• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Frank Hovis

Biter bit

Recommended Posts

Gol ones funny and expected. Im surprised she was not shotbefore she could flip her finger.

The british council bint is fucking unbeliavable. I mean, id not expect that from someone over 21, never mind a 80k civil servant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

But... but we're NICE.  So that means we can be horrible and mean and vicious.

Two sweet stories of comeuppance in RT today:

5a00b169fc7e93257a8b4569.jpg

Pwned!  :D

 

42276EF600000578-4678322-image-m-24_1499

 

 

 

 

Aww sad face.

Fries with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, DeepLurker said:

Not sure about the first one. There's a growing trend for people to be fired because of something they did/said in their private lives, and which has no bearing on their ability/suitability to perform their job. As another example: a while ago a boss at Mozilla got fired for expressing anti-gay-marriage views. I'm deliberately picking this example because in my example, the "SJWs" will have creamed themselves at this guy being fired - for something he did outside of the workplace. Whereas in Frank Hovis' example, the SJWs will not doubt scream blue murder about someone getting fired for expressing their contempt of Trump. But, fundamentally, it's exactly the same situation: express an opinion outside of office hours, get fired.

The British Council example, however, is a lot more clear-cut: as a boss of the British Council she was supposed to champion Britain abroad. Pissing all over the royal family quite clearly made her unfit for that job.

Yep, I'm with you on that one. Your employers don't own you and your opinions, instead they pay you for X amount of hours provision of your skills. A lot of them don't seem to realise that.

If someone is clearly bringing the company into disrepute then fair enough, but the other question in this case is who took the photo, and who posted it on social media? Since she clearly wasn't the one with the camera, it would seem likely that it was someone else on both counts. In which case I'm surprised she let herself get steamrollered by her employers.

On the other hand, the sort of triggered SJW who would flip the bird to the presidential motorcade is the sort of triggered SJW who probably shared the photo of themselves on every social media app going to collect the kudos, in which case, tough shit, lady.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, DeepLurker said:

Not sure about the first one. There's a growing trend for people to be fired because of something they did/said in their private lives, and which has no bearing on their ability/suitability to perform their job. As another example: a while ago a boss at Mozilla got fired for expressing anti-gay-marriage views. I'm deliberately picking this example because in my example, the "SJWs" will have creamed themselves at this guy being fired - for something he did outside of the workplace. Whereas in Frank Hovis' example, the SJWs will not doubt scream blue murder about someone getting fired for expressing their contempt of Trump. But, fundamentally, it's exactly the same situation: express an opinion outside of office hours, get fired.

The British Council example, however, is a lot more clear-cut: as a boss of the British Council she was supposed to champion Britain abroad. Pissing all over the royal family quite clearly made her unfit for that job.

Yeah the first one doesn't sit quite right. Pretty unbecoming but if every person who'd given the single finger 'fuck you' on the road was given the same treatment we'd probably all be out of a job.

Bloody stupid thing to do though all things considered. Sympathy level = 70%

The council worker on the other hand is completely deserving of the order of the boot. Not only is her comment tedious SJW bollocks, you don't go on record to mug off the boss...and again. Facebook! Is there some gross stupidity requirement to sign up to that these days!?

And how the fuck is a charity manager on 80k?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the first one was wearing a company logo then fair enough, otherwise not (though I would still have fuck all sympathy for her). The second one, I know someone at The British Council and their description of her was 'a gobshite'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first one compounded the issue by sharing the picture on her faceaids site, proudly promoting herself. 

Fucking stupid and opening herself up to this, however, there is an SJW angle to her.  on the other hand, she did this as a private individual, so the libertarian side of me would say she's free to do whatever the fuck she likes in her own time unless it directly brings her employer into disrepute, she should tell her employer to go fuck themselves and she'll see them on the wrong side of a dismissal case.

2nd stupid overpaid bint. Serves her right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why some are supporting the first one; you can be, and people are, sacked for perfectly legal things that you do in your private life that do not have any direct impact upon your company under the blanket charge of "bringing the company into disrepute".

For example a Police officer would be sacked if it was found out that they were a member of the BNP even if the extent of their membership extended beyond no more than paying the annual fee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I'm not sure why some are supporting the first one; you can be, and people are, sacked for perfectly legal things that you do in your private life that do not have any direct impact upon your company under the blanket charge of "bringing the company into disrepute".

For example a Police officer would be sacked if it was found out that they were a member of the BNP even if the extent of their membership extended beyond no more than paying the annual fee.

I suppose that just because it happens and there is a precedent,  doesn't mean people agree with it.

Akima appear to be a general project management company with what reads as quite a high reliance on government work.  I guess they could argue that Trump would be the sort of person to take it personally or take it out on the company..  though to be honest I should think it happens so much he would barely notice,  and you certainly wouldn't look at that cyclist and associate her with her company..   until the firing made it mainstream (ish) news.

I would have thought a verbal warning should have been more than enough..  unless they actually got a complaint from a customer threatening to withdraw business.    

I can see why people are concerned that what you do in your personal life is increasingly cause for dismissal in your professional career..  no matter how much I think the two ladies in question are complete dip****s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Libspero said:

I suppose that just because it happens and there is a precedent,  doesn't mean people agree with it.

Akima appear to be a general project management company with what reads as quite a high reliance on government work.  I guess they could argue that Trump would be the sort of person to take it personally or take it out on the company..  though to be honest I should think it happens so much he would barely notice,  and you certainly wouldn't look at that cyclist and associate her with her company..   until the firing made it mainstream (ish) news.

I would have thought a verbal warning should have been more than enough..  unless they actually got a complaint from a customer threatening to withdraw business.    

I can see why people are concerned that what you do in your personal life is increasingly cause for dismissal in your professional career..  no matter how much I think the two ladies in question are complete dip****s.

I think that because it has been established that if you work in a public sector organisation you can be with their blessing an active member of "Marxists Smashing the State" but not even a passive member of the BNP then a bit of redress is in order and a couple of examples of the beatified nasty left getting their just deserts is a good news story for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frank Hovis said:

I'm not sure why some are supporting the first one; you can be, and people are, sacked for perfectly legal things that you do in your private life that do not have any direct impact upon your company under the blanket charge of "bringing the company into disrepute".

For example a Police officer would be sacked if it was found out that they were a member of the BNP even if the extent of their membership extended beyond no more than paying the annual fee.

No sure on this.

I think it has to be a proscribed org.

I know there wa a hoohaa abotu the BNP membership leak. But ,as it stands, the BNP is a legal if unpleasant political party.

As far as using a list, found/illegally accessed on the the interweb as a reason for sacking someone ..... Id be expetcign al arge payout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, spygirl said:

No sure on this.

I think it has to be a proscribed org.

I know there wa a hoohaa abotu the BNP membership leak. But ,as it stands, the BNP is a legal if unpleasant political party.

As far as using a list, found/illegally accessed on the the interweb as a reason for sacking someone ..... Id be expetcign al arge payout.

It doesn't matter that it's legal; from the Met Police website:

Membership to BNP or similar groups

We won't accept applications from anyone who is, or has been, a member of the BNP or similar organisations.

 

http://www.metpolicecareers.co.uk/newconstable/eligibility.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

It doesn't matter that it's legal; from the Met Police website:

Membership to BNP or similar groups

We won't accept applications from anyone who is, or has been, a member of the BNP or similar organisations.

 

http://www.metpolicecareers.co.uk/newconstable/eligibility.php

So no concept of redemption then, in their eyes? Do they accept people with spent criminal convictions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, eight said:

So no concept of redemption then, in their eyes? Do they accept people with spent criminal convictions?

And no concept of the law.  If something is a legal organisation then being a member of it should not be a grounds for discrimination.

I would, for example, be very uncomfortable with working with a statnist but if I complained would be lectured that it's "perfectly legal".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ccc said:

"Similar organisations".

Fucking hell. Talk about a catch all.

And the upshot of this politically correct recruitment is a police force the mirror opposite of "hard men to protect us"; it is physical inadequates to appease criminals.

4jacquismith.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

And the upshot of this politically correct recruitment is a police force the mirror opposite of "hard men to protect us"; it is physical inadequates to appease criminals.

4jacquismith.jpg

You had to be a certain height and of a certain fitness I think to become a police officer.  That lot don't look as if they could arrest a ten year old for scrumping  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, One percent said:

You had to be a certain height and of a certain fitness I think to become a police officer.  That lot don't look as if they could arrest a ten year old for scrumping  

Sometimes short people have very commanding personalities; I had a deputy head at school, five foot nothing, and even the other teachers were scared of her.

I however don't get that vibe from today's police; they want malleable and weak indviduals.  If the two on the left tried to break up a pub fight their best strategy would be hoping that the combatants were too convulsed with laughter at the sight of them to fight on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frank Hovis said:

Sometimes short people have very commanding personalities; I had a deputy head at school, five foot nothing, and even the other teachers were scared of her.

I however don't get that vibe from today's police; they want malleable and weak indviduals.  If the two on the left tried to break up a pub fight their best strategy would be hoping that the combatants were too convulsed with laughter at the sight of them to fight on.

xD

Agree Frank. Also the same with dogs. In my dog walking group, there is a little Yorkshire Terrier.  It seems to think it is an Alsatian or something like.  It mixes it up with the bigger dogs and has no fear at all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

And the upshot of this politically correct recruitment is a police force the mirror opposite of "hard men to protect us"; it is physical inadequates to appease criminals.

4jacquismith.jpg

Is that an MPs personal anti abuse protection force?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chewing Grass said:

Is that an MPs personal anti abuse protection force?

She's paying a vist to her husband's hotel room to ask him some questions about his bill.

There are certain privileges that come with being Home Secretary; one of them is police back up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

Is that an MPs personal anti abuse protection force?

 

26 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

Is that an MPs personal anti abuse protection force?

And a very fine one, too.

I bet she's never had any knee groping problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.