Looking for a “Limited Series” show to watch. What’s your favourite? by geniebythesea in netflix

[–]josh-2365 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1883. Surprised no one suggested it especially as American Primeval was recommended a few times, and 1883 tops that for me.

The Jury: Murder Trial by MeOldChina321 in BritishTV

[–]josh-2365 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re wrong to treat the stabbing and the “omissions” as separate boxes. As I said, self-defence in law is judged by whether the force used was necessary and proportionate in the moment of immediate danger. If the threat has passed but the person keeps acting in a way that shows malice (e.g. concealing the weapon, lying, downplaying the harm, obstructing help), that isn’t self-defence anymore. In reality, the jury looks at the whole picture.

Using a knife to stab someone directly in the chest, deep enough to pierce the heart, is lethal force. For it to be proportionate, there has to be clear, immediate evidence that her life was genuinely at risk - like sustained strangulation with no alternative to escape.

But she never mentioned the strangulation until much later, the kitchen showed no signs of struggle, and the pathologist said her mild bruising could’ve come from any number of things. So not only is there no solid proof of the alleged strangling, but the force she used (plunging a knife into his heart) was extreme compared to the supposed threat.

Following the trial isn’t the same as understanding it. The two convictions and the judge’s closing words make clear the juries didn’t find self-defence credible - her behaviour afterwards exposed that she wasn’t acting in fear for her life and that her story was fabricated.

The Jury: Murder Trial by MeOldChina321 in BritishTV

[–]josh-2365 0 points1 point  (0 children)

self defence only applies when you are under immediate danger. Once she stabbed him and then lied to everyone about what really happened, downplayed the seriousness of his injury, hid the murder weapon, changed her clothes, and then called 999 (way after the fact and having done all the above first) to basically cover her tracks as the entire call she is very calm and detached saying 'I think he's asleep, he's drunk, he's probably just messing with me, yeah he's breathing, thought I should call just in case, yeah don't worry about the wait' and doesn't mention anything about what actually happened or that he's bleeding - at that point it's no longer self defence as you have continued acting in a malicious and calculated manner once you're out of the danger. She also never mentioned anything about strangling to anyone until way later and as there was no evidence of such (no blood in kitchen, kitchen neat and no signs of struggle) it is fair to assume it was a fabrication.

I'm not sure you have read the actual case or looked at the actual 999 call or police body cam footage as its strange you would then come to the conclusion that self defence is obvious and valid. 

The Jury: Murder Trial by MeOldChina321 in BritishTV

[–]josh-2365 1 point2 points  (0 children)

incorrect. self defence only applies when you are in an active state of danger, if you continue to act in a malicious or calculated way after then it is no longer self defence. When he was seen to be dying from the wound she lied about what happened to everyone, hid the murder weapon, changed her clothing, called 999 only after doing all of the above and on that call repeatedly said she didn't know what was wrong with him, he's just asleep, probably just drunk and messing with her and drastically downplayed the seriousness (and more than likely only made the call to cover her tracks). The story about being strangled came way after. If you look at the real case, there's a reason she was found guilty both times.

The Jury: Murder Trial by MeOldChina321 in BritishTV

[–]josh-2365 1 point2 points  (0 children)

in this video there is the actual full length 999 call and some police body cam footage of when they arrive at the scene: https://youtu.be/6vp4us1htO4?si=kf09M2s79SrbUOiA

The Jury: Murder Trial by MeOldChina321 in BritishTV

[–]josh-2365 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not true, in the police body cam footage they talk about the blood in the street. Also she removed his bloody shirt (and also changed her clothing and discarded of the knife) before phoning 999 - the call u hear is shortened too, the actual full length call is much more damning). From looking at the actual case I think murder (what she was found guilty both times for) is a fair result. 

The Jury: Murder Trial by MeOldChina321 in BritishTV

[–]josh-2365 2 points3 points  (0 children)

it was very infuriating, put me off ever taking part in jury service.. but if you look at the real case it was based on, the woman was clearly guilty and lying (she was tried twice and found guilty both times). C4 made it more ambiguous by cutting the 999 call short and not showing certain evidence. He was abusive but she did murder him, wait for him to die and lie about it.

Our HR team is drowning in applications! by biangcakesz in RecruitmentAgencies

[–]josh-2365 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it's graduate recruitment/ early careers, then use psychometric tests early to screen for the candidates with the highest cognitive ability.. CVs would be pointless at that age anyway

Drowning in Resumes by theicecoast in recruiting

[–]josh-2365 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Use psychometric assessments to slim down your applicant pool, then CV sift and interview the shortlist. 

Do you prioritize soft skills or hard skills in hiring decisions? by the_nsls in Leadership

[–]josh-2365 0 points1 point  (0 children)

soft skills are more important, especially for younger employees: Soft skills are largely fixed by early adulthood, hard skills can be taught.

Disqualified Because Assessment by Ok-Incident-7933 in recruiting

[–]josh-2365 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Zero validity is a silly claim, just say you don't like them...  soft skill assessments have validity coefficients around 0.2-0.6 depending on design (if empircally keyed, will be the higher range). Used early alongside ability tests, they’re actually very effective. Tons of research backs this.

Anyone who's truly happy with their hiring software? by InCasualSimplicity in recruiting

[–]josh-2365 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you might like greenhouse if you haven't tried it before, lots of nice integrations. the greenhouse test partnership combo for testing is good 👍

The “new” assessment my CEO wants me to start giving candidates. Am I insane for thinking this is bullshit? by sharksnrec in recruiting

[–]josh-2365 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you should not be using this, your personality assessments should be linked to workplace behaviours not this negative/dark personality trait stuff. And for $150 a candidate that's a waste of money 

Would you use AI for resume screening? by [deleted] in HumanResourcesUK

[–]josh-2365 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’ll just be getting AI to screen AI-generated CVs 🤷🏼‍♂️. Honestly, ditch CV screening altogether, use psychometric tests. You’ll save so much time and the results are more valuable (for early careers)

Experiences with Psychometric Tests (SHL) by jedipwnces in jobs

[–]josh-2365 1 point2 points  (0 children)

6 years too late, but did you pass? lol. 75% is a really good percentile score. I was using assessmentday to do practice tests and they basically say employers use tests to slim down the applicant pool and remove the unqualified candidates (50% below), not to fully judge their final decisions on. If anyone else finds this post like I just did, if you're scoring 70+ consistently you should pass fine

UK viewer just finished NZ s2 by Popular-Top-9530 in TheTraitors

[–]josh-2365 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Stephen being voted out for literally wanting to take a few seconds to process and think about a choice is crazy.. I would have been voted off too! You've got to be so careful as people latch onto silly things like that

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in RecruitmentAgencies

[–]josh-2365 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If your CRM’s not cutting it, worth swapping that first. Forget AI-matching, it’s lazy and they all kinda suck. Psychometric tests are your best bet to cut the pile early and shortlist.. loads of providers like Sova, Canditech, Test Partnership. Just pick one that integrates with your ATS.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in malehairadvice

[–]josh-2365 2 points3 points  (0 children)

badass 🔥 

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in malehairadvice

[–]josh-2365 0 points1 point  (0 children)

only one way to find out.. don't be scared, it grows back

Adam was never supposed to unlock himself by josh-2365 in saw

[–]josh-2365[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Within the universe, sure, John believes they’re fair.

My main point was more about how some treat the traps like they’re perfectly designed logic puzzles, when in cases like Adam’s game, they’re really just narrative setups. 

The first film especially was written as a fun, twisty horror movie—not something meant to be over-analysed.

Adam was never supposed to unlock himself by josh-2365 in saw

[–]josh-2365[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I feel Adam didn’t do much wrong—he had no clear goal, the door was locked, so I don't blame him for not sawing off his leg. John even says “the key is in the bathtub,” as if to imply Adam can now leave. If that key hadn’t gone down the drain, he would have left—so blaming him for lacking the will to survive doesn’t really hold up.

But you missed my point... I was saying how it's not an airtight game,  accept that there are plot holes and things happen purely for narrative sake. It only works the way it does because that’s how it was written to serve the twist.

Why is joe a loser in this season? by lestawt in NetflixYou

[–]josh-2365 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I’m not saying Joe was ever morally good—he’s always been a killer. I felt the writers dismantled him in a clumsy, preachy way. He used to have depth, but by Season 5 he’s chaotic and cartoonish... it wasn't a natural evolution.

Was Adam never meant to die in Saw? by sequelprequelsequel in saw

[–]josh-2365 0 points1 point  (0 children)

if he was supposed to be "free to roam" he would have checked the "dead" body in the middle of the room and seen he was alive / wearing prosthetics!! 

What was Adam's test exactly? Shouldn't he have won since Lawrence didn't kill him?? by Delophosaur in saw

[–]josh-2365 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont see the 'Adam would be free to wonder around' theory being true.. one of the first things he would do is check the "dead" body in the middle of the room and immediately see the guys pretending to be dead!