noncon4mist.com


Archive for the ‘Ridiculous Rules’


Accidents Don’t Exist According to UK Police 0

Posted on November 25, 2010 by noncon

accident

As you know, it’s not like me to argue (ahem), but last night I had the same argument for the 3rd time since a few years ago, when the British police decided to change the term RTA (Road Traffic Accident) to RTC (Road Traffic Collision). They did this because because they reckon the word “accident” implies that no-one is to blame for the collision or incident.

So the numpties who sit on these panels thinking up politically correct terms (scared to death they’ll land themselves in trouble if they don’t) didn’t even bother to look at a dictionary before they made this decision.

An Accident does NOT imply that no-one was to blame. An accident means that its cause was not deliberate. Most accidents are someone’s fault.

“My three year old daughter had an accident” – Your fault. You never took her to the loo.

“He broke a glass vase by accident” – His fault. He was carrying too many boxes and couldn’t see where he was going. Also Mother’s fault for putting the expensive vase where it could be knocked over.

“We’re not covered for accidental damage” – Your fault. You got the cheapest roofer in the yellow pages, resulting in roof slates falling on your car.

Two characters on this police forum discussing this topic both feel that the police were right to drop the word accident, including the guy who left the last comment, saying;

“Neither of your scenarios were accidents as there were reasons for both incidents.”

Well, sorry to break it to you, but there is a reason for everything, so you are actually saying there is no such thing as an accident. Yes, there is a reason for every single thing that happens in the universe. Just because you don’t know the reason, doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

“My kids are naughty for no reason” – No, they’re unhappy and need positive attention.

“He gets angry for no reason” – No, he has depression or autistic spectrum disorder (includes dyslexia).

“What Causes Bruising for No Reason?” – An oxymoron if ever there was one. If there’s a cause, then there’s a reason.

“He shot the real estate agent for no reason” -  Another oxymoron ;-)

“The car in front careered out of control for no reason” – The car in front is a Toyota (with a dodgy computer, that was eventually recalled after several people died).

So folks, you can go ahead and scrub the word Accident from your dictionary, because according to “Sub-seven” (is that his IQ?), for something to be an accident, it has to have happened for no reason at all.

Imagine if insurance companies took the same view. They’d never have to pay out for accidental damage ever again. Oh god, they’re going to be next, aren’t they?

No Bored Singers Allowed! 0

Posted on April 04, 2010 by noncon

More interesting observations on Musicians-in-your-city.co.uk/mids/agbs.cfm?land=uk. This site gets better!

On its T&C it requires vocalists to sing down the phone to give a sample of their voices BUT states:

“Singers and vocalists who record unmotivated/bored voice samples shall also face deactivation of their account.”

Wouldn’t that exclude an awful lot of commercially successful singers whose deliberate style is such? Every indie band I can think of sounds bored. That’s the style. God, almost every 80s artist sounded bored as hell. Depeche Mode, The Pet Shop Boys, The Smiths, Japan, The Cure, Pulp, and David Bowie (to name but a few) certainly wouldn’t be allowed to register on this site!

Isn’t it also subjective whether someone is unmotivated or bored-sounding?

And why would they care whether someone does sound bored when singing? Are they assuming that these people are just ringing up for a laugh? You have to pay to join, so that doesn’t make sense.

What if an indie band are looking for a bored sounding singer?

I think this is a ridiculous rule. The site is based in Germany despite having sister sites worldwide. Well it couldn’t be British, could it, with a rule like that?



↑ Top