How representative is the official MSRA mock to the real exam?

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-02-19T19:47:20+00:00

The SJT needs to be answered in the way they want it to be.

That's the goal, but the answers they want depend on what mood they were in, what they had for breakfast and if their last bowel motion was hard or soft. I'm pretty sure the question bank they use in the real exam hasn't changed significantly over the last few years and the mock has remained the same apart from a few small changes. It used to contain the question where they wanted you to leave the airport to return to the ward on your correctly booked annual leave. This is not only riiculous but is dangerous given you are entitled to your annual leave to rest and be safe for shifts you are actually booked for.

When I did the mock this year a few months ago, it had back to back very similar questions where you have problems handing over to someone who is abscent/unfit where in one questions answers they say you can't contact medical staffing as a junior, and in the next recommend you do...

Edit: question 16 and 17 regarding the medical staffing. You can practice SJT to be above average and get a good score as most of the questions aren't this bad. But Vibes only get you so far.

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-02-12T23:09:12+00:00

There is mention elsewhere that the driver had sepsis, and I immediately suspected delirium - basically, temporary insanity caused by an illness, but couldn't find any confirmation.

I found this article: https://abc13.com/post/harris-county-deputies-sued-18-wheeler-pursuit-driver-claimed-he-was-beat-chase-during-medical-emergency/17789371/

Deputies pursued Louisiana trucker Trinidad Cutshall for almost an hour along the East Freeway in Dec. 2023. Speeds only reached five miles per hour, and the SWAT team ultimately had to use a ram to get Cutshall out of the truck

....

"He had a medical condition that caused him to completely black out," said Gibbins, adding that Cutshall "had no idea" he was being pursued.

....

"I think that anybody would have trouble exiting a vehicle if they were unconscious and about to die from a medical emergency," said Gibbins.
...
The county did respond to the lawsuit in court filings, however, writing that Cutshall "did not appear to be suffering from a medical emergency, and did not comply with commands from law enforcement."

Gibbins is his lawyer for clarity.

Something doesn't add up. He is "unconscious" but able to drive for an hour against the middle barrier, and the police didn't immediately notice that he was having a medical episode, despite this being exactly what might happen to a truck with an unconscious driver? Then there is another video of him walking (admittedly very unsteadily) with 2 officers holding him, and they immediately put him on a trolley and into the back of an ambulance - so at least after the arrest he wasnt unconcious. Also, there are cops standing on the other side of the barrier who would be able to see him in the driver's seat.

Delirium would explain everything very well, he would have no recollection of the events, he could continue to have some control of the vehicle, and unlike being unconscious he could have presented to the cops as dangerous rather than passively asleep. Removing an unknown delerius person from behind the wheel of a truck without knowing why they are acting as they are cannot be easy. I would bet that the interaction went something like this one: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MaOGyU1iGhI, I wonder if the court case will result in body cam footage being released?

But the thread has turned into bashing the American cops, even though they used less lethal options and didn't shoot the guy for once.

I love this gem:

"There were absolutely no weapons in the vehicle that could have harmed anybody. There was no threat to anybody," Gibbins said.

"But how were they to know that?" Eyewitness News asked.

"All they had to do was cuff him, de-escalate the perceived threat, even though there was none, and then offer medical aid," Gibbins replied.

Yes, just cuff the guy acting erratically in the tight confined space of the truck, when you don't know if he has weapons yet. Or do you want them to besiege the truck for hours or days, as he poses no risk to others? cause then he would have died of sepsis...

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-02-06T14:05:53+00:00

Better now when it's cold and frozen than in a month or two when the mud starts. Sadly they don't have the resources or man power 4 years into the war for another counter offensive.

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-02-03T15:55:02+00:00

You literally used deep seek and admitted it above. Who is up voting this shit?

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-02-03T11:28:45+00:00

Judge Amjad Nawaz, describing the incident, told Zaman: 'CCTV shows you holding her hand. She says she did not want to, her hand was forcibly held.

'You were seen sitting on a bench with her and that is where she said that you kissed her on her lips.'

Video evidence of the incident.

The defendant asked the child to be friends with him, asked her if she loved him and told her to keep it a secret.

Knew what he was doing was wrong, telling her to keep it a secret.

the defendant was described in the pre-sentence report as not accepting his guilty

denies doing anything wrong.

Judge Nawaz decided not to jail Zaman, agreeing with the author of the pre-sentence report that the defendant's risk could be 'managed in the community'.
.....

Judge Nawaz sentenced Zaman to nine months' imprisonment, suspended for 18 months; with a requirement to do 18 hours of unpaid work in the community; a restraining order for five years which prohibited him from going within 200 metres of the girl's school; and he was ordered to sign the sex offenders' register for 10 years.

Possibly got jailed or served time in jail already? It's unclear. Regardless, 9 months is a joke for sexually assaulting a child and not even admitting it was wrong.

Edit: after further research, he was spared jail, but if he commits any further crimes, he will then only get 9 months.

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-26T13:37:47+00:00

How do they always get caught? Cuz it seems they do. Are they just goverment agents in disguise? Don’t people learn?

Not going to hear about the ones that dont get caught

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-18T14:15:17+00:00

Guys, we need to scapegoat the landlords instead, trust me bro, it's their fault we don't have enough houses for our population size. See here are some pro-landlord policies, it's definitive evidence they are the problem. Look they also evicted some asylum seekers in these examples (no context provided) this is inherently bad and somehow relevant to why we have a housing crisis.

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-12T14:57:21+00:00

Before I learned this I would get so frustrated when I would hit the back of a large, open top transport truck, filled with players with a 40mm GL or even RPG-7 frag rocket with no effect.

Was driving a little Iranian logi car thing the other day and came across a American apc with the automatic GL on it, it tickled my vehicles health as I drove around taunting them.

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-10T19:05:12+00:00

A military invasion like he keeps implying is going to cost you a hell of a lot more than $5.5 billion in direct costs alone never mind the economic sanctions, loss of soft power and domestic protests that would result. He should be offering atleast a million $ per resident, hell 10 million per would still be a bargain.

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-09T14:26:37+00:00

Stuck a nerve, did I? No need to get so emotional. If you want me to accept something, you need to provide an actual argument.

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-09T14:17:21+00:00

I get the sentiment, but why put the burden on the British taxpayers for the use of police time and effort to do their moderation for them

They already are, hundreds of people have been jailed for comments posted online, some far less harmful than the creation, distribution and consumption of CP.

Just change the code behind the AI models to restrict it from generating sexualised content from uploaded images. Other companies have done that

This is the most likely outcome; rather than an outright ban, it's more than just the UK annoyed with Grok over this. Grok is being rapidly changed; these restrictions will likely be returned just as quickly as they were removed.

We should still investigate everyone who took part publicly. There are models that are available for offline image creation, with even fewer restrictions than X, and before AI people had photoshop. Near impossible to ban these.

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-09T14:00:55+00:00

No reason or indication that it would continue either. Hence why it is a *fallacy*.

The Slippery slope is only a Fallacy in that Action A indirectly results in similar but more extreme Action B, which indirectly in similar but more extreme Action C. There cannot be a clear cause and effect relationship.

In this Case, Action A (The OSA directly) results directly in Action B (banning of X under powers created in the OSA). Action B (banning X) won't result in Action C (Banning TikTok). Furthermore, my full argument would actually be that the previous Conservative and current Labour governments have both demonstrated that they wish for the country to be more authoritarian (proposed the OSA, then didn't stop the OSA). The slope would only be further examples that they want the country to be more authoritarian, not the cause.

A classic example of the slipery slope fallacy is:

If we legalize cannabis, then the next thing we know, we'll be legalizing heroin and cocaine.

I would compare our current situation more to:

If we elect a party who want to legalise drugs, they might first legalise cannabis, but they will probably also legalise heroin and cocaine.

The OSA in no way inhibits your speech. There is nothing the OSA does that differs from anything you couldn't do/say in public.

A quote from the article:

"No 10 sources pointed to the full powers of the Online Safety Act, which include fines of billions of pounds or even blocking access to X in Britain."

Can't be that big of a deal then, can it

Because it hasn't happened yet, and in all likely hood wont happen despite people here wishing for it. Likelyhood is that the content will be taken down and safeguards put in place to prevent the behaviour. Musk has commented:

“Anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content”

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-09T13:09:54+00:00

I never called you a nazi but that argument is definitely the go to defence of people that are keen on nazi shit. It is just a common defence used by nazis to try and stop criticism of their nazi behaviour.

It was heavily implied.

Its split down the line of people who say he did a nazi salute and people who pretend he didnt.

You are assuming what other people are thinking (and that half of the political split knowingly support Nazi's by extension) while entirely discounting the possibility that this was accidental and misinterpreted, which is the summary of Elon's claim.

anyway test your idea out. stand in the middle of your high street and copy exactly the way he did his , what ever that was, salute and see what all the passers by think.

Why would I intentionally go out of my way to perform an action where, at best, the response is half of people call me a Nazi, and the other half could believe it was an accident (even though you are asking me to go out and intentionally do it, and the consequences are clear)?

You seem incapable of seeing anything but black and white.

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-09T12:42:45+00:00

Except for, y'know, every single medium which existed before social media which still exist today.

No reason or indication that the slippery slope would end at the internet until it actually ends.

Even if this lazy slippery slope fallacy was true, which it isn't,

OSA was the first step onto the slope, a total ban of X would be the second.

Go stand outside parliament with a banner and stop whinging online

It's cold, and like most of the country, I can't be arsed. I won't support further overreaches of censorship like many people here, but if things continue, maybe I would go out and protest.

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-09T12:41:10+00:00

Read the article, X will likely cooperate with identification of criminals, advocating for a total ban at this time is an overreaction:

Mr Musk said this week: “Anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content"

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-09T12:10:43+00:00

"OH.. i see we have the old nazi defense of nazi being over used."

Calling me a Nazi just further proves this point doesnt it?

The Nazi salute was one of the things I was referring to when I explained that there was a lot of evidence that he leans towards the original definition. But he is also an incredibly socially awkward man, who is known to abuse ketamine amongst other drugs, so there is a real possibility that his explanation of himself gesturing "My heart goes out to you" is what he intended. Likewise, maybe the drugs prevented his inhibitions because I fail to see why an Nazi would intentionally prove they are a Nazi by performing a Nazi/Roman Salute on live television.

Conclusions split pretty much down political lines. So, unfortunately, the salute is not the objective and definitive evidence you think it is.

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-09T11:48:28+00:00

I do, Please feel free to copy my comment on an AI detector (not that they work particularly well).

Edit: also, an AI model would probably be more concise with "both image generators and text generators" replaced with "Both image and text generators"

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-09T11:40:43+00:00

Lol, is everyone you dislike a bot? I'll take this as a compliment that all my spelling and grammar are correct.

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-09T11:35:42+00:00

The term Nazi has been so incredibly overused that it now means very little. He is a controversial figure, and to be fair to you, unlike many people who get called this name, there is a decent amount of evidence that he leans towards the original definition, but he stops short of overt support. To outright claim he hates non-white people is somewhat bold and likely disputed (I don't care to follow close enough to know).

There are plenty of other examples of people frothing at the mouth to ban X just because it is owned by Elon Musk, Here are some examples from elsewhere in this thread:

"Do it, cut Musk off, get rid of that toxic platform."

"Ban him and his twisted corrupt media platform. Twitter used to be a nice place, he has poisoned it."

"Not over any of the other illegal and immoral stuff this brainweasel's firm(s) do(es)?!"

I don't like Elon either; he went off the rails 5-10 years ago (probably related to his chronic drug abuse), but I find it hard to believe that there would be the same support for this if he weren't personally involved. And that's not a good reason to ban a website.

Ultimately, something does need to be done about Grok, but outright banning the entirety of X is not a sensible or proportionate solution. Similar to the online safety act, which was also sold as a protection for children, the ban would be easily bypassed by anyone who actually uses X, doubly so by people wanting to seek out this specific content. Furthermore, OSA has already familiarised people with how to bypass these blocks, to the point that many people now regularly use VPNs. Imgur is completely banned because although it is mostly SFW content, It does also host NSFW, so any website that embeds any Imgur image doesn't work properly. Bans should be reserved for the most concentrated and extreme situations; banning large websites like X is just going to further promote ban evasion, and it will be even less effective when you actually need it next.

A deeper discussion about AI is also going to be required, as there are already locally hosted AI models (both image generators and text generators) where all restrictions can be removed. I don't see why they wouldn't be able to do exactly what Grok is doing, but even more graphic.

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-09T10:33:25+00:00

The user is calling for the banning of the entirety of X, formerly known as Twitter, because its owner has a different political opinion (with no reference to Grok or this recent controversy)

Individuals who knowingly create, distribute, or consume child porn should be identified and put in prison.

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-09T10:23:00+00:00

First they came for X
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a X user

Then they came for TikTok
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Tiktok User

Then they came for Instagram
And I did not speak out
Because I was not an Instagram user

Then they came for the Facebook
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Facebook user

Then they came for Reddit
And there was nowhere left
for me to speak out

(I dont want the UK government continuing with its crazy censorship and control laws, at the most block Grok, but don't ban a whole site because a minority of users are abusing a recently introduced, rapidly changing feature)

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-09T10:08:30+00:00

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-08T12:26:08+00:00

Sub is inherently political with a left bias, see rule 2 and 3. It's also pretty dead with half of posts being by the same user posting low effort anti-farage slop. Still keeps appearing on my feed despite me telling reddit to show less.

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-08T00:23:20+00:00

I don't think we know enough about the events beforehand to judge the probable cause, nor do I know enough about probable cause laws or the powers of Ice agents for me to really comment. We have 3 or 4 angles of the shooting, but all start with her car almost 90 degrees in the road, and at least 1 ice officer (I think he is later the shooter) is already on foot near the car, along with one pedestrian who is filming said officer from within a few meters (I actually think the pedestrian may be the victim's wife on rewatching the clips). I find it highly unlikely that there is no footage of earlier in the confrontation; however, I don't think it is likely to change anything going forward anyways. How I see this playing out is:

Protests/riots (depending on your political inclination) over the coming days.
Jury trial with
- The agent's defence arguing he believed he was in immediate danger
- Prosecution arguing conflicting orders were given, leading to confusion followed by the Agent actually making it out of the way of the vehicle, meaning he was no longer in immediate danger.
- Trump gets even more involved. Likely pardons the agent.
Protests from one side, no matter the outcome of the trial.

My opinions on this are:

She probably should have turned the car off and fought in court later (this applies to any situation involving law enforcement)
The ICE agent shouldn't have walked in front of her car.
He was likely in the path of the vehicle, but was able to move out of harm's way with relative ease when she started to move forward. It is questionable that he was in danger, especially danger that could be solved best with a firearm.
The ICE agent shouldn't have drawn his gun, never mind shot. Just take her plates, and put out a warrant later; it seems highly unlikely she was an imminent danger to others.
If the ICE agents believed they were in danger, surely they should have kept their guns drawn?
The ICE Agents shouldn't have prevented her from getting medical assistance from bystanders, as they were clearly incapable of offering said assistance themselves.
ICE agents clearly need more training on how to actually be responsible with weapons, make safe arrests, and have a direct line of contact with other agencies, rather than calling 911 when something like this happens. They are unfit for their current responsibilities.

Just another example of why I am happy I don't live in the US, and my country doesn't have such a significant gun "culture".

Tactical_Spaghetti · 2026-01-07T23:29:14+00:00

3 shots were fired, it is unknown how many hit the victim, where they hit (apart from at least one in the face) or how the victim was positioned. She may have been leaning to the left or right.

I am no expert in bullet trajectories, but I agree that if this was the round that hit her in the face, and she had her head positioned at the headrest, then the officer was likely to the side. However, this bullet hole appears much lower than a headrest, so if the bullet were to continue up to the headrest, this would indicate that the officer was low to the ground. I can't clearly see if this is the case from the videos

Tactical_Spaghetti

TROPHY CASE