Extensive government research has identified several areas in the UK where broadband is quite slow.
Note that the population density in the UK as a whole is over 270 people per square kilometre. The population density in the areas identified as having the slowest broadband – mainly the extremities of Scotland and rural Wales – is as low as 3-4 people per square kilometre (and in one area, 3-4 probably represents the average IQ of the population there as well).
MPs are apparently planning next to spend a lot more money on identifying that it is darker at night than it is during the daytime, and that ice melts when it warms up.
A real non-story, this one. It seems that social media has been “going wild” over a “mystery beast” spotted in Scotland.
Let’s just cut to chase on this one. It ain’t Nessie, or any other weird animal. My guess is that it is still there, in the exact same pose.
It’s a tree stump.
I updated this again. I’m still getting hits on the same search terms so I thought I’d give examples when I get them:
- 13/10/2015 – “bribe driving examiner uk”
- 14/03/2016 – “how to tell if your driving examner is corputed [sic]”
- 26/03/2017 – “driving test how does bribe work woth instructors [sic]”
- 26/03/2017 – “bribing driving examiner”
- 28/03/2017 – “how much to bribe a driving examiner”
I wrote this article back in 2011, but I’m still getting people finding the blog on the search term “how do I bribe driving examiner” or something equally lacking in good English.
Look. If you are so stupid that you don’t know how to do this, ask yourself if you really should be driving a car unsupervised. Because you really shouldn’t. But since you obviously are that stupid, it means handing over money in return for a favour – in this case, a test pass even if you are a crap driver.
The simple fact that you’ve typed the question into a search engine means it can be traced back to you, and for all you know the agencies could be looking for people just like you. So well done for flagging yourself up to them as a cheat and a liar.
It’s hard to fathom how weak-minded someone needs to be to consider criminal acts and to ignore the consequences of those acts as a viable way of getting what they want.
Bribery of driving examiners has less than a 0.1% chance of succeeding. However, the risk of jail or deportation for trying it is pretty much guaranteed. It’s far easier – and cheaper – to learn to drive properly and take your driving test. Just look at some of the idiots who have been prosecuted – two morons in this story, lots of them in this one, two more here.
One thing that’s becoming apparent is that the people most likely to consider paying someone else to do their test for them are usually from countries where fraud and corruption are written into the constitution. It’s also apparent that those most likely to take money from these idiots and then to try to impersonate them (even though they look nothing like them) come from the same communities!
Let’s try this in big red letters to see if it helps some of the stupid ones out there understand it better:
IT IS EASIER AND CHEAPER TO PASS YOUR TEST LEGITIMATELY THAN IT IS TO TRY AND BRIBE THE EXAMINER OR TO PAY SOMEONE TO IMPERSONATE YOU.
IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY YOU MAY WELL FIND THAT EVERY ASPECT OF GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT, AND EVERYTHING CAN BE OBTAINED IF YOU PAY THE RIGHT MONEY TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE. IN THE UK IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE. THEREFORE YOU ARE TAKING A HUGE RISK.
YOU ARE PROBABLY DESPERATE TO DRIVE SO THAT YOU CAN GET A JOB. IF YOU GET CAUGHT TRYING TO CHEAT YOU’LL BE LUCKY IF YOU EVER WORK AGAIN IN THE UK.
EVEN IF YOU FOUND A CORRUPT EXAMINER (HIGHLY UNLIKELY IN THE UK), AND ASSUMING THAT YOU GOT AWAY WITH IT (EVEN LESS LIKELY), THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE YOU WILL END UP KILLING SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU STILL CAN’T DRIVE.
How can I tell if my examiner is corrupt?
Or, as it was asked to find the blog, “how to tell if your driving examner is corputed [sic]”.
Ask him. If you end up in handcuffs in the back of a police van, then he obviously wasn’t. Or you didn’t offer him enough.
It’s cheaper to learn to drive properly, you idiot.
Can I get done trying to bribe an examiner?
Or more accurately, “can I get done tryong [sic] to bribe a [sic] examiner”?
Is it easier if I get someone to take the test for me?
If you get away with it, yes. However, it will mean that you are still a crap driver and may well end up killing someone. However, paying someone to take the test for you is more expensive than learning properly. Your chances of successfully gaining a licence this way in the UK are almost zero, and even if you initially get away with it, at some point they will catch the person you paid and take your false licence away. You will then be fined, perhaps imprisoned, or even deported if you are not a UK citizen.
If you’re still so stupid you want to try it, go ahead. And watch me laugh when you get caught.
There’s a new superhero film on its way, this time a remake of Wonder Woman. That second word pretty much guarantees that everyone involved with the film is going to be strung up by the feminist community, no matter how feminine, masculine, or neutral the main character ends up as being portrayed.
In fact, it has already started. In her armpits.
Apparently, the tinfoil helmet brigade have already decided that her armpits have been digitally altered, and are… wait for it… up in arms over it (I couldn’t resist).
Twitter has turned incandescent over the matter, but someone beat me to it with this picture suggesting what she looked like before the digital airbrush treatment.
I almost choked when I saw it.
The simple fact is that with high definition imaging these days, someone’s armpits are going to put you right off your popcorn, no matter if they’re au naturel or freshly mowed. A bit of electronic jiggery-pokery is of benefit to everyone except the professional loonies out there.
You couldn’t make this sort of thing up. Level after level of complete stupidity.
On one side, you have Katie Hopkins – anything she says or writes is usually complete bollocks, and with her unique way of putting it across, it is frequently even more bollocks than that. Back in 2015, she made a mistake (not a unique phenomenon for her) and got someone mixed up with someone else, made one of her trademark asinine and highly offensive comments to the innocent party, then followed it up with her trademark refusal to admit her error and apologise to that person once the error was noted. Indeed, even after the subsequent libel case went against her – leaving her with a legal bill likely to top £300,000 – she is still shit stirring.
On the other side, you have the person she offended – listed as a “food blogger” who goes by the name of “Jack Monroe”. Something that struck me in all the media stories this week was that it wasn’t possible to pin down whether Monroe was male or female. The name implies one thing, the photos are ambiguous (which is the only reason the question occurred to me in the first place), and none of the stories I read used the relevant personal pronouns. But I think I can now see why that was. That Huffington Post article starts off confusingly by using the possessive pronoun “their” to refer to Monroe in the singular. I initially assumed it was a typo or bad editing – something which is now standard in most media outlets – since “he” and “she” are singular, and the only grammatically correct asexual alternative is “it”. But it clarifies a few paragraphs later:
Monroe, who identifies outside the binary construct of gender and prefers the gender-neutral pronoun ‘they’ and title ‘Mx’…
I wonder how long it took to come up with that pile of crap? I mean, you could say quite simply “he or she is writing a blog article”. It would appear that “it is writing a blog article” is not acceptable for some reason. Monroe apparently expects it to be rendered “they is writing a blog article”. And what the f*** is wrong with “Ms” if you live your life on a high horse, free from any sort of reliance on a filthy, putrid male? How the hell is “Mx” any different, other than requiring a brand new construct?
Any sympathy I originally felt has wafted away on the winds, along with grammatical correctness, and I now consider the match to be a draw. Mind you, it does mean we get two nominees for the 2017 Darwin Awards instead of just one.
Andrew Jackson had an interview with Greater Manchester Police for a job in their IT department. The problem was that he stank of alcohol, and when casually questioned about whether he had found the interview location easily enough, commented that he’d had a job finding somewhere to park.
Alarm bells duly rang, he was breathalysed after the hour-long interview, and still blew positive. Proper tests even later at Bury police station still gave a reading of 46 mcg (the legal limit is 35 mcg). He had apparently been drinking the night before, though he denied drinking before the interview. He pleaded guilty in court.
He was banned for a year, and fined £235. I am assuming he didn’t get the job.
Definitely an early contender for the 2017 Darwin Awards (that’s my version, not the official ones).
Over the last week or so I’ve noticed the sudden appearance in my stats of visits to the blog using the search term “applied coach approach”. Until the first one last week no one has EVER used that term before, now it is appearing multiple times per day.
I should also point out that – so far – I have not been spammed with it, but after a quick search it would appear that the DIA is selling a coaching course with this title, costing a little under £100. Better still, as well as being a standalone course, it apparently “builds on” the original Coach Approach course, which no doubt also cost somewhere around £100. I bet there are some dipsticks out there who have done both, as well.
You know what they say about a fool and his money.
Coaching is coaching. Once you’ve done one course and are using the techniques as necessary, unless it turns out that you’re desperately crap at it, any further courses only benefit those who are pocketing your cash. Incidentally, the coaching clip art I found for this article struck me as being very appropriate. It looks like someone trying to coach someone else up on to a toilet seat.
Hot on the heels of that last story about companies employing retards and allowing them to make business-shaping decisions, Sainsbury’s appears to have done it again with one of its Valentine’s Day crapola range items. They’re called Hugging Bear Mugs, and they come in pairs. You will note that – if you make the obvious connection based on visual appearance – they are both male.
Assuming that it’s true (a lot of fake news around now that fake news is in the news), you have to wonder any of the following:
- who would be stupid enough to buy one?
- who would be stupid enough to THINK someone would be stupid enough to buy one, and that they should become a stock item?
- who would be stupid enough to think you could sell enough of them to make it a profitable line?
- who would be stupid enough not to see the overt visual reference to male genitalia?
- who would be stupid enough not to realise any of the above at any stage of the buying process, and allow the product to end up as an SKU?
- Who would be stupid enough to recruit – and to continue to employ – people who made or failed to spot these crass decisions beforehand?
Apart from a few students – and admittedly, probably a few more than would have before, now that this has been in the media – you’d need the mentality of a Brexit voter and no class whatsoever to buy one.
What’s more, I would suggest that having it on display – in full view of children – is a breach of the UK’s obscenity laws.
It’s obvious what the mugs are supposed to be showing, and the covert message they are obviously trying to convey. It is unbelievable that Sainsbury’s could have got so many decisions so wrong in order for these to go on open sale.
I was on a lesson with a pupil today and I asked her how she was getting on studying for her theory test. I asked her to identify a pedestrian crossing we had just passed, and it was clear she was a little confused. Next time we stopped, I got my sketch pad out and went through the different types to show her how understanding them made answering theory test questions much easier than just trying to remember the answers.
We talked about Pelicans, Puffins, and Toucans. I mentioned how they’re named after various birds, but that in spite of people trying to make the connection, Zebra Crossings are much older and are named after Zebras and not Zebra Finches. That brought us to Equestrian Crossings, which I mentioned using the common name of “Pegasus Crossing”.
Who do you think would use a Pegasus Crossing?
I don’t know.
Think about it. What was a Pegasus?
A flying horse.
Good, and half of that might explain who uses them. Who might that be?
My ribs are still hurting now. She realised immediately, but – at the time – she meant it.
Edit: Incidentally, she was one of the best drivers I’ve had, and a very pleasant pupil. She passed first time in May, having started in January with no previous experience.