Bell Cheeses at work

[schmunk]

I wasn't on strike - it was action short of a strike, but calculated to disrupt the organisation and its product. The boss thinks that its OK to withdraw pay for the whole period over which that was supposed to be taking place, even though its only a part of what I and colleagues do. The union is now out on strike about this approach and I foresee massive numbers of grievance claims.

Anyway, I don't to want to derail the humorous bellcheesery of this thread, so I'll update in future. Get back to crisp eating and mindless management speak, everyone.

Any update on this, BrightonCottager?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I once worked on contract at a well known dental estimates board in Eastbourne. It was an ancient and venerable site and security was lax to say the least. A few desktop monitors went walkabout. To try and solve this, management sent a bloke round with an invisible marker pen that only showed up under ultraviolet light, the better to trace the monitors with if they got nicked. Bloke came round my office. To pass the time while he was scrawling across my screen I idly asked how he knew when his pen had run out of ink, seeing as how the ink was invisible and that. To which came the immortal reply: "Dunno mate, it's my last day here. I'm just writing 'BOLLOCKS' on all the screens"

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I and others have noted the institutionalized cockwomblery in hospital managent that contributes to (the cover up and suppression of whistleblowing in) negligence and malpractice situations.

Here is an email I got this morning WRT teaching of medicine:

"We are pleased to invite you to the launch of XXXXX Health Partners Education Strategy. Our strategy is designed to complement Trust and ICS strategies, focusing on how our Academic Health Science Centre will support our health and science workforce, particularly in the areas of leadership and health data sciences. As we move forward with our vision and delivery, continued insights and perspectives from our partners will be invaluable."

I have attended some of these shindigs and it is all about back slapping. Raise a problem and dare suggest a solution and you're slapped down like schoolboy scrambling up an orchard wall to do some scrumping.

This is a medical school that conspicuously has poor student feedback (and has done so since these things were first measured 20 odd years ago) despite other disciplines having some of the best rated departments in the UK. It is a longstanding institutionalized failure, but there is such a strong desire for kids to train at my uni, the poor student satisfaction can apparentl safely be ignored.

Our clinicians are well meaning but they have no idea about teaching/training. They are backed by the worst lot of administrators in the uni (they have their own administrators, of course). Not answering the phone or replying to emails is de rigeur. And our consultants still fail to show up to teach if medical emergencies crop up. This should never happen because teaching time is locked off. Oh, but hang on....our consultants are very keen on private practice and it turns out they will 'no show' for teaching because they are called away to deal with a problem at a private clinic. Ten years ago we appointed a 'lead for training and education' to deal with all this, but the consultants gave the appointee no staff, no budget and no formal management role, so nothing (nothing, that's nothing at all) happened. A box was however ticked. That appointee is still in place (it is an unpaid position) and hasn't even been invited to a management meeting for 5 years. How do I know? Because the appointee is me.

 

[timbha]

I and others have noted the institutionalized cockwomblery in hospital managent that contributes to (the cover up and suppression of whistleblowing in) negligence and malpractice situations.

Here is an email I got this morning WRT teaching of medicine:

"We are pleased to invite you to the launch of XXXXX Health Partners Education Strategy. Our strategy is designed to complement Trust and ICS strategies, focusing on how our Academic Health Science Centre will support our health and science workforce, particularly in the areas of leadership and health data sciences. As we move forward with our vision and delivery, continued insights and perspectives from our partners will be invaluable."

I have attended some of these shindigs and it is all about back slapping. Raise a problem and dare suggest a solution and you're slapped down like schoolboy scrambling up an orchard wall to do some scrumping.

This is a medical school that conspicuously has poor student feedback (and has done so since these things were first measured 20 odd years ago) despite other disciplines having some of the best rated departments in the UK. It is a longstanding institutionalized failure, but there is such a strong desire for kids to train at my uni, the poor student satisfaction can apparentl safely be ignored.

Our clinicians are well meaning but they have no idea about teaching/training. They are backed by the worst lot of administrators in the uni (they have their own administrators, of course). Not answering the phone or replying to emails is de rigeur. And our consultants still fail to show up to teach if medical emergencies crop up. This should never happen because teaching time is locked off. Oh, but hang on....our consultants are very keen on private practice and it turns out they will 'no show' for teaching because they are called away to deal with a problem at a private clinic. Ten years ago we appointed a 'lead for training and education' to deal with all this, but the consultants gave the appointee no staff, no budget and no formal management role, so nothing (nothing, that's nothing at all) happened. A box was however ticked. That appointee is still in place (it is an unpaid position) and hasn't even been invited to a management meeting for 5 years. How do I know? Because the appointee is me.

Incredible.

 

[Eric the meek]

I and others have noted the institutionalized cockwomblery in hospital managent that contributes to (the cover up and suppression of whistleblowing in) negligence and malpractice situations.

Here is an email I got this morning WRT teaching of medicine:

"We are pleased to invite you to the launch of XXXXX Health Partners Education Strategy. Our strategy is designed to complement Trust and ICS strategies, focusing on how our Academic Health Science Centre will support our health and science workforce, particularly in the areas of leadership and health data sciences. As we move forward with our vision and delivery, continued insights and perspectives from our partners will be invaluable."

I have attended some of these shindigs and it is all about back slapping. Raise a problem and dare suggest a solution and you're slapped down like schoolboy scrambling up an orchard wall to do some scrumping.

This is a medical school that conspicuously has poor student feedback (and has done so since these things were first measured 20 odd years ago) despite other disciplines having some of the best rated departments in the UK. It is a longstanding institutionalized failure, but there is such a strong desire for kids to train at my uni, the poor student satisfaction can apparentl safely be ignored.

Our clinicians are well meaning but they have no idea about teaching/training. They are backed by the worst lot of administrators in the uni (they have their own administrators, of course). Not answering the phone or replying to emails is de rigeur. And our consultants still fail to show up to teach if medical emergencies crop up. This should never happen because teaching time is locked off. Oh, but hang on....our consultants are very keen on private practice and it turns out they will 'no show' for teaching because they are called away to deal with a problem at a private clinic. Ten years ago we appointed a 'lead for training and education' to deal with all this, but the consultants gave the appointee no staff, no budget and no formal management role, so nothing (nothing, that's nothing at all) happened. A box was however ticked. That appointee is still in place (it is an unpaid position) and hasn't even been invited to a management meeting for 5 years. How do I know? Because the appointee is me.

There's nothing constructive I can say. But if I may, I do have an observation.

I remember you were in two minds about retiring a while back. I don't think you are ready to do so, because you still care.
It is when you stop caring, that it is time to go.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

There's nothing constructive I can say. But if I may, I do have an observation.

I remember you were in two minds about retiring a while back. I don't think you are ready to do so, because you still care.
It is when you stop caring, that it is time to go.

You're right.

I had 5 minutes spare today and peeked at work emails. This reply I wrote concerning 3rd marking of work I marked as one of two 'independent' markers. I gave 52 (which is a 2:2 (lower second class). I wrote four pages of feedback (of course I did, you say). The other marker gave a grade higher (68 a high upper second class). A third marker, with no justification, explanation or feedback comments, added 10% to my mark. The third marker (unlike markers 1 and 2) were not blinded. The third marker knows no more about the work than the other two markers (the supervisor dos not mark the work, which I think is mad, whereas others thing this is great because the supervisor 'always gives a high mark' to reflect their own brilliance - which is utter bollocks).

"Hi XXXXXXXXX,

Unless you are referring to a different student, 52 is a low 2:2, not a low third*.

If by ‘spot on’ you mean that my comments map to my marks, great. If so, why increase the mark to 10% more than I have given? What am I missing here?

My comments explain why this is not an upper second class piece of work. I would be prepared to see a mark of 58% - if it can be explained how my mark does not map to my comments.

I am not saying that I have not given a mark that does not map to comments, but if so I need to know what I have done wrong.

I am ccing (HoD) because I am not happy with the process. We need to go back to open consecutive marking with the supervisor doing the first marking. Imagining we can blind double mark final year or MSc lab project work is delusional, and randomly changing marks without a proper explanation is bad practice."

*FFS

 

[Eric the meek]

You're right.

I had 5 minutes spare today and peeked at work emails. This reply I wrote concerning 3rd marking of work I marked as one of two 'independent' markers. I gave 52 (which is a 2:2 (lower second class). I wrote four pages of feedback (of course I did, you say). The other marker gave a grade higher (68 a high upper second class). A third marker, with no justification, explanation or feedback comments, added 10% to my mark. The third marker (unlike markers 1 and 2) were not blinded. The third marker knows no more about the work than the other two markers (the supervisor dos not mark the work, which I think is mad, whereas others thing this is great because the supervisor 'always gives a high mark' to reflect their own brilliance - which is utter bollocks).

"Hi XXXXXXXXX,

Unless you are referring to a different student, 52 is a low 2:2, not a low third*.

If by ‘spot on’ you mean that my comments map to my marks, great. If so, why increase the mark to 10% more than I have given? What am I missing here?

My comments explain why this is not an upper second class piece of work. I would be prepared to see a mark of 58% - if it can be explained how my mark does not map to my comments.

I am not saying that I have not given a mark that does not map to comments, but if so I need to know what I have done wrong.

I am ccing (HoD) because I am not happy with the process. We need to go back to open consecutive marking with the supervisor doing the first marking. Imagining we can blind double mark final year or MSc lab project work is delusional, and randomly changing marks without a proper explanation is bad practice."

*FFS

So, from 3 markers, the marks were 52, 58, and 68. Stop right there.

You're absolutely right not to be happy with the process. Pop the bonnet open, take the engine out, unbolt everything. Everything. Take a forensic look at each component. I know marking is a bit subjective, but a 30% variance? FFS indeed. That really, really, should not have happened. What you describe is beyond unacceptable.

P.S. Fwiw, my level of education: BA Geography 2:1. Portsmouth Poly.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

the supervisor dos not mark the work, which I think is mad, whereas others thing this is great because the supervisor 'always gives a high mark' to reflect their own brilliance - which is utter bollocks

I'm pretty sure the supervisor on my uni research project marked me down because he thought the guy I was working with had done all the work.
We possibly got off on the wrong foot, since for the first term I was mildly distracted doing an extra unit on Medieval History that had nothing whatsoever to do with my actual course.

Ten years ago we appointed a 'lead for training and education' to deal with all this, but the consultants gave the appointee no staff, no budget and no formal management role, so nothing (nothing, that's nothing at all) happened. A box was however ticked. That appointee is still in place (it is an unpaid position) and hasn't even been invited to a management meeting for 5 years. How do I know? Because the appointee is me.

In my experience, admittedly in consultancy rather than academia, it's remarkably easy to engineer a situation in which you're invited to meetings out of all proportion to actual position or seniority.
Although the other side of that coin is a regular failure to invite me to meetings which directly affect me e.g. "we've decided you'll be line managing these two people" or "you'll be working in Newcastle for the next 2 months".

 

[Shuggie]

I'm pretty sure the supervisor on my uni research project marked me down because he thought the guy I was working with had done all the work.
We possibly got off on the wrong foot, since for the first term I was mildly distracted doing an extra unit on Medieval History that had nothing whatsoever to do with my actual course.

In my experience, admittedly in consultancy rather than academia, it's remarkably easy to engineer a situation in which you're invited to meetings out of all proportion to actual position or seniority.
Although the other side of that coin is a regular failure to invite me to meetings which directly affect me e.g. "we've decided you'll be line managing these two people" or "you'll be working in Newcastle for the next 2 months".

I have been told that I need to move 20 jobs from country X to country Y to save money. I was not invited to any meetings until it was fait accompli (probably because I'm a weapons grade 60year old pain in the arse). I was given a few days warning before everyone in X was told they'll be out of a job by the end of the year. They have started leaving. In order to "save money", the team will be in the financial centre of Y where we'll be surrounded by companies with far deeper pockets than us. The outsourcing contract hasn't been signed. The Talent Acquisition team (I shit you not) have sent me CVs for jobs they defined without asking. Even if they were appropriate, all candidates are asking for more money than the budget which was based on the salary guidance provided by the outsourcing partner. I have been told to get this done by Christmas.

Interviews have been arranged for me to choose people we can't afford with the wrong skills that the outsourcer won't recruit until the contract is signed. I never saw the CVs. The current team is evaporating, the future team is a fantasy.

It is a breathtaking mix of arrogance, incompetence and amateurism garnished with the commercial acumen of a WAG.

I have also been instructed "to get my arse out there" so booked a resort hotel 75 miles away to wait until the contract is signed. My two week trip happens to coincide with the international break. Well, it ain't my budget, is it?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

So, from 3 markers, the marks were 52, 58, and 68. Stop right there.

You're absolutely right not to be happy with the process. Pop the bonnet open, take the engine out, unbolt everything. Everything. Take a forensic look at each component. I know marking is a bit subjective, but a 30% variance? FFS indeed. That really, really, should not have happened. What you describe is beyond unacceptable.

P.S. Fwiw, my level* of education: BA Geography 2:1. Portsmouth Poly.

*A very good level.

If only I could get a fix. Instead I get these sorts of comments:

"We haven't had any issues with other markers"
(This is a lie - they are simply happy with the process of mark adjustment)

"Yours are the largest marks discrepancies"
(This may be true but other marking 'pairs' collude before uploading marks; alternatively if you regress to the mean (65%) it is a five minute job (which it is for many))

"Here we go again"
(This is the slightly less-than-passive aggressive management style of my outgoing HoD)
I am apparently doing something wrong. The latest mantra is that my 'expectations for final year students may be unrealistic'. I have not changed my marking standards in 20 years. Possibly 30. Unrealistic? This from a 42 year old who has now quit as head (and quit his job) due to stress. Why not fight all the bollocks that is lowering standards rather than try to 'manage' tomfoolery? I have little sympathy. Rather than try to bully me he should have done his job - which is to uphold academic standards (as defined by academics, not administrators).

The new rubric states that if two markers marks digress by more than 5% they need to 'discuss' the mark. This allows one marker to bully the other - which in effect is what I am attempting now. There are no rules of engagement here and the one who shouts loudest wins.

I have to say that senior colleagues who invented these stupid rubrics can see there are problems. But the likely outcome is that extended dissertations and library projects will be replaced by 'other forms of assessments' such as multiple choice questions, where the answer is either correct or it isn't. This means we will be graduating illiterate students who can't construct a reasoned argument.. Can you imagine in football recognizing that tight offside decisions are hard to call and deciding the best solution is to replace offside with an objective rule? What rule? "We can get rid of offside completely" or "We could draw a line thinner than a human hair to see wither someone's cock is nearer the ball than his balls". Well, obviously in football they are using technology and stumbling about to find the best rubric. That's fine. They will get there. Perhaps they already have since most decisions are 100% correct. In academia we think it would be best to get rid of offside.

I am old school. I like extended writing (fancy that!). I like a thesis. And I expect the question setter or the supervisor to mark the work. The person with the expertise. You wouldn't ask someone to train in paint under David Hockney and then have his portfolio marked by Jeff Koons. Another colleague should always look over the assessment to check that the marker hasn't done a 5 minute job, but the real insight is with the supervisor when assessing original work (lab or library research in my case). And even Koons can recognize that if Hockney has described a portfolio of pleasing watercolours as 'shit; 65%' there is cause to ask for some elaboration, and elaboration that maps to the mark.

There is no excuse for this dumbing down. But - guess what? Senior colleagues have been responding to students who complain they got 55 and their pal got 57 and they don't understand why the marks are different. The correct answer is 'the marks are broadly the same and subtle nuances determine the marker's final judgement' and 'you are doing 4 units of work this year and the dissertation is one unit and swings and roundabouts will result in you getting a final degree mark you deserve'. But, no. Instead they have invented a micro detailed set of criteria for each sequential 3%, and told us we can give only 52, 55 58 etc. 'Clear demarcation'. This is not the problem. The problem is that a lot of markers don't know the difference between a 52 and a 68 - because of the subjective element and tacit expertise. FFS. I really will have to swing for some of them soon.

Who are these senior colleagues? They are the one's whose research careers failed because they had no good ideas or ability, and had to justify their salary via teaching and admin. In other words it is the innumerate who are trying to manage the numbers. It would be like putting Bas Savage, Lee Steele and Paddy McCourt in charge of VAR.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm pretty sure the supervisor on my uni research project marked me down because he thought the guy I was working with had done all the work.
We possibly got off on the wrong foot, since for the first term I was mildly distracted doing an extra unit on Medieval History that had nothing whatsoever to do with my actual course.

In my experience, admittedly in consultancy rather than academia, it's remarkably easy to engineer a situation in which you're invited to meetings out of all proportion to actual position or seniority.
Although the other side of that coin is a regular failure to invite me to meetings which directly affect me e.g. "we've decided you'll be line managing these two people" or "you'll be working in Newcastle for the next 2 months".

Here is the plan*. We identify the most annoying of the miscreants. I give you my list and you give me yours.

Then we kill them all. Me, your list, you, mine.

And nobody will be able to pin it on us because we have no motive, and no connection with the deceased.

*I have always got a plan. Most of my plans are shit. Luckily I discard them, normally even before beta testing. But sometime my plans are good

 

[zefarelly]

There's nothing constructive I can say. But if I may, I do have an observation.

I remember you were in two minds about retiring a while back. I don't think you are ready to do so, because you still care.
It is when you stop caring, that it is time to go.

I agree. Keep whistling the facts. . . There are similarities in other walks also. Apologies for swerving off on a tangent. Our first ever green councillor has been a revelation, now we have 2 locally . . . A year or two later they're at breaking point on a few issues due to what can only be described as a targeted bullying campaign. No one wants a plastic pitch on a flood plain but a few people have an agenda, and seemingly time/budget To terrorise mums on the school gates etc. It's so sad to see people giving up.

Having said that, I gave up my business partly because I wasn't up for the fight of the industry/politics, I'm an engineer, not a ****. ( other opinions are available! If you're at that point, then walk . . . lifes too short.

 

[Eric the meek]

*A very good level.

If only I could get a fix. Instead I get these sorts of comments:

"We haven't had any issues with other markers"
(This is a lie - they are simply happy with the process of mark adjustment)

"Yours are the largest marks discrepancies"
(This may be true but other marking 'pairs' collude before uploading marks; alternatively if you regress to the mean (65%) it is a five minute job (which it is for many))

"Here we go again"
(This is the slightly less-than-passive aggressive management style of my outgoing HoD)
I am apparently doing something wrong. The latest mantra is that my 'expectations for final year students may be unrealistic'. I have not changed my marking standards in 20 years. Possibly 30. Unrealistic? This from a 42 year old who has now quit as head (and quit his job) due to stress. Why not fight all the bollocks that is lowering standards rather than try to 'manage' tomfoolery? I have little sympathy. Rather than try to bully me he should have done his job - which is to uphold academic standards (as defined by academics, not administrators).

The new rubric states that if two markers marks digress by more than 5% they need to 'discuss' the mark. This allows one marker to bully the other - which in effect is what I am attempting now. There are no rules of engagement here and the one who shouts loudest wins.

I have to say that senior colleagues who invented these stupid rubrics can see there are problems. But the likely outcome is that extended dissertations and library projects will be replaced by 'other forms of assessments' such as multiple choice questions, where the answer is either correct or it isn't. This means we will be graduating illiterate students who can't construct a reasoned argument.. Can you imagine in football recognizing that tight offside decisions are hard to call and deciding the best solution is to replace offside with an objective rule? What rule? "We can get rid of offside completely" or "We could draw a line thinner than a human hair to see wither someone's cock is nearer the ball than his balls". Well, obviously in football they are using technology and stumbling about to find the best rubric. That's fine. They will get there. Perhaps they already have since most decisions are 100% correct. In academia we think it would be best to get rid of offside.

I am old school. I like extended writing (fancy that!). I like a thesis. And I expect the question setter or the supervisor to mark the work. The person with the expertise. You wouldn't ask someone to train in paint under David Hockney and then have his portfolio marked by Jeff Koons. Another colleague should always look over the assessment to check that the marker hasn't done a 5 minute job, but the real insight is with the supervisor when assessing original work (lab or library research in my case). And even Koons can recognize that if Hockney has described a portfolio of pleasing watercolours as 'shit; 65%' there is cause to ask for some elaboration, and elaboration that maps to the mark.

There is no excuse for this dumbing down. But - guess what? Senior colleagues have been responding to students who complain they got 55 and their pal got 57 and they don't understand why the marks are different. The correct answer is 'the marks are broadly the same and subtle nuances determine the marker's final judgement' and 'you are doing 4 units of work this year and the dissertation is one unit and swings and roundabouts will result in you getting a final degree mark you deserve'. But, no. Instead they have invented a micro detailed set of criteria for each sequential 3%, and told us we can give only 52, 55 58 etc. 'Clear demarcation'. This is not the problem. The problem is that a lot of markers don't know the difference between a 52 and a 68 - because of the subjective element and tacit expertise. FFS. I really will have to swing for some of them soon.

Who are these senior colleagues? They are the one's whose research careers failed because they had no good ideas or ability, and had to justify their salary via teaching and admin. In other words it is the innumerate who are trying to manage the numbers. It would be like putting Bas Savage, Lee Steele and Paddy McCourt in charge of VAR.

'Here we go again'. F***ing hell. This is people management from a head of dept we're talking about here. Translated, that means 'I've made up my mind before you've opened your mouth. I'm not listening, and I'm looking forward to those lamb chops for dinner'.

Harry, I can't fix that. But there are many things I can't fix, so I circumvent them.

I don't have the answers to your issues above, but I may be able to put them into the context of a retiree. Nothing matters.
While in work, you care deeply about it, as it's on your mind. But once you've retired, you don't give a shit.

I hope you take this in the spirit it is meant. When you do eventually retire, remember this post. All the frustration and stress will float away.

 

[BrightonCottager]

Any update on this, BrightonCottager?

The UCU (lecturer's union) is still on indefinite strike, taking legal action over 100% deduction of salaries for the marking boycott, supporting individuals taking grievance actions out against the University and have called other universities to boycott any collaboration with Brighton.

Meanwhile 123 senior academics (Principal Lecturers and Profs) have been made redundant to save money. I know some of them will be challenging this. And those remaining are being asked to cover lectures they would have delivered (redundant, did you say?).

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

'Here we go again'. F***ing hell. This is people management from a head of dept we're talking about here. Translated, that means 'I've made up my mind before you've opened your mouth. I'm not listening, and I'm looking forward to those lamb chops for dinner'.

Harry, I can't fix that. But there are many things I can't fix, so I circumvent them.

I don't have the answers to your issues above, but I may be able to put them into the context of a retiree. Nothing matters.
While in work, you care deeply about it, as it's on your mind. But once you've retired, you don't give a shit.

I hope you take this in the spirit it is meant. When you do eventually retire, remember this post. All the frustration and stress will float away.

Thanks. Appreciated.

It is a little difficult for me because I have always seen my role as a seeker of truth (the abstract of science) and a discoverer of Valuble Things, medically speaking (the application of science). It will be a wrench to give all that up. Especially now I am part of a team (the key part) with a patented new drug, the progression of which is assisted by my being a bona fide employee of . . . . . .

Yes, well. My autism makes it hard for me to let all that go, and I am willing to suck up all the madness to stay in the game. Tick tock. I also have the freedom to be a critical friend (of my institution). Tick tock. Not that they welcome or even tolerate criticism. Tick....tock. Is there anything really, of value, that I can give? Tick....

We shall see.

I value your content/comments/companionability

 

[Easy 10]

OK. Can we get back to the actual bellcheesery ?

The other day I went to release a flock of pigeons into the ground floor disabled toilet, only to find it occupied. The toilets on my floor have trap 1 and 2, but I have a dislike of defecating directly next to somebody in close proximity. The next option is the 1st floor toilets, which also has T1 and T2, but from the days of covid, it STILL has a bolt on the main entrance door, from when only one person was supposed to be in there. Which means I can mince in there, lock the main door, select my trap and even leave the inner door wide open if I like, as the main one is safely locked. Perfect.

Anyway, with the prime disabled toilet occupied and me starting to feel the beginnings of a tortoise-head peeping out, I went to the first floor, locked the main door, selected my trap and prepared for excavation. Shortly, I heard someone push against the main door. I continued unperturbed. Then he pushed again against the locked door. Then again, and again, harder. Then AGAIN, until he was actually thumping against it. He said nothing, whilst I sat there mid-cack, mildly alarmed, wondering whether to say "ITS F*CKING LOCKED MATE".

Eventually the pounding on the door finished, as did I. I washed my hands, unlocked the door and sloped off out down the staircase (I was going out for lunch). On the stairwell, I was passed by some bloke who had the reception / building maintenance guy, both of them clearly beating a trail to the "locked" 1st floor toilets. Yup, he'd gone and complained to the reception bloke because I'd bolted the toilet door. There are SEVEN gents toilets in that building, but clearly only the one I was occupying was good enough. What a prize f*cking SPANNER.

Next day - the bolt on that main outer toilet door had been unscrewed, and removed. I mean christ.

 

[schmunk]

I have a dislike of defecating directly next to somebody in close proximity.... [so I walk past the closest toilet, go up a floor to get to the one I like best, which allows me to occupy two cubicles to myself] ...I can mince in there, lock the main door, select my trap and even leave the inner door wide open if I like, as the main one is safely locked. Perfect.

This story definitely contains bellcheesery...

 

[marlowe]

Here is the plan*. We identify the most annoying of the miscreants. I give you my list and you give me yours.

Then we kill them all. Me, your list, you, mine.

And nobody will be able to pin it on us because we have no motive, and no connection with the deceased.

*I have always got a plan. Most of my plans are shit. Luckily I discard them, normally even before beta testing. But sometime my plans are good

 

[Easy 10]

This story definitely contains bellcheesery...

Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned that there are 7 toilets available to the gents. Across 4 floors.

 

[Brighthelmstone]

This story definitely contains bellcheesery...

I mean, the audacity of someone suspecting a stuck door and reporting it to facilities to get resolved...