Ah, An Advert For A Company Disguised As 'News'....

Are you on the same page as your colleagues, or does their office chatter leave you scratching your head? Experts at instantprint quizzed 2,000 UK office workers about how well they understand each other's workplace vocabulary.

The results revealed that 68 per cent of workers regularly encounter phrases they do not understand.

It's not new, as was foretold in musicals:

🎶Are certain words creeping into his conversation? 

Words like 'swell?" And 'so's your old man?"🎶

Oh, let’s have a look then: 

'Rage applying' – the practice of applying for multiple jobs after becoming frustrated with your current role – was correctly identified by 81 per cent of Gen Z workers. 

However, just 29 per cent of Baby Boomers knew what this was. 

And how many cared? 

'Coffee badging' – showing up at the office just long enough to be seen and grab a coffee – was even harder to decipher. 

Only 21 per cent of Baby Boomers and 34 per cent of Gen X knew what this was. 

100 per cent of the could identify it as a good way to get sacked, though! 

Other phrases that left older generations stumped included 'Bare Minimum Monday', 'Career Cushioning', and 'Quiet Vacationing'.

It's all so tedious, isn't it?

Let's Blame The Crocodile!

 How dores the BBC, that bastion of truth, choose to headline the story about the lunatic who threw a child inro a crocodile enclosure at a local zoo?

I suppose we should congratulate them on their photo - it is an actual crocodile, the 'Daily Mail' was making do with a photo of an alligator..

Cambridgeshire Police said a 30-year-old man arrested on suspicion of attempted murder had been bailed and was "unfit for interview". He reportedly has learning disabilities and had been on a trip to Johnsons of Old Hurst, near Huntingdon, with carers. It is believed the boy was attacked on Thursday by at least one crocodile after ending up in their enclosure.

We all know how he 'ended up' in there, the same way a young boy ended up at the bottom of the Tate Modern all those years ago.... 

Officers said they were called to the zoo at 13:34 BST on Thursday and were working to establish how long the boy was in the enclosure. Police said the crocodiles had not been seized or killed.

Why would they be? The police don't have any facilities to hold them, and they can't be interviwed!

Det Insp Verity McCann said: "Our inquiries are ongoing as we continue to understand the circumstances surrounding this distressing incident. 

"Our thoughts remain with the boy, and his family and specialist officers continue to support them through this difficult time."

I'm sure that's what they are doing, and not making sure they don't make a fuss or take to social media... 

The man who was arrested was from Norfolk, police said, and was not at the zoo as part of an organised group visit.

A witness told the BBC she had seen a man in his late 20s, accompanied by two women wearing lanyards who she believed may have been carers, walking through the zoo about 10 minutes before the incident.

The lanyard classes usually choose opportunities to create multiple harms, not singular, this is the only surprising aspect!

Cambridgeshire Police confirmed the suspect was white British after misinformation shared on social media.

And the 'carers'? What was their nationality? 

One visitor, who wished to remain anonymous, told the BBC... the crocodiles appeared calm and largely motionless during her visit.

They do that, until they don't. The inquest/h&s report is going to tell us more, but I doubt the stated injuries come from anything other than the fall from height.  

This Is Why We Don't Trust The Media...

Really? Does the new law permit this?

Reader, it does not:

The two of them had travelled all the way from Kent without insurance and a driving licence.

Existing law pertaining to the driving regulations is the seizure justification. Absolutely nothing to do with the hasty new legislation brought in for the CoronaVirus pandemic.

Gosh, what could explain this?

Snakey Fakey News!

Someone in Croydon has venomous snakes, and the council has had to fork out more than £600 for inspections before a licence could be issued.

The council didn't. We, the taxpayer, did.

So, as a taxpayer, let's look into this in a little more detail, shall we? Surely there's a fee for the licence?

A Freedom of Information response shows that just one dangerous animal licence has been issued in the borough since 2016. It was for venomous snakes.

And it made the council £198 in 2016/17 and £202 the following year from the licence fee.

So there is a fee.

But to issue the licence the council had to sort out an inspection of the premises the dangerous wild animal would be kept. In this case a private property rather than a business.

The inspections came at a cost of £298 in 2016/17 and £307 the following year.

Right. So the council charges too much for the inspections?

Well, no. They don't set the charges.

A spokeswoman for Croydon Council added: “Like other local authorities, we use the City of London vet service for animal welfare and the fee is set by them.”

So the council's blameless? Well...

The licences are issued under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 and the City of London Corporation is responsible for “ensuring the legislative compliance” for imported animals across the whole of London.

And individual local authorities are responsible for setting the application fee for licences.

The solution seems simple, doesn't it? Charge the appropriate fee to cover the full cost of the inspection. It's really not rocket science.

Nor is journalism, if a 'Oooh, hugely costly process for man to keep snakes!' story can be unravelled so easily.

The Useful Idiots Of 'Tell Mama'...

Errr, yes. We've heard of it. But it doesn't sound like you have, if you think they were white....

Ummm, who wants to tell him?

Well done! How's he going to wriggle out of this one?

Oh.

Well, it makes sense that a liar, rabble rouser and idiot would ignore the facts, shamelessly change tack when called on it and refer to the organisation that gives new meaning to the word 'mendacity'...

The Nanny State Is Replaced By The Rentseeking State

York has featured on a “top ten” list of places in the UK where people do not drink enough water.

People in the city drink only 846ml of water a day, making it eighth worst in the country, according the the 50 Shades of Yellow Hydration study.

The what? Doesn't sound like a scientific study to me!

The research was commissioned by SodaStream and analysed by Dr Dawn Harper, who has urged people to look at the colour of their urine to check whether they are drinking enough water.

Ah! Now it all makes sense!

The study, released today, also reveals that one in seven Brits confess to not drinking any water, and 38 per cent are turning to high-sugar and less hydrating flavoured fizzy drinks.

How on earth is it 'less hydrating' because it's carbonated?