Jump to content

ECCOnoob

Members
  • Content Count

    5,461
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ECCOnoob

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 30/06/1982

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I would suggest that people are far more being played by very very clever people in the Halifax Marketing Team. Perfectly timed as part of the 50th pride celebrations, they conveniently bring in this change (which would have been on the cards anyway), and now for whatever reason the name "Halifax" is out there for little to no investment advertorial space or televised commercial slots. They just plant the seed knowing full well that the twitterati and hothead opinionators in certain newspapers will get all hysterical and drive traffic for them. Worked like a charm.
  2. We are a fickle bunch. In the past couple of days we have had one story with the Daily Mail brigade outraged at British Airways because their booking system presumptively defaults the pronoun "Dr" to be a male passenger..... We now have the same crowd pathetically kicking off with cries of 'wokey nonsense' simply because Halifax are displaying pronouns onto name badges to stop gender assumptions or unconscious bias. A basic courtesy to correctly identify someone and something that has been well established in correspondence and emails and social media for a while now. It's a name badge. That's it. It's a bit of plastic worn by some bod processing your bank transaction. It is not to be translated as some great cultural war. It is not to be translated as transgender being forced down our throats. It is not to be translated as some great degrading of society into some rainbow filled homoerotic invasion of people's lives. Honest to god people..... go for a walk, read a book, get a shag..... just get a life. If someone is so thin skinned, insecure and pathetic to let such a trivial issue declare whether they want to continue banking with this company then quite frankly good riddance. If their time and effort is so worthless to go through the rigmarole of changing a bank for such a pathetic reason then so be it. Personally I value my time much more.
  3. Wow. That is quite some arrogance you have there. So in your mind, everyone who voted for this current leader and government is a moronic imbecile who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the voting booth. Let me guess, you know best, they should have all voted for your beloved saintly downtrodden Corbyn who would have saved the world, prevented Covid from ever happening and single-handedly tripled the wealth of every ordinary citizen...... dream on. Rayner is nothing more than some mouthy mare who falls apart as soon as she has to make any real decisions. As for the great leader of the opposition, I strongly suspect he will be one of many revolving door leaders in continuing Saga of the dented warring factions of the current Labour Party. Government in waiting? The resolution to all our problems? Don't make me laugh. Last time I checked the polling, the Tories may well of took a hard knock, but labour still couldn't form enough to smash the majority threshold. If they can't even manage to take a substantial lead when there are all these Tory scandals and controversies what are they good for?
  4. Drama, escapism, bitchiness, schadenfreude and general feeling of superiority over the meatheads and bimbo contestants. Low brow, populist content which everyone loves to hate but they'd soon get stucked into its trashy narrative if they let themselves. Rich or poor, educated or not, we all revert back to caveman days. Deep down, behind our snobbish intellectual facades, we all love a bit of gossip, scandal, exotic locations, bare flesh and watching others fail.
  5. The reality is they are being manufactured as simply as shelling peas in massive town size factory floors by rows of workers on back to back rolling shifts for pennies an hour. We simple consumers get in awe about the technological wonderment and wizardry that makes these giant screens with the perceived ridiculously low bargain price on the shop shelf.... but I bet the actual base cost of manufacturing the TV set is about a 10th of that.
  6. So in your world then..... if that is their number one priority they are free to get donors blood by all and any means possible no matter what. No rules, no procedures, no checks, no paperwork, no screening, no auditing, no control- don't matter as long as we get a donation right? So you find it perfectly acceptable if faced with a similar situation for the clinic to rollover, be bullied into accepting the pathetic demands of some uncooperative donor and just fill in the forms anyway with some guesswork? Yeah I'll stick with professionals thank you.
  7. I don't give a flying fig why you think the question was asked. The fact is, it was asked as part of their procedure, the donor chose to refuse to answer. Non-cooperation = incomplete paperwork = no acceptable donation. All fault is with the donor. How is this hard to understand.
  8. No they didn't because the donor was an uncooperative ass who refused to answer and complete the form. All the clinic could do was to assume he wasn't which is not the same thing. Something that no healthcare setting is going to apply in this litigious and heavily regulated day and age. The bank are not just promoting inclusiveness like some flag-waving exercise, they are making damn sure that their paperwork and procedures reflect the changing times. They are making sure that everything is recorded across the board for all their potential donors in all potential physiological and gender circumstances. Just give it up and stop trying to defend this prat. Even the newspaper he went running to ain't quite on side, amazingly for once, many in the Daily Mail comments section are calling him out for the petty and childish idiot he was.
  9. Errrm..... I would suspect that the routine of checking and accurately recording someone's medical history and conditions before they extract blood out of them and pump it into someone else is pretty relevant. I know you are not that dense. So stop trying to derail the issue with your ridiculous irrelevant examples. We are not talking about income, we are not talking about political allegiance. It's a routine medical document in a medical setting involving blood transfusion. You therefore know full well why such question would be on the proforma questionnaire. You know full well why they would have been asked and you know full well why said donor should have answered it like a normal reasonable person instead of their pathetic showing off. What other forms, data, procedures does said donor think the clinic should be assuming or second guessing or ignoring because of "common sense".
  10. You are quite right. He didn't want to because he wanted to be petty, childish attention seeker whose gone showing off for the papers for his 5 minutes of fame. The clinic failed at nothing. They did exactly what they were supposed to do. Refuse to accept a donation from a uncooperative antagonistic donor who was refusing to follow a routine information request and compliance with paperwork. I could not give a toss if he was a 60-year old who had done it many times before. Rules change, procedures change, most adults deal with that quite normally. However, if this ass chooses to throw a petty tantrum like a toddler...says far more about him.
  11. So what? Why do people keep bringing up the voluntary aspect as if it's somehow relevant. If I volunteer to drive a patient to a hospital I still have to abide by all the rules and regulations of the road. If I volunteer to help out in some day centre or school, I still have to a comply with all the relevant paperwork, regulations and checks. If I volunteer to donate some blood which is going to be pumped into a completely different human being, I am expected to comply with all the relevant forms, questions and paperwork as set by the medical facility. Most reasonable people who've evolved from Neanderthal and kept up to date with the changing world, will perfectly understand why such a question exists in routine procedure. All this nonsense about "it should be obvious" to the clinic, or "he's been doing it for years" or "they should just know" or whatever other lame excuse gets thrown out isn't relevant. As said before, the clinic has a duty to follow strict procedure and ensure full full compliance with all necessary paperwork. To do otherwise would jeopardise their own jobs, the clinic and potentially the receiving patient. The answer to the question would have took a second but instead this arrogant, moronic attention seeker has made a big deal out of it - to try and prove some pathetic point. There's only one person to blame for there being one less donation that week and it's them/him/her/whatever. We all know why the media has reported it because it's their job to sell papers with catchy headlines and soundbites. In an ideal world, this moronic crybaby attention seeker should have been told to go shove it. Told to grow up. Told to stop being such an intolerant and backwards tool. Fat chance. The protagonist has got what they wanted this very thread is all part of it.
  12. Evidence is normally standard position. As is a direct quote from a a source willing to go on record and who was actually there are as a direct witness to the event. Anonymous heresay it's about as reliable as Mystic Meg making stuff up with a crystal ball.
  13. For the very very good reason that said donor refused to comply with mandatory form filling and data collection as required by the clinic before accepting their blood donation. "Should have been common sense" doesn't cut it when dealing with mandatory legalities or negligence claims or failures in procedure or failure in compliance. I know you seem to have some rose tinted nostalgic view of how the world works and have always shown some criticism of the amounts of paperwork that carers and nurses et al have to be filling in, instead of patting the hands and chatting away to patients like some scene out of Carry On Matron.... but life doesn't work like that. If there was some scandal come out about blood transfusion service errors or some infection outbreak I can guarantee you'd be first on here criticising the government, criticising the management, criticising the board, criticising the supervisors for not filling in the right forms, for not doing the right compliance checks, for not following procedures and for not supervising properly. Simple fact is this Donor was entitled ass who was trying to prove some pathetic point. He should be reminded every single day that his petty and pathetic actions could have potentially killed someone.
  14. Well, said Mr Lynch is the one banging on about safety being the primary reason for the strike... He's been the one criticising and doom mongering about machines taking place of people and the supposed catastrophic effects that will have. When such hysteria gets posted on here people are entitled to counter it. Especially when it has no bearing in reality.
  15. Oh take your tin foil hat off you hysteric. You talk about real life. Right now, computers are keeping your lights on, your water flowing, your gas circulated, your internet and telephones working, your television and radio broadcasting, your supermarket shelf stocked with food, your pubs stocked with beer and stopping planes from falling out the sky and landing on your bonce. Yes of course all of that has some level of human involvement, but in modern society, and it has been for over 50-years, the vast majority of those humans would not be able to do their job and run without computer control nor do they all necessarily require the same amount of Manpower as previously. Grow up. You talk as if the implementation of these new practises are going to eradicate entire safety inspections, controlling, auditing, analysis. They don't chuck out these things on some whim. They take years of development and fine-tuning and testing and approval before they are implemented. Given the green light for completely self-driving cars is coming ever closer, you really ought to stay indoors as clearly you won't feel safe anywhere thanks that evil despicable silicone chip eh? With a thinking like yours you must be a union man's wet dream they could chuck any old fodder to justify clinging on to outdated methods, unnecessary job roles and refusals to embrace change and people like you must lap it up.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.