I'll do it for a reacharound.

>>13826

Really? Thanks! Contact me at fuckyoulimey@enjoybrexit.co.uk

>>13825

I will lie for you as long as it's not a security clearance thing. What is the list of job titles?

Otherwise, I assume you can use someone from your own country? You might not have even been here for three years. Failing that a doctor or maybe a job centre official if you have dealt with them.

>>13828

Sorry, I missed the bit where you said BPSS.

>>13827
>limey

There really aren't any good insults for us, are there? I think the best is probably the German inselaffen, literally 'island apes'.

>>13829

Have you seen the list? Why in hell they would have to include "chiropodist"? I did not know that people that handle feet all day were supposed to be especially trustworthy!

>>13830

There are dozens of insults for Brits, I choose a tame one to avoid getting the thread trashed by the mods.

>>13832

I don't think that's something we really give a shit about. See, when you're British, insults from foreigners mean very little because, well, you're foreign.

>>13831

I agree it's silly, but what they want is someone who can attest that you have really been in the country as long as you say you have been, and haven't been sneaking off to make bombs or bayonet goats as terror training in your spare time, so someone you potentially see once every few weeks to get a pedicure is, in theory, suitable to verify that.

It's not a great system, admittedly. Even for CTC and SC checks it seems a bit arbitrary, even though MI5 are involved in the latter. I wonder if they spy on your chiropodist.

>>13835

The only thing I would suspect a chiropodist of is being a closet foot fetishist, and I would overlook that if he did a decent job anyway.

>>13833

"Dentimarci" - "Rottenteeth"
"Puzzoni ubriaconi" - "Smelly drunkards"
"Scopapecore" - "Sheep shaggers"
"Begbie" - (from Trainspotting)

Plus, many others that I could not translate due to my lack of knowledge about British vernacular.

>>13836

That's fine I mean any and all of those things are still better than being Italian.

>>13837

There are only three kinds of people in the world: Italians, people who admire Italians and wish to be Italians, people that suffer because they are not Italians and are salty about that.

>>13838

Calm down, have some pizza.

>>13839
Is that some trolling abomination from another place? Worse than the chair.

>>13839

>>13839

That was a low blow. Enjoy:

>>13842
If Italians are still doing the teeth thing, despite the UK having some of the best oral health among nations of the world, it says more about their ignorance than our dentistry.

>>13843
I mean we are the nation who set up a perfectly good healthcare provision system, then decided to remove dentistry from it because it turned out we'd rather have the Korean war than preserve the principle that healthcare and bank cards don't mix.

>>13844
Do NHS dentists even exist anymore, at least on something approaching a reasonable waiting time?

>>13845

In Scotland, yeah.

>>13845

It varies regionally, but there's a huge post-lockdown backlog of people needing dental treatment. Most dental hospitals offer a walk-in service for emergencies (call 111 for details) and you can sometimes get free treatment if you're willing to be worked on by a student.

What about that, you smarty guys?

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>13848

You're telling me that the national animal of Scotland doesn't exist? How can it be the national animal then?

>>13849
He's just trying to get a rise out of us. Next, he'll be telling us lions don't exist.

>>13839
Chicagosuburblad here.

A group of us once ordered a deep dish barbecue pizza without necessarily realising how much sauce it was going to be. I don't think I touched vinegar for a year after that.

I've survived a whole week on a medium-sized deep dish pizza at one point.

I might get a deep dish this weekend. Nothing better in the sweltering heat.

What happens if someone lies on a character reference? If I vouched for one of the unstable deadbeats I hang around with, and they skived off work for four straight months or threatened to rape the CEO, would I get in trouble too for having bad friends? And if not, what is the bloody point of any of this?

>>13852

For a normal job, absolutely nothing. Someone in HR might remember or write your name down in case someone else ever tries to list you as a reference, but I doubt they'd even think about that.

For what OP is talking about - the BPSS is a government operated security check. It's not a crime directly to lie on a security check, as far as I can tell, but in the event that a mate you supplied a reference for went on to do a terrorism, what they'd try to work out is if you lied on your reference specifically to aid his infiltration into the system - you'd be looked into and MI5'd, perhaps without you ever knowing, or maybe they'd actually haul you in if you had shared enough rooms with him etc. As for normal crimes like CEO rape or third degree sickies, you'd be fine. It's just the terrorism/spying stuff that'd get them wanting a chat.

>>13853

I'll add that these checks are usually pretty thorough. I imagine the BPSS is a little less finicky (the B stands for 'baseline' after all) but the reference is mostly just there to prove you're not mental and unstable enough for someone to sign their name to "can be trusted with minor national secrets/sensitive materials", the rest of the stuff the applicant fills out is where they will find their discrepancies, if there is one. There's no legal ramifications for failing the vetting either, you just don't get the job, and I assume you're locked out of the process, but I've never had to deal with that as my company uses a third party vetting service so that we never have to bother the actual process with dud candidates at all.

>>13848

One of the most contemptible things about modern society, in my opinion, is that stay at home mums with four GCSEs understand a combination of politics and internet meme culture just enough to make images like that one.

I want to go back to a time when the internet was just for anorak spods and niche fetish weirdos.

>>13855

Normal people getting on the Internet was a vast act of settler colonialism.

>>13855
>stay at home mums with four GCSEs
>anorak spods
>niche fetish weirdos

What lazy stereotypes. If you're that much more clever and savvy, why not rebut the points raised in the "meme"? What if others were to write off your opinions based on who you are, rather than what you're saying?

>>13857
I believe he's referring to that Rachel from Swindon Twitter bint.

>>13857

I'm not writing off anyone's opinions, it was just a better place when I didn't have to hear them.

>>13855
I don't believe someone with four GCSEs is on average educated enough to have produced a rather detailed and informed image like that.

>>13860
The miracle of the internet is that it will shove the outliers into your face.
That said, I don't like this idea that the internet was always just for weirdos. It used to be set up in a much better way for weirdos, before they ruined it by just making everything a branch of Twitter, but by the time of the Iraq war nearly half of this country was online. Unless you think half the country of the country are weirdos it's pretty obvious that something other than ordinary people being insufferable is the main problem.
I go for the McLuhan approach: The design of websites shapes their userbase, not vice versa. Put all the world's geniuses on Twitter and they'll still act like stupid twats because the site is designed to make you into a stupid twat.

>>13855
When was that? I think my first experience with the internet would have been the late 90s, vague memories of Lenny Loosejocks and Pico's School. I was a literal child then, was I part of the wave of normies that ruined the classic internet experience?

>>13861
I think it's more the way they're using it. Yes, they were online, but for email and shopping, or specific forums.

When search engines got proper good, and social media took off, that didn't allow for more people to access the technology, but it did allow for them to use it more.

I think the other posters are saying they preferred it before that point, as you've pointed out that the design of the experience impacts the use of it.

>>13862
Eternal September was 1993. Otherwise, I too remember first coming online in, I think, 1998, and finding a forum for The Simpsons where at least one other poster was the most clueless and illiterate imbecile I had ever encountered in my life to that point. Sometimes I wonder if I could still find this forum, and check if that person is still dumber than the remedials who are so common now.

>>13864
I miss forums, I know they're still around and look/feel the same, but I don't know if I'm ready to become a consistent personality again, as opposed to an ephemeral voice posing as a dozen other voices.

I've been reading some of my forum posts from 15-20 years ago. It's only depressing if you think about it. I've come quite far but am still an intolerable arsehole. Despite being a power user on that forum, almost all of my contributions are non-sequiturs, or swearing at people for insulting others, or simply nonsensical in terms of not providing adequate context.

And it's funny how some names stick in your head, like some member would post for a week and get banned, and then 20 years you see their name and immediately it comes flooding back.

I still remember the days of "Information super highway".

>>13866

"Imagine a world where every word ever written... could be viewed instantly in your home". Unfortunately, nobody predicted that most of those words would be "GET FUCKED, CUNT".

John Major hasn't got a modem.

>>13867
>John Major hasn't got a modem.
Is that one of those football chants?

>>13868
He's got no modem,
He's got no mode-emmmmm,
John major,
He's got no modem.

A mate of mine met his wife on a Star Wars fan forum in the late nineties, when he was about 10 and she was about 40.

>>13870
That went from lovely to very uncomfortable so fast I've got whiplash.

>>13861

I think >>13863 is spot on. Up until the late 2000s the bulk of the people who made up the Internet's society and culture tended to be the more nerdy technical, creative and alternative types who found each other and formed communities here in a way which couldn't happen IRL since they were too geographically dispersed.

Back then even if half the country was online a lot of people saw the internet as a thing you used to read websites, send email and maybe even buy stuff if you were feeling brave. They used it but didn't really participate in it.

Actually publishing content took a bit of effort to set up a blog and maybe write some basic HTML. It wasn't that hard but it did have the effect of filtering out a lot of low effort stuff.
The average person couldn't be arsed to do all that just to share their opinions on the latest celebrity gossip and last night's episode of Eastenders when they could have he same conversations at work or with their IRL friends. You had to have something you felt was actually worth sharing with the wider community for it to be worth the effort.

I think things started going downhill around the late 2000s to early 2010s.
My current theory is that the combination of modern social media like FB and Twitter combined with the proliferation of easy to use smartphones and tablets gave the great hoards of normies both the means and the motivation to colonize the internet.

Social media (especially sites like FB which were mostly an online extension of existing communities IRL at the time) was both great source of the kind of IRL gossip and drama that certain types of people (who previously thought the internet was for sad nerds) are obsessed with and very easy to actively engage with.

The link to smartphones and tablets is a bit more tenuous but I suspect their proliferation exposed the internet to a large section of users who are, to put it politely "not good at computers" and wouldn't use the internet unless they had to if a computer was the only option.