And you thought I was strange?

A couple of recent Observations suggest that, while I may be a tiny bit eccentric in some regards, at least I'm not totally barking.

Firstly, there's this story, which has caused much merriment chez Observer. Advertising for reliable people discriminates against unreliable people, apparently. Dearie me, the poor things.

However, of almost equal cause for amusement is the presumption that reliable people are the ones to employ.

No. No, no. Let's think about it.

Reliable people are the ones who quietly get on with stuff. You don't really keep an eye on them; their tasks are accomplished on time and without fuss; the beady eye of management just sort of skates over them.

Meanwhile, the unreliable ones are always adrift with their tasks; need constant supervision; are not trusted by management to any extent.

So who, do you think, is the more likely to be syphoning off funds in the background? Running a porn site on the company server? Selling commercial data to the competition? Yep, good ol' Frank there. 'Never been late in her life' Noreen. Mrs Thing from accounts. They're the ones who'll screw over the employer in the long run, not Nutter Norman the useless trainee who's always, but always, got someone on his case.

The other item that suggests others out there are much more mentally ill than my good self is a rumour that a very major local employer has bought a 'landmark' local building, into which it proposes to move very many people in the near future. The expenditure will be mighty. And this it has done, according to a normally reliable source (though whether the source is reliably normal is another question), without going to the trouble of having a survey on the building. Questions are now being asked as to the fitness for purpose of the building. Several other questions spring to mind, as for example: "What dung-for-brains made that decision? Or did it just not occur?"

What a wonderful world! I feel less lonely already.