• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Strange questions that sometimes need answering (or not asking in the first place really).

Seems strange that no other boxed product stored on shelves has a "handle" hole, on one end only, off to the side.
More to the point, that hole is more than big enough to let warehouse vermin get in. You'd think they'd want to protet their product more?

I used to assume it was to stop the smell of leather building up too much. These days I reckon it's there so ladies can "accidentally" leave a trail of glitter all over the bloody hou- Ahem. Never mind.
 
It is to make selection easier.
You may not be able to grab that box on the very top of the pile, but you can pull it off the stack with a single finger in the hole (ooo er missus).
It also means you can easily remove a box from the middle of the stack...finger in the hole, swift pull, the other boxes drop into place...bit like Jenga.

...or domino stacks, for those of us born before Jenga existed.
 
Because they are light, and can usually be lifted/shifted with one finger...and not much other stuff comes in similar boxes.

Bet you keep Lego in your old shoe boxes.

More to the point, in the right topic...

What the flip are you doing, up at this hour?
 
How very dare you, sir! My Lego is meticulously sorted in to labeled drawers!

And it's called insomnia.
 
Look, I'm an engineer. If something has a Dymo label on it, that means there's a system, and it must be obeyed. Otherwise we have chaos.
 
With the current furore in the news about Peter Mandelson and his Developed Vetting, I have a weird question about people who hold DV.

With Mandelson (or whoever the current US Ambassador is) being publicly announced appointments who hold DV, as well as the heads of big intelligence organisations like GCHQ, why is it that the average person who holds DV in a lower level post isn’t even allowed to say where they work or what their job title is?

I absolutely get that these people handle national security information, but if we’re publicly announcing much higher profile names who hold DV, who are surely much more notable targets, why is it that Steve the junior data scientist, for example, isn’t allowed to put on a CV or LinkedIn that he’s a Junior Data Scientist at GCHQ? Provided he doesn’t go into any further detail about specific information, I don’t see why knowing his job title and employer would be an issue, and not being able to put this could really harm future employability.

When ambassadorial appointments, permanent secretaries and such who hold DV are announced publicly, I’m not sure I see why lower down people who hold DV are such a risk that they aren’t even allowed to tell anyone their basic job title or their employer.

Shouldn’t we surely be either withholding the holders of the bigger posts from the public conscious or allowing lower-down employees to say they work there? Or am I missing something here?
 
Think people much lower down the rungs of these departments would be seen as easier targets, possibly as they'd not even conceive that someone would target them for information. Whether that being the press looking for something or a hostile power.
 
On a similar note, why is it that people on gameshows say they're a civil servant when being asked what they do for a job? I find that really annoying. Do you work in I.T? Do you drive a van? Are you in accounts? Just say it mate, instead of trying to be all mysterious.
 
I accept that. However, if I was a spy or someone looking to do harm to the British system or whatever, if I was watching a gameshow and some guy says he works in IT, I wouldn't give them a second thought. However, if they just say 'I'm a civil servant' then I'd think that this guy/girl is potentially of interest and now I have their face and general location in the country. It's arguably counter-intuitive if you think about it. But yeah, if they're simply not allowed due to contract or whatever then there is no argument against the individuals who have to do it.
 
I worked as a lifeguard for Leeds city council as my first job. During the induction we was told that we should never wear uniform away from work and never disclaim who you work for if ask. Mostly, because some people think a a lad in lifeguard t-shirt with Leeds city council, during his shopping in the local co-op has power over the cost of council tax. Which did happen to someone I worked with.

I can understand why folk don't publicly state what they do and for what organisations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I recently applied for a Virgin credit card (primarily to accrue travel points for a 2028 Florida trip, tying it nicely to this forum), and the ‘Industry’ selection dropdown didn’t have any of the options I typically pick (Marketing, Digital, Web Development) which must account for 100,000s of employees in the UK.

It did, however, have ‘Pulp’ as an option! There are only about 5 people in Pulp, how have they got their own option? How many credit cards is Cocker applying for?
 
BarryZola said:
On a similar note, why is it that people on gameshows say they're a civil servant when being asked what they do for a job? I find that really annoying. Do you work in I.T? Do you drive a van? Are you in accounts? Just say it mate, instead of trying to be all mysterious.
Click to expand...
As well as what Rob said, there are also numerous jobs in the Civil Service where “civil servant” is honestly probably the easiest way to explain your job to someone who doesn’t do it.

For example, I’d imagine a lot of people working in policy probably find “civil servant” an easier label to use!
 
Slugjc said:
I can understand why folk don't publicly state what they do and for what organisations.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I was saying. Don't say which organization you work for, just say you work in IT or as a lifeguard. No-one needs to know any more (in my gameshow example anyway).
 
I say we need to stop defining ourselves by who our slave masters are. Jobs are jobs. People are people. If I meet someone in a social setting, I don't care if they clean toilets or design Mars rovers. I care about "are they an smeghead?".
 
Last edited:
DiogoJ42 said:
I say we need to stop defining ourselves by who our slave masters are. Jobs are jobs. People are people. If I meet someone in a social setting, I don't care if they clean toilets or design Mar rovers. I care about "are they an smeghead?".
Click to expand...


That capital H on your forehead doesn't help
 
DiogoJ42 said:
I say we need to stop defining ourselves by who our slave masters are. Jobs are jobs. People are people. If I meet someone in a social setting, I don't care if they clean toilets or design Mars rovers. I care about "are they an smeghead?".
Click to expand...
Or a Smee-Hee maybe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top