What gets me is that it's not even fucking progressive! When all this kicked off I looked up the tweet and the policy and I was just shocked at just how...tepid the tweet actually was compared to what I expected considering how angry some people were/are. I mean, we're at the point where saying you don't like a policy and stating some facts about it is considered progressive? We can't accept this. We cannot concede this to conservatives. Reality is not negotiable.

Probably not normal to call them a manager of financial crime though. I'd at least expect a word like prevention or investigation to be thrown in there (though it was probably some idiot who messed up the job posting). Also, I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on being fraudulent. Banks get caught doing fraud all the time and have no incentive to stop because in recent years the punishments, if there are any, are not at all a disincentive.

Good warning. I won't click, it's too close to dinner time!

And I'm sure there were no signs or people saying that they couldn't do that.

Sadly, I knew. This isn't the first time I've seen police try this bullshit..

I thought similarly. I thought that the gifts from Santa were extra and I'd get less if I admitted it. Of course, it didn't work this way, there was a budget, but I didn't know that.

I think that if a child is having significant doubts, then you tell them the truth. Otherwise, you risk them not trusting you. I don't think that it will ruin their childhood and if they're already doubting, that magical time of just believing in santa is already gone.

Well…that’s nightmare fuel. Thanks in advance for the poopnado dreams. I hate it.

They buried the actual relevant legal detail at the bottom of the article. There is some basis for the lawsuit because she’s saying she was over-served and it is illegal to over-serve people in Canada. Over-serving has caused people to be seriously injured or killed in the past and businesses have been held responsible depending on the circumstances. There is actually a duty of care not to let people drink too much and to, within reason, ensure that they get home safely. Here’s an article that talks a bit about it and mentions some cases where businesses have been found liable in the past: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/the-ranch-roadhouse-mohamed-abdi-kicked-out-duty-of-care-1.4918403

Whether or not she actually was over-served and/or the venue acted improperly when they kicked her out…stay tuned for the court case, I guess. Who knows if she’s telling the truth or just hoping to push the liability onto the company which has bigger pockets. Even if she is being honest, depending on the circumstances the company may or may not be liable. These things are always very fact based as the article mentions.

...It doesn't matter how much a person loves a career, they need enough money to live. Also, the ambulances are run by paramedics and they go through so much shit. I don't know how bad the conditions are in the UK (though they must be pretty fucking bad for a strike), but I can tell you that in Canada, paramedics are over worked and underpaid and have been for ages. The rate of mental health issues, like PTSD, is through the roof in that profession. And no shit. They face dangerous situations, including violence, every day. They also often go above and beyond the job. An off duty paramedic literally saved my grandfather's life a few years ago. Man is a fucking hero and deserves twice the pay and far better working conditions than he gets.

Well, does he even live there? We just had local elections in Ontario and in my municipality, you must live or at least own land here or you're not eligible to be mayor or councilor (and I'd actually prefer it be limited to the first one...because being a rich asshole who just owns land and doesn't live here is going to involve very different and likely incompatible interests with most people).

It's just like that episode of Arthur. The painting even looks similar. Lmao.

Actually, there's another reason why they wouldn't. Over service. In many places, including Colorado, it is not legal to keep serving drinks to someone who is visibly intoxicated (and you don't go from appearing perfectly sober to "extremely intoxicated"). It puts a bar or other establishment at risk of serious fines, loss of license, etc. as well as liability for any injuries caused to third parties (and family members probably count). So they wouldn't have wanted anyone to see that he was that drunk because it would have been proof of illegality.