|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 30, 2014 15:32:58 GMT
So there I am unloading, and I get a "You will have to move that wagon"..... This is fron a rather officious twit in a high-vis jacket. Why?.. its in a loading bay, I am entitled to unload here. But its spoiling the shot.... You want me to stop work and pander to a (beeeeeep)ing TV crew?... Go (beep) yourself. I then get the "soft" approach by some twit with so many wires and stuff I though they had escaped from a hospital bed... turns out it was a "Producer".... I cant remember exactly what it was they said, but same thing=, did I need to be here. Well, Yes, it was a rather high profile case at Manchester Crown Court, and as part of the company that stores records, I was the one you see in the background wheeling in tall stacks of boxes full of files.... The wagon stays. And whats more, it now has "Security".... I had reason to believe the files may be stolen by interested parties. I had also ordered one member of the film crew to cease and desist filming the inside of the truck. Knowledge of what can be presumed as "Private" in the eyes of the law comes in handy there... you can not film any "Private" space without prior permission. Just because the vehicle is parked in a Public space does not mean its now public, and the presence of a door but no windows makes it private. I suppose you didn't think to say "Then you will have to explain to the (official in charge of the high profile case) why he doesn't have the necessary paperwork to do his job." |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 1, 2014 8:41:02 GMT
Official Secrets act, Govt version, prohibited me from doing so.
It has been long enough, so I can reveal, I was carrying official court records from time to time, including at one time a court "diary" for want of a better description, that detailed every single case going back over 1,000 yrs.
I would also be carrying criminal records of the type not even the jury would have access to, and other important documents that perhaps some would rather never got known they actually exist?...
(At on point I could have delved through and looked at the actual employment records of one footballer known as David Beckham, as we were the official storage company for the FA, UEFA and FIFA.... I never did, 'cos I believed him to be a waste of money..)
I was not at liberty to say what was in any of the boxes, nor why I was delivering them, or to whom, or make any information "public".
I was, however, entitled to contact the person I was delivering to, and inform them why I was being delayed...
Which I did...
Hence the extra "Security".
This is my job from time to time.
If I do any AvSec work, it doesnt matter what I carry, it can be the stupid most pointless piece of plastic toy junk the world has ever seen, but Aviation Security states what happens on the wagon stays on the wagon, and I dont discuss my job with anyone unless they have need to know.
I know some may say "Who cares".
The customer cares.
And for that reason, they buy our silence....
|
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Dec 1, 2014 14:46:43 GMT
So there I am unloading, and I get a "You will have to move that wagon"..... This is fron a rather officious twit in a high-vis jacket. Why?.. its in a loading bay, I am entitled to unload here. But its spoiling the shot.... You want me to stop work and pander to a (beeeeeep)ing TV crew?... Go (beep) yourself. I then get the "soft" approach by some twit with so many wires and stuff I though they had escaped from a hospital bed... turns out it was a "Producer".... I cant remember exactly what it was they said, but same thing=, did I need to be here. Well, Yes, it was a rather high profile case at Manchester Crown Court, and as part of the company that stores records, I was the one you see in the background wheeling in tall stacks of boxes full of files.... The wagon stays. And whats more, it now has "Security".... I had reason to believe the files may be stolen by interested parties. I had also ordered one member of the film crew to cease and desist filming the inside of the truck. Knowledge of what can be presumed as "Private" in the eyes of the law comes in handy there... you can not film any "Private" space without prior permission. Just because the vehicle is parked in a Public space does not mean its now public, and the presence of a door but no windows makes it private. The way your post started, I was thinking you would be discussing a time you were moving equipment for a musical act. Was not expecting it to be related to a court case. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 1, 2014 15:05:49 GMT
Official Secrets act, Govt version, prohibited me from doing so. It has been long enough, so I can reveal, I was carrying official court records from time to time, including at one time a court "diary" for want of a better description, that detailed every single case going back over 1,000 yrs. I would also be carrying criminal records of the type not even the jury would have access to, and other important documents that perhaps some would rather never got known they actually exist?... (At on point I could have delved through and looked at the actual employment records of one footballer known as David Beckham, as we were the official storage company for the FA, UEFA and FIFA.... I never did, 'cos I believed him to be a waste of money..) I was not at liberty to say what was in any of the boxes, nor why I was delivering them, or to whom, or make any information "public". I was, however, entitled to contact the person I was delivering to, and inform them why I was being delayed... Which I did... Hence the extra "Security". This is my job from time to time. If I do any AvSec work, it doesnt matter what I carry, it can be the stupid most pointless piece of plastic toy junk the world has ever seen, but Aviation Security states what happens on the wagon stays on the wagon, and I dont discuss my job with anyone unless they have need to know. I know some may say "Who cares". The customer cares. And for that reason, they buy our silence.... so even with just titles - and on the assumption the news crew was filming for the same event you were unloading for, it applied? that spoils all the fun. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 2, 2014 9:07:38 GMT
Back to room 101.
Madonna is getting an express route in with a sack thrown over her.
She has done a topless shoot for the media.
I will not be posting links, as the media whore is doing it for attention
She is 56.
Aint no spring chicken....
Its about time she stopped this nudity thing isnt it?..
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 2, 2014 9:14:43 GMT
There was a legal thing involved with "Who are these files for?" and attempted bribery to look at what was being unloaded.
Its against my own ethics to even consider such... whoever it may be.....
But if it was Jimmy Savile?..
Ouch.
My ethics just took a right hook to the jaw........
Whereas the company I worked for would accept any free publicity, it was definitely NOT for bribery, and absolutely watertight on its confidentiality agreements, absolutely.
We were not to give out any information, to anyone, ever, on who what why when or anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 2, 2014 14:52:10 GMT
There was a legal thing involved with "Who are these files for?" and attempted bribery to look at what was being unloaded. Its against my own ethics to even consider such... whoever it may be..... But if it was Jimmy Savile?.. Ouch. My ethics just took a right hook to the jaw........ Whereas the company I worked for would accept any free publicity, it was definitely NOT for bribery, and absolutely watertight on its confidentiality agreements, absolutely. We were not to give out any information, to anyone, ever, on who what why when or anything. I would be oh-so tempted to say "you can assume it will blow your story wide open, but you'll just have to wait and see." |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 2, 2014 14:53:30 GMT
Back to room 101. Madonna is getting an express route in with a sack thrown over her. She has done a topless shoot for the media. I will not be posting links, as the media whore is doing it for attention She is 56. Aint no spring chicken.... Its about time she stopped this nudity thing isnt it?.. as Rosie O'Donell said in A League of Their Own, "Anyone who wants to see your bosoms already has." |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 3, 2014 9:22:12 GMT
You mean like the guy who shouted at a reporter "Everything you just said to that camera is wrong"....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 3, 2014 15:34:14 GMT
You mean like the guy who shouted at a reporter "Everything you just said to that camera is wrong".... I'll have to remember that one. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Dec 3, 2014 16:31:54 GMT
And the lastest nominee for Room 101 is not a single nominee, but an entire family... Anna Duggar Pregnant: Josh Duggar's Wife Expecting Fourth ChildOk, so if the 19 kids each have 19 kids, that's 382 Duggars including parents/grandparents. If those that generation continues the process, that 7,241 Duggars The next generation would yield 137,562 Duggars After that, it gets really frightening. Let's hope that some part of the current generation chooses to stop the insanity. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 3, 2014 16:37:09 GMT
And the lastest nominee for Room 101 is not a single nominee, but an entire family... Anna Duggar Pregnant: Josh Duggar's Wife Expecting Fourth ChildOk, so if the 19 kids each have 19 kids, that's 382 Duggars including parents/grandparents. If those that generation continues the process, that 7,241 Duggars The next generation would yield 137,562 Duggars After that, it gets really frightening. Let's hope that some part of the current generation chooses to stop the insanity. considering that a significant portion of the insanity is based on religion, and one of the tenets of the religion is that all your children must be indoctrinated into the religion, and sheltered from exposure to other ideas; the odds are slim. |
|
|
|
Post by freegan on Dec 3, 2014 18:56:39 GMT
And the lastest nominee for Room 101 is not a single nominee, but an entire family... Anna Duggar Pregnant: Josh Duggar's Wife Expecting Fourth ChildOk, so if the 19 kids each have 19 kids, that's 382 Duggars including parents/grandparents. If those that generation continues the process, that 7,241 Duggars The next generation would yield 137,562 Duggars After that, it gets really frightening. Let's hope that some part of the current generation chooses to stop the insanity. considering that a significant portion of the insanity is based on religion, and one of the tenets of the religion is that all your children must be indoctrinated into the religion, and sheltered from exposure to other ideas; the odds are slim. With those restrictions, I'd hope that inbreeding will eventually put paid to them. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 4, 2014 9:00:54 GMT
Perhaps I am a bit jaded, but, families that big.... How?.. just how do you live like that?.. it must be like living in a commune.
I like my own space too much.... my kids have enough attention, but they know when I need space, and thats good.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 4, 2014 14:50:18 GMT
Perhaps I am a bit jaded, but, families that big.... How?.. just how do you live like that?.. it must be like living in a commune. I like my own space too much.... my kids have enough attention, but they know when I need space, and thats good. it IS living in a commune - and they live like that because they grow up believing that is how God wants them to live, and he doesn't tolerate complaint. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Dec 4, 2014 17:26:13 GMT
Perhaps I am a bit jaded, but, families that big.... How?.. just how do you live like that?.. it must be like living in a commune. I like my own space too much.... my kids have enough attention, but they know when I need space, and thats good. I had a Great Uncle with 22 kids. He owned a farm, a ranch, and a butcher shop, and so each child was put to work as soon as they were old enough to do so. Oh, and ladies - The reason why he had 22 is because each birth represented twins or triplets. Chew on that one. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Dec 4, 2014 17:32:46 GMT
Perhaps I am a bit jaded, but, families that big.... How?.. just how do you live like that?.. it must be like living in a commune. I like my own space too much.... my kids have enough attention, but they know when I need space, and thats good. I had a Great Uncle with 22 kids. He owned a farm, a ranch, and a butcher shop, and so each child was put to work as soon as they were old enough to do so. Oh, and ladies - The reason why he had 22 is because each birth represented twins or triplets. Chew on that one. Operative question: Did the same mother carry & give birth to all 22 kids? Wondering about the probability of one female having multiple sets of multiples (twins/triplets). |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 4, 2014 17:45:27 GMT
I had a Great Uncle with 22 kids. He owned a farm, a ranch, and a butcher shop, and so each child was put to work as soon as they were old enough to do so. Oh, and ladies - The reason why he had 22 is because each birth represented twins or triplets. Chew on that one. Operative question: Did the same mother carry & give birth to all 22 kids? Wondering about the probability of one female having multiple sets of multiples (twins/triplets). I forget now whether a tendency for multiple births comes from the mother or the father. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Dec 4, 2014 18:04:31 GMT
I had a Great Uncle with 22 kids. He owned a farm, a ranch, and a butcher shop, and so each child was put to work as soon as they were old enough to do so. Oh, and ladies - The reason why he had 22 is because each birth represented twins or triplets. Chew on that one. Operative question: Did the same mother carry & give birth to all 22 kids? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 30, 2015 9:52:53 GMT
Rubber Band.
Is that a silly name?...
Wel, Mr and Mrs Band would want tu "try" to get their kid named Rubber wouldnt they?...
So why did someone try to call their kid Nutella.
Mr and Mrs Milliband could have called their kid Steve....
(Steve Miller Band...?..)
And I know some twit who named his Kid after the ENTIRE Manchester City football squad.
Yeah, he gets some stick, half that squad no longer play for City.
So, Proposal, ANYONE who tries to give their KId strange and stupid names should have a front row seat in Room 101.
And that includes anyone who introduces themselves as "Andy with a D"....
Like how else does it matter....
Until I try to write your name down I dont care how you spell it.
So I have a separate room, a special room, for those who try to go for the must difficult spelling of a name they can find...
This special room is the one with no floor... straight down to "Saytarn".
Andrew spelt Llanrowe, and yes, I have seen that one, Sindy spelt Cindoy, you know the types...
"WE wanted to make our kid different"...
Well paint him Blue and call him Poppa Smurf why dont you?....
There are plenty of names out there that are NOT the usual celebrity ponce name, sure you couldn't think of a better one than taking a popular name and spelling it WRONG.
That kid has to go through life with that name.
I call for sensible, and lets have none of the crud we have been getting.
And that includes the idiot who gave the name "Lettuce" to the (awful) girl who was on UK's X-Fact-up last year...
We need some sort of "Provisional" Birth certificate that means we will get back to you after a panel of judges have decided if that name is sensible.
(And yes, that may take time, we have people from all over the world, if their culture things a certain name is "Normal", who are we to deny that?... but if that same name is something like "Cowpat" in English spelling, someone has to decide...)
|
|
