The Virtual Pub
Come Inside... => Saloon Bar => Topic started by: The Moan Ranger on February 28, 2008, 09:44:32 AM
-
One of the wonderful "desk-drops" in the office a few weeks back (hence the love hearts). The government honestly think education is improving cussing:
(https://www.virtual-pub.com/SMF/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.postimage.org%2FPq1_fkkr.jpg&hash=da53a241752cad6cb90138a9ca6b53aacd9e3ba1) (http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=Pq1_fkkr)
-
Who was the guilty party?
-
My lady has numerous O levels, a clutch of A levels and a BA Hons. She is currently working toward a Post Graduate Certificate of Education as it is now a requirement that to teach in Post Compulsory Education (ie Adults or at least over 16 yos ~ as she has been for years) that she should have this Certificate. On her course is a Ladies Hairdresser who also needs the PGCE to teach other hairdressers. There is a Policewoman who teaches cops how to use their IT systems. She also now needs the PGCE and so on. They have all now been told by Government edict (and they are 19 months into a 24 month course) that they must all gain a Level 2 NVQ in Numeracy and Literacy before they will be given their PGCEs. Level 2NVQ for someone with a fvcking Honours degree? But oh yes ..... this is all because David "Blind Pugh" Blunkett decided that some teachers do not have sufficient skills in the basics. So which university gave them a fvcking degree in the first place if they cannot add, subtract, divide, read, write and spell.
Mrs S went along yesterday at a cost of £20 to take the "assessment" to see if she would also be compelled to have a 6 x 2 hour refresher course before being allowed to sit the "mock" NVQ which, if she passes will enable her to go the following week to sit the "real" NVQ. (Another £40 down the drain). All run by a "Government Agency" on contract.
Needless to say she did the assessment in half the time allowed and amused herself by doing the English paper again in Latin ..... just to piss them off.
BUT here is the cruncher .... because the little " 'airdesser ain't I" took her GCSEs within the last 6 years and gained C grades in Maths and English she does not need to take the NVQ. She may be a good 'airdresser but she cannot string three sentences together, she cannot calculate percentages and is, frankly, hardly literate. She will not pass the PGCE course because she cannot write the essays necessary. Why are they wasting their time with her? "Inclusivity". 'Cos she is Welsh see. Banghead
Mrs S is not a happy Beagle cussing:
-
It's government idiocy. I ended up in a big debate in Brizzle t'other day with a bunch of good people who detest the skills/qualifications stuff.
Most of it now is box ticking. You can be skilled and not qualified, or qualified and not skilled.
Idiot effing government
-
Who was the guilty party?
Eh?
-
One of the wonderful "desk-drops" in the office a few weeks back (hence the love hearts). The government honestly think education is improving cussing:
(https://www.virtual-pub.com/SMF/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.postimage.org%2FPq1_fkkr.jpg&hash=da53a241752cad6cb90138a9ca6b53aacd9e3ba1) (http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=Pq1_fkkr)
What I mean is, was this someone who works for your outfit and if so have they been sacked?
-
One of the wonderful "desk-drops" in the office a few weeks back (hence the love hearts). The government honestly think education is improving cussing:
(https://www.virtual-pub.com/SMF/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.postimage.org%2FPq1_fkkr.jpg&hash=da53a241752cad6cb90138a9ca6b53aacd9e3ba1) (http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=Pq1_fkkr)
What I mean is, was this someone who works for your outfit and if so have they been sacked?
I'm not sure you read it properly, Nick. It was produced "in-house" by our Quality Control department and was to highlight the sort of spelling mistakes that a lot of the operational users make, when sending out letters. The mistakes are "apparently" common within the company.
I find it deeply distressing that we employ 18/19 year olds on about £20k basic and this is their output. They would counter that a lot of the systems don't have a "spell-check" facility, but that is merely trying to cover-up their failings. Still, lots of the 18/19 year olds are fit-as-fuck, so compromises have to be made whistle:
-
Sorry, but you didn't explain. Problem here is that most of the idiots who can't spell won't see anything wrong with it!
-
. . . . and shouldn't it be 'mis-spelled' rather than 'mis-spelt'?
-
. . . . and shouldn't it be 'mis-spelled' rather than 'mis-spelt'?
Now that is an argument I have seen run across many a board.
-
. . . . and shouldn't it be 'mis-spelled' rather than 'mis-spelt'?
Now that is an argument I have seen run across many a board.
My Oxford English Dictionary allows both versions. Fowler's Modern English Usage comes down firmly on the side of spelt as the past tense of spell but allows that some may prefer spelled and Bakers Dictionary (pub 1932) has no truck with spelled at all listing only spelt.
-
I suppose it'll not be long before the past participle of pass will be past rather than passed. i.e. I drove past the house - or should that be: I drove passed the house (which variant I've come across too many times to mention in one guise or another!).
When time is done passing, has it past or passed? Do we refer to times past or times passed?
My head hurts. I think I'll go and pass out for a while . . . . .
-
confused2: