New rules could cost us potentially great policemen (From Clacton and Frinton Gazette)

"Mark Smith, chairman of the Essex Police Federation, said proposals, set to be implemented in April, which insist on an A Level or degree will damage rather than help policing."

That'd be a union spokesperson, wouldn't it? Figures ... "Hello, Smithy! The seventies are on the phone and they want their stilted rhetoric back, please."

I find it hard to believe that this bloke says that with a straight face. What's with the dumbing-down of society - always lowering the bar to allow ignorant and under-educated people some modicum of self-esteem because they think they're being charitable to others. All based upon false premises. And, frankly, I think there OUGHT to be a stigma attached to someone that can't finish high school: I don't want some drop-out being on my local police force!

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with this. Entry to the police already has strick criteria and entrance exams plus they have to take law courses, driving courses etc etc. They did the same with airline staff years ago and they are nowhere near as friendly and certainly not helpful. They took Matron's away from the hospitals and there has been a decline in hygiene and patient care. Numerous other examples could be given. So this year it is the turn of the police to take a battering. There was never a problem before so why is there now? Would violent thugs or drug addicts care if an officer had 'A' levels? The police do a good job so let them just get on with it.

While imposing this minimum entry criterion could attract candidates that are too academic, the pass rate for A levels has increased over the years so it could be said they are devalued, i.e. today's A level is like yesterday's GCSE.

Sorry - bit having A levels is "too academic"? I disagree.

itsagayday wrote:
DO NOT TRUST THE GAZETT’S COOKIES
Some developers have been known to use cookies to gather information without the user's knowledge. Perhaps this is one reason behind why they have been erroneously tagged as spyware. Usually this form of abuse stems from using cookies differently then the developer has stated in their privacy policy through omission or deception. This type of abuse is typically very difficult to pinpoint. Normally this type of abuse is not a major security threat but more a threat to the end user’s privacy.
Another point of potential and common abuse is in the work environment. IT Managers have been known to audit cookies. This means they may look through cookie folders and URL surfing history to determine where a user has been surfing or what they are doing with their time at the workstation. Cookies can provide a lot of information on a user’s surfing habits if you know where to look. For example it is easy to probe through the browser and other program’s data to get a general idea of what a user is doing online or where they are shopping. Likewise it will show if a user’s machine has been connected to a URL that serves adult content. This is a case of a benign technology being abused for covert purposes.
I have had them looked at by an it expert they are NOT benign by a long shot

D'oh. This is neither news nor even the remotest bit helpful. Cookies are snippets of data. Yes they can be analysed for forensic or other tracking purposes but without them the web doesn't work!

Don't lie and tell us you've engaged an "expert"!

Now run along and do have a gay day. :-/