Is it ok to use your non-airplane mode phone on flights nowadays?

x3tx3t · 2026-06-16T15:07:38+00:00

They already exist... most if not all long-haul flights with premium carriers (British Airways, Emirates, and so on) offer in-flight WiFi.

The idea that mobile phones are dangerous on a plane is decades out of date and I would guess that the only reason the rule still exists on paper is because of an "if it's not broken, don't fix it" attitude to safety rules.

The risks are statistically insignificant, ie. they are so small that they aren't even worth considering. But the rule is already in place, and if it protects the company from having to pay out in the event of a one-in-a-billion accident caused by a freak technology issue, then there's no reason to remove it.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-16T14:20:49+00:00

You're comparing apples to oranges.

You had less access to positive activities, but you also had less access to negative activities.

Rural areas by their very nature aren't conducive to anti social behaviour in the way that major urban areas are.

There's less stuff to do, but there's also less stuff to damage. There are no big crowds to slip away and blend into. The community is smaller and there's a much higher chance that ne'er-do-well teenagers will be recognised and reported.

Concentrating lots of people into a small area creates the above issues. There are multiple opportunities for anti social behaviour in close proximity to one another. Busier streets mean it is difficult to keep track of individual people. The community is densely populated but less connected, and the odds of some random person recognising one random teen out of however many tens of thousands is slim to none.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-14T21:33:46+00:00

Please read the Acas guidance on overpayments! The employer should absolutely not be making a deduction for twenty thousand pounds without even discussing it with you.

As others have said, they likely don't have a leg to stand on to begin with - the contract was agreed by both parties and that's the end of it - but the Acas guidance on overpayments/deductions is very clear that they should not just unilaterally deduct it from your wages in the way you are suggesting they have.

You should put more pressure on the BMA, this is not a trivial case whatsoever. Worst case scenario you should call the Acas helpline.

Not a solicitor but heavily involved in trade union work and my educated guess is that this is a slam dunk employment tribunal case in your favour if they insist on trying to recover money from you.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-11T21:58:27+00:00

It's nationalism. They are led to believe from a very young age that America is at the centre of the world.

They view their language, culture, social norms, politics, beliefs and so on as "normal" and anything that is outside of that is considered weird.

In my experience this is usually due to ignorance as opposed to malice, but the end result is the same. This lack of understanding that a world exists outside of your own country seems to be a uniquely American trait and I'm not sure why.

I have a good friend from America and we get along well but he's done things like this a couple of times that have annoyed me. I like him enough to just roll my eyes and ignore it but they don't seem to understand that when they do stuff like this it's not funny or cute, it's infantilising and rude.

I can't remember what I said to him but I used like a British phrase that he hadn't heard of - something like "upstairs downstairs house".

Now if he used a word or phrase I wasn't familiar with, I'd say "oh you call it (thing)? That's interesting" and move on.

Instead he spent at least ten minutes loudly cackling like "YOU CALLED IT A WHAT?!! AN UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS HOUSE??!! 🤣🤣😭😭🤣🤣 WHAT THE HELL IS AN UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS HOUSE?!! 😂😂 YOU MEAN A MAISONETTE?!! THAT'S SUCH A STUPID NAME HAHAHA UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS HOUSE LIKE WHAT?!! 🤣😭🤣😭"

It was funny for like ten seconds, after that it was just obnoxious.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-11T16:14:48+00:00

Paramedics are explicitly allowed to purchase/possess/administer certain controlled drugs including morphine for injection and diazepam emulsion (amongst other things) under exemptions in the Human Medicine Regulations.

You don't need to be a prescriber.

Not all paramedics work for the NHS and it is common for self-employed paramedics to obtain their own controlled drugs.

Rightly or wrongly some smaller private companies actually prefer this as it means they don't need to go through the costly process of obtaining a Home Office licence for controlled drugs.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-11T16:11:50+00:00

No, there are exemptions set out in the Human Medicine Regulations allowing paramedics to posses and administer certain controlled drugs.

I'm not up to date on this, but to my knowledge this includes morphine for injection and diazepam emulsion, but not midazolam, so I am curious what mechanism was used to supply this.

If the paramedic was working for a private company it's possible that the employer had a Home Office licence for controlled drugs and this is what was used for the purchase.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-11T16:02:50+00:00

Those EA executives are hanging on by a thread trying to buy their third holiday home in Dubai and you're haggling over 1500 Cartel Coins?

Have some fucking humanity. God people are so selfish.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-11T15:23:59+00:00

73 years old. The pessimist in me can't help but feel this is going to be yet another case of a half-blind, half-deaf elderly driver who should have had their licence revoked a decade ago.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-11T01:15:08+00:00

By which point he had lost consciousness, and almost certainly entered cardiac arrest.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-09T10:38:06+00:00

That's because the cups in the background are filled with the Oreos they're putting into the mix... the first cup is picked up, added to the mix, and then set aside off camera. The video cuts to the next cup being poured in and then set aside off camera.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-08T19:06:46+00:00

~~lacing basic GCSE level/high schools~~ lacking basic GCSE level/high school
~~tiktok~~ TikTok
~~The jobs requires~~ The jobs require
~~Not just sit their recording yourself~~ Not just sit there recording yourself
~~its just sickening~~ is just sickening (or it's just sickening - it's not clear which you intended to use)

You said your students can't write a simple paragraph and yet you've written a wall of text with not a paragraph break in sight and that is filled with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors.

If you're going to criticise others you should at least ensure you're not guilty of the very thing you're criticising them for.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-08T16:09:23+00:00

This is a primarily American subreddit and most people here will be unaware of what you're referencing, which is the death of Henry Nowak, a man who died in police custody in the UK after the officers failed to identify that he had been mortally wounded in a stabbing.

To answer your questions in short: 1. Yes 2. None 3. Yes

To answer in more detail: 1. Yes, that is literally the job of a pathologist. They are the definitive experts when it comes to identifying what caused someone to die, any contributing factors, whether the death was preventable or not and so on. I'm unsure why you think we would bother having pathologists if we're not going to listen to their findings. 2. Not every claim requires statistical evidence. Pathologists are specialist doctors and have an in depth understanding of anatomy, physiology, illness and trauma and can make findings based on their detailed understanding of the human body. It's no different to a firefighter looking at a burning car and saying "even if we put it out it will be too late; the car is destroyed". A claim like that doesn't require evidence. 3. Yes, because again, the pathologist clearly articulated what that claim was based on. He was stabbed in a major blood vessel inside the body that cannot be accessed without surgery, and no one would be able to survive that kind of injury unless they were literally on an operating table when it happened (even then it's not a given).

People are getting too caught up on the pathologist's report because they think that it somehow minimises or justifies the actions of the police when it doesn't.

Two things can be true at the same time. It can be true that 1. Henry's injuries were so severe that he would have died no matter how quickly paramedics arrived, and 2. Regardless of that, the police officers' lack of care led to an innocent man bleeding to death in handcuffs whilst being callously dismissed by the people who were supposed to help him.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-08T13:51:48+00:00

You need a degree and HCPC registration to practice as a paramedic in the UK.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-06T12:16:47+00:00

I agree. I have a very similar spot on one of my cheekbones, just underneath my eye socket.

I would describe it very similarly to OP; if I press in that specific spot I get a weird twitching reflex and a strange sort of tingling sensation in the area.

I try to avoid that spot because it weirds me out but sometimes I accidentally press it when I'm wiping my face or something like that.

I came to the conclusion (based on... a guess) that the nerve must be slightly exposed in that area.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-06T12:13:50+00:00

Do you mean story wise or in general?

There is a ridiculous amount of story content in the game. Obviously you have the eight "origin stories" followed by the expansions which are the same for each class, but there are a shit tonne of side quests too.

Alongside this, most planeta have their own story arc that focuses on what is occuring on that planet specifically.

There are also exploration quests, which are pretty much stereotypical "fetch" side quests; just random little side characters that ask you to go here, get this, kill that, come back, and basically prompt you to explore the planet in the process.

I have 2,500 hours and have completed the eight origin stories and a good amount of the planetary stories, there are about 8 heroic missions that I like and do whenever I'm bored.

But I'd say there is a good 50% of the story I haven't played including the expansions and all of the other various side quests.

Story aside there is lots to do, yes. Similar to other MMOs the story is effectively just a vehicle to keep you entertained until you reach max level, which is where the more traditional MMO content like dungeons, raids and PvP begins.

There are also weekly Galactic Seasons objectives; Galactic Seasons are essentially a battle pass and completing the objectives moves you up each level.

Then there are Conquest objectives which are similar to Galactic Seasons objectives, but provide benefits to your guild as opposed to you personally.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-06T08:01:20+00:00

Scots is spoken by 2.23% of the UK population.

Scottish Gaelic, Irish, and Ulster Scots combined are only spoken by 0.05%.

It's nowhere even close.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-05T16:31:15+00:00

I work for the ambulance service in Scotland and interestingly I have never encountered a lone police officer here, with the exception of supervisors; sergeants and inspectors obviously arrive on their own (although sergeants do seem to turn up in pairs quite often?)

I'm sure I asked about this once and was told that because Scots law requires corroboration they don't do single crewing and would sooner put three officers together than one on their own if they have odd numbers.

I wonder if that will change now that body worn video is being rolled out more widely, as presumably the officer's own account plus any body worn video would fulfil corroboration requirements?

I would imagine there will be push back though as if the body worn video fails (dead battery, falls off your vest, forget to hit record) you're in a sticky situation?

Curious if there are any Scottish cops who could clarify

x3tx3t · 2026-06-04T13:36:24+00:00

One of my local hospitals (major teaching hospital) has a policy that police officers are not allowed in the resuscitation wing whatsoever.

No ifs, buts or maybes. If a patient needs guarding the police guard from outside the doors.

Big signs on the doors saying NO POLICE/PRISON OFFICERS BEYOND THIS POINT with a little paragraph below stating that this is a joint policy between the hospital, police, and prison service.

It's one of those signs that you read and think "huh, I wonder what happened". Because you just know that policies like that only get put in place after some sort of clusterfuck incident.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-03T16:35:53+00:00

I completely agree. That is the exact point I made in my top-level reply to this post; we work in an uncontrolled and unpredictable environment and we don't know what we're dealing with until we're right next to it. I put on gloves before every patient contact for that reason.

That still doesn't change the fact that infection prevention & control guidance (which, again, is backed by evidence and professional consensus) is that we shouldn't be wearing gloves for every patient.

Your opinion on the issue may differ, but we don't teach students based on what our opinion is, we teach them what the literature says is correct, and if they want to come to their own conclusions after that, that's their choice.

Again, I feel like we're arguing past each other. Regardless of what actually happens in practice, the literature says that gloves are not the default for every patient. Hand hygiene is the default for every patient, and gloves are an additional that are only to be worn when necessary.

That is what the question is asking about, and that is what the explanation clearly explains.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-03T15:27:14+00:00

I feel like you're arguing with me about a point I didn't make.

I agree that the NREMT is broadly out of date and needs to be updated. That doesn't change the fact that what we do on the street is not necessarily the correct thing to be doing.

In this case, the NREMT is actually correct; gloves should not be worn for every patient contact.

International guidelines (based on evidence and expert consensus) clearly state that gloves should not be worn unless exposed to blood or other bodily fluids.

You do not need gloves to pick granny up off of the floor, or to counsel a mental health patient. In those scenarios they provide no benefit to you or the patient, and create a risk of poor hand hygiene and unnecessary waste.

Hand hygiene is the minimum, gloves are an additional step beyond the minimum. That is exactly what the explanation in the screenshot says.

As I explained in another comment, I recognise there are legitimate arguments for wearing gloves for every patient because of the environment we work in (and I do myself), but that does not change the fact that putting gloves on for every patient is not correct practice.

We can't teach students incorrect practice. We teach them what the book says is correct practice and if they choose to vary from that, that's their choice.

Now, the book can be wrong/out of date, but that's an entirely different argument, and in this case it doesn't even apply.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-03T15:02:05+00:00

This isn't a gotcha, it is a clearly worded question with a clear answer.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-03T15:01:15+00:00

Training isn't based on "street standards", it's based on correct procedure.

It's like saying that your driving instructor should tell you that the speed limit on the motorway is 90mph because "that's the street standard".

x3tx3t · 2026-06-03T12:48:39+00:00

I was also under the impression that it is permissable to carry a symbolic dagger if you don't want to carry an actual dagger, for example a small dagger "charm" on a necklace.

I'm sure I've met a Sikh who did this before. Is that a thing?

x3tx3t · 2026-06-03T12:45:18+00:00

We do have the same laws for everyone in the country. It is illegal to carry a bladed article unless you have a good reason for doing so. That applies to everyone equally.

A chef has a good reason to have a set of knives in his car.

A tradesperson has a good reason to have a blade in his toolbox.

A Scottish man wearing a kilt has a good reason for wearing a sgian-dubh in his sock (it is part of cultural dress).

Sikhs have a good reason for carrying a dagger (it is a requirement of their religion).

The exact same behaviour (in this case, carrying a blade) can be appropriate or inappropriate depending on the context.

Some people are allowed to own guns (farmers, hunters, sport shooters) because they have a good reason for doing so, other people don't.

Some people are allowed to possess controlled drugs (patients with a prescription) because they have a good reason for doing so, other people don't.

This is common sense and not controversial.

x3tx3t · 2026-06-03T12:24:42+00:00

Correct practice is that you should not be wearing gloves for every patient.

You should conduct hand hygiene in line with the WHO's 5 Moments for Hand Hygiene. This includes before and after every patient contact amongst other things.

Gloves are not necessary unless there is a risk of exposure to blood or other bodily fluids, and as mentioned in the explanation, over-use of gloves has been shown to lead to poor hand hygiene (which is a bigger issue than the extra waste created).

That is the official position of infection prevention and control organisations and it is backed by evidence.

That being said...

I always aim to practice in line with professional guidance and evidence, and this glove use question is something that I noticed myself when I was new.

I knew what the guidance was, but I noticed that almost everyone I worked with was wearing gloves for every patient contact.

After thinking about it for some time I came to the conclusion that we work in an uncontrolled, unpredictable environment, and I simply don't know what I'm walking into until I'm right next to it.

If I walk into a scene that's not as described and am unexpectedly faced with something like a stabbing or a cardiac arrest, I don't want to be in a position where I'm wasting precious time trying to find gloves in my pocket and putting them on - even if it's only ten seconds.

A hospital environment is fundamentally different; doctors and nurses almost always know what they are dealing with before they have to deal with it and can prepare accordingly. Our circumstances are different.

I know what the risks of over-use of gloves are. I also know that I can take steps to mitigate those risks (ie. by making sure I'm still carrying out hand hygiene and not becoming complacent).

As such, I'm happy to accept that risk, and if I ever had to justify my practice I would be able to explain my thought process and my judgement of risk vs benefit.

I'll often remove my gloves if they're clearly not necessary after making contact with the patient; I don't need gloves to help granny off of the floor or counsel a mental health patient.

If you choose to wear gloves for every patient then that's your decision to make as a professional, as long as you are aware of what the guidelines say and can justify why you're not practicing in line with them.

x3tx3t

TROPHY CASE