SpacedX

And yet not long after this Andrew Loog Oldham started feeding the press lines such as, "would you let your daughter marry a Rolling Stone?"(despite the fact that in the case of Bill and Charlie, someone's daughters already had). It wasn't long until their reputation as the unwholesome alternatives and antithesis of the Beatles was established.

Yes.

I get the feeling that 'Hackney Diamonds' may be their last studio album and that after the passing of Charlie and Ronnie's recent ridiculously close call with small cell lung cancer, they are very much conscious of their mortality. This is where they came in, when Brian Jones founded the band in 1962 and this was his vision. It was also amongst the stack of records that Keith was carrying when he by chance got talking to a young Mick Jagger who was LSE bound on platform 2 of Dartford train station. This is also where the name came from. It's full circle, like a fairwell and an apposite, perfect epitaph to an illustrious 62 year career. Just Mick on vocals and Keith on guitar. Raw Chicago electric r&b. This is how it should be done and very few white artists are able to pull it off. Great stuff.

How is your own job search going now Mac? Any developments?

What "overwhelming evidence"? I'm not "trying" to say anything. I'm pointing out that your contention that the Person Specification will tell you "EVERYTHING that you need to know" is demonstrably untrue and very misleading advice. Your appeals to your own authority or cherry picking are irrelevant. Furthermore, at no stage am I suggesting that an applicant shouldn't evidence all the essential criteria on the Person Specification. As you know, it isn't possible to "argue" or debate with those individuals. I have simply implored you to actually read my responses and answer my questions as opposed to reacting emotionally and indignantly or flagrantly disregarding the content. Is that a promise this time? I'm fairly confident that most will.

You said that the PS will tell you "EVERYTHING that you need to know". Which is not true. That's not necessarily true. Absolutely agree with this. But no one is suggested that one churns out waffle "around things in the JD". A feeble strawman arguement. Again, no one is suggesting otherwise - or that the PS should be ignored, or, that you shouldn't concentrate on evidencing all of the criteria. Also, this may be corroborated later during interview and is indicated as such.

No, not really. The unintentional irony at this stage is a staggering as it is hilarious. Yes - that is a given and that is not in dispute here. What I am challenging is your claim that the Person Specification will tell you "EVERYTHING that you need to know" and that you are always automatically shortlisted if you address the mandatory criteria of the PS - both of which are utter nonsense. I have attempted to explain to you why, but you have completely disregarded it. I suggest that you refer back to my previous post. Moreover, to add to my previous post, you will often find the KPIs and the Key Accountabilities listed in the Job Description. I'm looking at a Band 4 Nursing Associate Role now as an example and there is a wealth of information beyond the Person Specification encompassing sections such as role purpose, role context, trust values, key competencies, deliverables, infection control, safeguarding, sustainability, equality and diversity, responsibilities, even an organisational structure. In contrast, there is a paucity of information contained in the Personal Specification which provides scant details relating to any of the latter. The weighting is all on the JD. I'm also curious, When you stated that the PS will tell you "EVERYTHING that you need to know" are you actually suggesting that a statement does not require any research around the trust or the hospital itself and its service users? How so? So you are still adamant that the JD should be completely disregarded? To remind you of what you said... Which is demonstrably false. And this... This is absolutely atrocious advice. Also, I've just noticed this too - This is also incorrect and hugely misleading. The NHS do not solely use competency based questioning, but pioneered VBI having adopted it from the NSPCC following the Warner Report “Choosing with Care” (1992) and a desire to improve the way in which organisations select staff to work in positions of trust with vulnerable people. Contrary to your claim, this is based upon hypothetical scenarios. I'm looking at a VBI matrix now for a current Band 5 NQ Physio role and it's full of them. The organisation also typically employs motivational interviewing (which invites greater depth than competency based interviews) and questions relating to technical/operational insight. Hope this helps.

From memory, I think his name was John.

Jeez, this has really upset you hasn't it? I thought you were done with this? We know this - where does it say ignore the Job Description in your application? Sigh! As you will be familiar with, the NHS can be deluged with applicants and it's not unusual for several hundred applications to come in for one vacancy, which is why they will often close before the stipulated deadline. So firstly, your contention that by simply "hitting the mandatories" of the PS will result in being shortlisted is demonstrably nonsense. Furthermore, anyone that manages to meet the non-essential criteria which have an advantage and prevail over someone that has evidenced all of the mandatory requirements. Secondly, both JD and PS are frequently cannibalised from other roles and can contain superfluous information or either one may omit important content. They may have been copied and pasted in haste from other job descriptions and may not actually accurately reflect the reality of the post to which you are applying. It may also be that some important criteria have deliberately been left out in order to retain flexibility during the recruitment process. For those reasons, it's crucial to base an application upon both to gain a good appreciation of the unwritten requirements if either and maximise the advantage. The wording may be vague and therefore difficult to interpret. For example, an essential criteria may be "wide-ranging experience of the speciality" or "good teaching experience", which means very little. Again, you should use the Job Description to gain a more refined interpretation of those criteria and vital context. Finally, as any recruiting medical consultant or medical professional will tell you - and this is particularly for healthcare professionals and practitioner roles, there is an expectation that a candidate will evidence wider insight and appreciation of public health and the NHS in addition to the NHS constitution, core values, clinical governance, patient centred care, confidentiality, safeguarding, and equality and diversity. Some of this - but not all - will almost invariably be present in the Job Description, but not necessarily always the Personal Specification. Inclusion of such themes make a supporting statement stand out, particularly when there is a high volume of applications - and even in non-professional roles ranging from porter to administrator. Additionally, the Trust values, which are often key to the application are listed separately and frequently at the end of the documents. Seriously? Listen to yourself! And yet you don't appreciate that recruitment is also prone to being subjective and as much as you can try to eliminate it, can also be subject to subconscious bias? Ultimately, despite the increasing prevalence of ATS, an application is shortlisted and screened by a human being, not a bot. They are to an extent looking for themselves on a page, not simply someone who can regurgitate a person specification without any evidential context,or substantiation. You gave some appalling advice over a football forum recommending that the Person Specification "will tell you "EVERYTHING that you need to know" and you are always shortlisted if you address the mandatory criteria of the PS. I merely pointed out that this was absolutely untrue and this seems to have upset you greatly. Please mellow out, I really don't want to argue with you.

Excellent advice. Thanks.

Doing what precisely? Because if you advise people to omit consideration of the job description and NHS core values/trust values and tell them that you are always shortlisted if you address the mandatory criteria of the PS then you're doing it wrong and completely differently to other recruiters in the organisation. I'll leave it with you.

No need to be so sensitive and indignant. No it is not how things are done in the NHS, otherwise there wouldn't be a 'role outline' and a 'job description'. It's a common misconception that the Person Specification "will tell you EVERYTHING that you need to know" and utterly appalling advice to give. Those that ignore factors such as trust values for example and the contextual content of the job description will be at a distinct disadvantage to those candidates that invite both in their applications. You are absolutely correct however when you stress the importance of satisfying the mandatory criteria - but no, they do not "have to shortlist you" based upon this at all.

Ah but that's London/greater London for you. It once took me two and a half hours to drive from Ealing to Brixton.

Then perhaps try punctuation instead?

Too true.

Actually, no. This is bad advice and a common misconception. Firstly, not all vacancies advertised have a PS. There may simply be a role description, typically detailing the duties and requirements in addition to the competencies and experience required. Secondly, it does not provide the necessary contextual information. In the case of the NHS, there will almost always be a Person Specification, but it is very important that you base your supporting statement on the job description which provides the vital contextualisation. Omitting consideration of this will severely disadvantage any applicant. You may implicitly construct the statement paragraphs around the order of the Person Specification, providing that there are a sufficient amount of headings and that they are appropriate (or adopt a narrative approach), but it's better to base either upon the content of the job description which almost invariably provides far more information and detail and can be useful in eliciting the experience that you need to demonstrate. The PS can then be used to augment this. Rather like a recipe for a dish, most of the ingredients can be found in the JS, you then flavour it, spice it up or dress it with the PS ensuring that nothing is left out. (Often this will summarise or duplicate the content of the job description). You may not meet all of the 'advantageous' criteria - but it is vitally important to evidence everything that is listed as 'essential'. Can I think of any more dubious culinary metaphors? - yes, essentially, the PS is the icing on the cake. You can then top the statement off by adding the salient requirements of the role and the key terminology/competencies/experience/knowledge and values. It is also essential that aside from the Job Description /Personal Statement that a candidate thoroughly researches both the organisation, (their mission, strategy, culture) and the sector itself. Take the spirit of the JS and the letter of the PS.

That's really all you needed to say on this thread.

I did this in my old house.The price of the door will depend upon the quality that you are looking for. I fitted eight, altered and hung them myself and stained them darker. If you do decide to do that for Christ's sake don't use a water based product, it is the devil's brew. Goes on like creosote. Use osmo oil. the doorknobs were expensive as I recall. From memory, the entire cost was around a grand and a half. Before staining - After... Replaced the stair banister and stained that too... Sold the house last year.

But that's the point. The unanimous verdict from the forensic psychologists, psychiatrists and mental health professionals that examined him was that these murders would not have taken place had it not been for his schizophrenia and severely deteriorating mental health. Unfortunately, anosognosia is common amongst schizophrenics and many people with a serious mental illness don't take their prescribed medication. Non-adherence is a major problem in the treatment of schizophrenia and estimated rates in the illness are about 50%. Its high prevalence, can have potentially severe clinical costs and severe consequences for public safety. The risk of psychotic relapse in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder increases almost five times after 5 years. When these terrible tragedies occur, I am reminded of the similar case of Christopher Clunis who stabbed an innocent bystander to death on Finsbury Park Tube station in 1992. Clunis was charged with murder also admitting manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and was indefinitely detained at Rampton. Clunis had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. The incident raised intense scholarly debate about the inadequate treatment given to him in addition to the fact that with an extensive history of psychiatric illness, including previous displays of violent behaviour, he should not have been at liberty to harm the public. It was also later discovered that he had eschewed his medication.

Was it? Really?

Elvis Costello's Dad. Seriously.

I paid two in to my bank yesterday.

Bank's Bitter. ...Oh, hang on

I can't see this happening until the end of the decade. Space X have so much yet to do developing and testing the HLS. It really does impress upon you how incredible the Apollo Programme in terms of the pace of development to fulfil Kennedy's objective of landing a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s. Saying that, there was a practically limitless budget thrown at it.