the need to discount the cheaper bike rate

Unless the car is now cheaper than the bike..

[StottyEvo]

Adam B said:

AbarthChris said:

RobinBanks said:

AbarthChris said:

stuff about bikes and cars on ferry

I don't see the problem. The girl on the phone is following her instructions and her job is to do that. The computer system she uses probably doesn't allow her to include bikes.
And she even mentioned that the targeted demographic is car users. The company decided to target car users. Why should she circumvent the rules she has to follow?

You come across as equally jobsworth. Targeted demographic of car users, thats virtually every single bloody person in Australia, how do you 'target' 99% of people?

Also, this idea of blaming computer systems is usually bullsh*t.

Common sense would allow the two customers to book a bike, thus saving room, gaining two happy customers and increasing the effectiveness of the marketing campaign. Jobsworths just say 'computer says no'

don't see the issue here either

presumably bikes get on for a cheaper rate than a car, ferry company wants to promote ferry use by cars by offering a discount, and doesn't feel the need to discount the cheaper bike rate

Not allowing bikes to use the lower car rate completely bypasses common sense, unless theirs a more time consuming and expensive procedure of strapping bikes down.

If their isn't, then entire company is being very awkward

[Antony Moxey]

All that jazz said:

Antony Moxey said:

PomBstard said:

All that jazz said:

You think that's bad, you'd lose the plot if you had to pick up a load out of a quarry or cement works. Just to load bagged OPC (standard cement) which is on pallets and shrink-wrapped you won't be allowed on site without :

- full face googles with vents. No vents, no load.
- ear defenders.
- hard hat with chin strap. No chin strap, no load.
- steel toe cap boots, must be lace up. No laces, no load.
- yellow hi-viz top, must be sleeved and have 2 horizontal and 2 vertical strips. No sleeves or orange instead of yellow, no load. Also must be fully zipped up, regardless of temperature.
- yellow hi-viz trousers, ditto above.

I kid you not, you have to dress up like an oil rig worker to load.... bags of cement.

Have done 20 years in quarrying and waste management - seen and heard an awful lot of complete arse trotted out by needless, lifeless, spineless, thoughtless, witless jobsworths, who would all be feckin jobless if I had my way. All incapable of doing a simple risk assessment and instead fall back on the mantra of the Risk Manager By Reading A Book And Attending A Course - elimination is the best prevention. Just cock off, the lot of you. Some things make sense, like not using a phone when going down the steps of a crushing tower, or in an area where 40t B-double trucks are reversing, so present it as that - don't extend it to preventing use of a mobile phone if walking in any area on site*, cos that's just being a tt.

• Actual case study - I have seen the policy with my own eyes, brought about apparently cos someone saw another person slip on the edge of a flowerbed whilst walking and talking on the phone.

I don't see the big deal meself. I work in quarries and landfill sites regularly so know to take the appropriate kit with me and ensure I'm wearing it when walking around. Now it's second nature and I don't even think about it any more. In fact, I've been on closed sites where the level of PPE is more relaxed and it feels strange not needing a hard hat and hi-viz etc.

Spot the HSE boffin.

Or perhaps someone who just gets on with it without making a song and dance about PPE that your company provided for you anyway. I see drama queens like you every time I visit sites who think they're better than everyone else and that the rules don't apply to them.

HSE boffin? No, just someone getting on with their job without the need to let everyone know how special I am.

[CSully94]

Few months ago I went to get some spray paint from B&Q. Scanned it at the self service and had to wait for the assistant as expected.

Woman came over and asked for ID, which I duly provided, only to be told that I'm not old enough to buy the paint?!?!

"But the age for buying paint is 16, I'm 20 as stated by my ID"

"Sorry, tells me here you need to be 21"

Bint points at the "Challenge 21" sign up on the screen

Bit of back of forth where she refuses to serve me in the end, so just went across the road and got it from Halfords. Don't know why but it really irritated me at the time....

[PomBstard]

Antony Moxey said:

Antony Moxey said:

PomBstard said:

All that jazz said:

I kid you not, you have to dress up like an oil rig worker to load.... bags of cement.

Stuff.

I don't see the big deal meself. I work in quarries and landfill sites regularly so know to take the appropriate kit with me and ensure I'm wearing it when walking around. Now it's second nature and I don't even think about it any more. In fact, I've been on closed sites where the level of PPE is more relaxed and it feels strange not needing a hard hat and hi-viz etc

Or perhaps someone who just gets on with it without making a song and dance about PPE that your company provided for you anyway. I see drama queens like you every time I visit sites who think they're better than everyone else and that the rules don't apply to them.

The example of different PPE requirements for closed sites is risk assessment working - no need for a hard hat if there's nothing to fall on you.

And whilst I always follow the site rules, I am amazed at how ridiculous some of them are, and how often people say they are necessary. I have been asked to wear a hard hat on the site of a proposed landfill extension - that is, a field with cows in it. I was constantly on the lookout for the Lesser Spotted Pat-Flinging Fresian. Is that really necessary, sensible or worthwhile use of company PPE? Its such requirements that diminish the importance of proper rules/regs/processes to keep people safe when there is actual danger.

Just putting PPE on every time you step out of the car stops you thinking about the appropriate hazards and how to manage them. Far better to pause before doing anything and have a good look around, then make a judgement (OMG, who'll protect me from the lawyers???) as to what actions will keep you safe. No point putting all that PPE on then stepping blindly into an uncovered manhole.

[AbarthChris]

StottyEvo said:

Not allowing bikes to use the lower car rate completely bypasses common sense, unless theirs a more time consuming and expensive procedure of strapping bikes down.

If their isn't, then entire company is being very awkward

Thank you! finally someone with common sense. There is no difference for cars or bikes, the pricing is based on 2 people sharing a cabin as its an overnight trip.

So to the company, whether its a car or a bike makes no difference. He asked about strapping the bike down too, the woman said that didnt matter.

[anonymous-user]

AbarthChris said:

StottyEvo said:

Not allowing bikes to use the lower car rate completely bypasses common sense, unless theirs a more time consuming and expensive procedure of strapping bikes down.

If their isn't, then entire company is being very awkward

Thank you! finally someone with common sense. There is no difference for cars or bikes, the pricing is based on 2 people sharing a cabin as its an overnight trip.

So to the company, whether its a car or a bike makes no difference. He asked about strapping the bike down too, the woman said that didnt matter.

I think it is you missing the point completely as a private company their mission is to empty your pockets as much as possible why should they do you a deal to save you money and lose them money because you couldn't comply with the deal requirements ?

I see hotel deals all the time for dates/ie conditions i cannot make but i don't worry about it.

A common theme on the threads about jobs is "If you don't like it leave it" i think the same applies in your scenario "If you don't like the deal applying to cars and not motorbikes leave it" ?
Private company their rules and conditions if it doesn't break any laws ?

Have you tried the "Discrimination card" yet

[Gareth79]

Moonhawk said:

Also - it's not actually illegal for under 18s to consume alcohol bought by an adult. Children over the age of 5 are allowed to consume alcohol at home under the supervision of a parent or guardian. Also 16-17 year olds can legally consume alcohol on a licensed premises as long as the drink (beer, wine or cider) accompanies a table meal and has been bought by somebody over 18.

Well, children of *any* age legally consume alcohol ANYWHERE except licensed premises. The age 5 limit is about *giving* it to a child. No supervision is ever required. The only problem for over 18s is it's illegal to purchase alcohol "on behalf" of somebody under 18, I'm not sure of any case law here though, I don't think prosecutions are common at all, I'd think only where money changed hands, not a parent literally buying a bottle of vodka for Timmy every week to drink in the park.

[AbarthChris]

speedyguy said:

I think it is you missing the point completely as a private company their mission is to empty your pockets as much as possible why should they do you a deal to save you money and lose them money because you couldn't comply with the deal requirements ?

I see hotel deals all the time for dates/ie conditions i cannot make but i don't worry about it.

A common theme on the threads about jobs is "If you don't like it leave it" i think the same applies in your scenario "If you don't like the deal applying to cars and not motorbikes leave it" ?
Private company their rules and conditions if it doesn't break any laws ?

Have you tried the "Discrimination card" yet

ok, let me break this down for the tiny minds on here. If he out his little bike into a massive van, they'd be ok with that, but if he wanted to cut out the van and save them some space, they wouldnt let him do that. Where is this different to the guy not wanting the pack of crisps with the meal deal?

[anonymous-user]

PomBstard said:

Antony Moxey said:

Antony Moxey said:

PomBstard said:

All that jazz said:

I kid you not, you have to dress up like an oil rig worker to load.... bags of cement.

Stuff.

I don't see the big deal meself. I work in quarries and landfill sites regularly so know to take the appropriate kit with me and ensure I'm wearing it when walking around. Now it's second nature and I don't even think about it any more. In fact, I've been on closed sites where the level of PPE is more relaxed and it feels strange not needing a hard hat and hi-viz etc

Or perhaps someone who just gets on with it without making a song and dance about PPE that your company provided for you anyway. I see drama queens like you every time I visit sites who think they're better than everyone else and that the rules don't apply to them.

The example of different PPE requirements for closed sites is risk assessment working - no need for a hard hat if there's nothing to fall on you.

And whilst I always follow the site rules, I am amazed at how ridiculous some of them are, and how often people say they are necessary. I have been asked to wear a hard hat on the site of a proposed landfill extension - that is, a field with cows in it. I was constantly on the lookout for the Lesser Spotted Pat-Flinging Fresian. Is that really necessary, sensible or worthwhile use of company PPE? Its such requirements that diminish the importance of proper rules/regs/processes to keep people safe when there is actual danger.

Just putting PPE on every time you step out of the car stops you thinking about the appropriate hazards and how to manage them. Far better to pause before doing anything and have a good look around, then make a judgement (OMG, who'll protect me from the lawyers???) as to what actions will keep you safe. No point putting all that PPE on then stepping blindly into an uncovered manhole.

Completely agree.

From time to time I'm a site supervisor/agent. A couple of years ago we were building a new road on canvey Island, which involved a few dozen precast culvert sections. I caught a guy lifting one up with a telehandler and a set of brothers, about 3 or 4 tonnes in weight. He then stood directly underneath it, using his shovel to scrape the mud off the bottom preparing for installation. Obviously, he was stopped immediately and bked, his mitigation was that he was wearing a hard hat and goggles. He was from a land where H+S is taken far, far less seriously.

I've also nearly lost an eye when inspecting a concrete bridge pour. A shutter tie bar was protruding too far, with no mushroom cap. I could have been more observant/carried out the inspection in better light, but the lack of mushroom meant the sharp edges from the cutting process (rebar cut with a disc cutter) sliced my upper eyelind in two, and pierced my lower lid and ended up with a hole pretty much down to my cheekbone. I thought I'd lost my eye. The hospital managed to save it, and luckily it appears to be fully mended, with the scarring hidden in the wrinkles and bags of my face. The fixers were kicked off site, their agent was bked, and the job stopped (3 days) while the H+S people came and inspected. There was, maybe foolishly, no requirement for eye protection, something which I now religiously wear.

H+S isn't to cause people a pain in the arse. It's to stop people being hurt or killed. I've known people break legs from falling down open manholes, fracture skulls from hose joints bursting, seen a guy crushed by a 20T 360 excvator, seen a colleague hit by a car at 50mph. All could have been prevented/mitigated.

When it happens to you, and you then realise how important good H+S/PPE/staff protection is, it stops being jobsworth.

[anonymous-user]

AbarthChris said:

ok, let me break this down for the tiny minds on here. If he out his little bike into a massive van, they'd be ok with that, but if he wanted to cut out the van and save them some space, they wouldnt let him do that.

I'll break it down for you simply private company their rules take it or leave it

AbarthChris said:

Where is this different to the guy not wanting the pack of crisps with the meal deal?

There isn't see above you buy what's on offer or what you want.
I'e take it or leave it.

From what i gather you took it but were unhappy having to pay a higher cost.
The company isn't bothered they made more money.
shove your bike in a van if you want to make a point but they may charge a van surcharge many companies do.