Most Useless Profession

Jesus Wept

nacimroc wrote: »

Estate agents! Professional keyholders, thieving scumbag keyholders is all they are!

Nail.on.HEAD

Osmosis Jones

Professional light-switcher

policarp

Inferior Designers. . .

boo3000

boo3000 wrote: »

Well im making the point that comparing law to medicine isn't comparing like to like.

I don't see the need to have experts in law. If we had a code of laws that could be comprehended by lay people there would be no need for experts.

As it stands we just have an unnecessary group of people who translate arguments in and out of legal speak. Lawyers, to the space ship.

When i hear court officer i think of the guy that does the typing, do they charge 200 quid an hour as well?

Just look at what the ****ers have done with sport. The sporting associations can't even have sanctions for drug cheats without the wonderful words "Court of Arbitration for Sport" coming up.

Allyall

Reality TV show maker.

Don't need to go into detail..

retalivity

+1 for HR people

****ing gobshítes the lot of them. An entire HR department with a workload that could be done by 2-3 people.
Instead you have 20 people running round being cocks as theyve bugger all else to do.

cúnts

DylanII

Teachers, Garda, Nurses, just anyone in the public service.

Oh, no sorry I was confused there for a moment. We want all of those, we want more of those and maybe some better ones. We just dont want to pay them.

books4sale

ArtSmart wrote: »

for me it Poets. fuk off an get a REAL job.

Keyboard Warriors.

Why don't you get a real job?

TheStook

flyswatter wrote: »

Psychics.

People pay to see Psychics willingly with their own money so its hardly an inconvenience to the state or anything

MOC88

Ceann Comhairle or however its spelled- lets see if anyone has abything to say in the dail

sam34

wine conoisseurs (?sp)

that muppet Paulo Tullio on "The Restaurant" guesses incorrectly a lot of the time, after a lot of posturing and bs'ing, yet he's apparently an expert and has a weekly column in one of the Sunday papers.

bluffer.

RaRaRasputin

Civil servants - they don't do anything anyway (yes I know, there are the exceptions)

opinion guy

Bad Panda wrote: »

Film critics.

Only one thing worse - people who think they're critics.

How does on merely think they are a critic? There really isn't much room for confusion though is there? One either has an opinion or one doesn't. That is all that required to be a critic. Generally people are aware whether they have an opinion or not. Thus generally people don't usually think they are critics when in fact they are not.


Most useless job ?

Chuggers.

/thread

WhatNowForUs?

boo3000 wrote: »

Robert McGrath wrote: »

In a democratic society you will need criminal and civil law to regulate behaviour and contracts etc

Well if you say so.

Robert McGrath wrote: »

Not everybody can be an expert on the law (in the same way not everybody can be an expert in medicine) so we need those who are expert to represent our interests.

I've been wondering why I hadn't been called to a jury in a hospital lately. Should we operate? All in favor say ai

Robert McGrath wrote: »

The law is inevitably complicated at times because human behaviour is complicated and it is right that people should not be sent to prison on a whim

Are you saying we need lawyers so that people don't get to prison on a whim (i don't see why) or because they have a greater understanding of human behaviour? How?

I can see the need for a judge in some matters (i didn't mean lawyer in this widest sense) but i still think that we could manage just fine without solicitors, barristers etc. I don't buy this whole argument that the law is so complicated only they can understand it, surely at this stage we can develop a code of law that a lay person can comprehend.

After being in court recently I think i'd prefer to have solicitors and barristors looking after me.

Gmol

Anglo's Auditors I mean WTF sign off on the accounts and everything's ticketey boo and then whoops?
They walk away and it's not their responsibillity


Professional Consultants, they come into your company and you pay them for the privellege to learn all about your business. They charge you a fortune to tell you to move your business to India and then 5 years later you hire them again and pay them a fortune to tell you to move the business back to Ireland:rolleyes:

Aglomerado

Advertising Executives from the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.

--Kaiser--

Homeopathists, psychics, priests and other assorted charlatans

Sleepy

"if anyone here is in marketing or advertising...kill yourself."

Great point on this at the end of World War Z:

Virtually all modern professions were considered to be useless, what's needed after the zombie apocalypse is good old-fashioned tradesmen: mechanics, farmers, builders, blacksmiths etc.

--Kaiser--

Actually, one of my favourite epigrams

If you can't explain your job to a five year old then it's not important

AnonoBoy

Vajazzle Engineers.

VEN

or you a morketeer or a morketer? either way you're useless, prepare for mars

McCrack

boo3000 wrote: »

Ok i don't know how many of ye are familiar with the book 'A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' (it's brilliant) but there's an idea in there that one third of a societies professions are unnecessary and we should get rid of them. In the book they're tricked to boarding a space ark and shot out to space never to be seen again.

I'm up for it if ye are. But who should we send? For me it's lawyers, they do nothing for society but translate arguments into and out of legal speak and charge a fortune for it. We don't need them, goodbye.

I know there's been a thread here recently; most hated professions. But just to clarify this isn't about who you hate, it's about who we don't need. For example, i might hate doctors (i don't) but i still recognise the need for them.

Oh and please explain why the profession is useless, even if it may seem self explanatory (HR is it?).

Shows how dumb you are, in fact opening a thread asking people what "professions" we don't need. In fact anybody with a job is contributing to society more so than the 400k unemployed (I do recognise some of these are not unemployed by choice).

Now re lawyers, you think they do nothing for society and we as a democratic society don't need them.

Come back and say that after you have been arrested, bullied in work and forced to resign, crashed into by a stupid driver and injured, owed money and the debtor wont pay you, you want to buy/sell a gaff, divorce your kunt wife, secure access to your children because your kunt partner wont let you see them, sacked unfairly etc etc etc

Sure I'm sure you can assert your rights and defend yourself anyway without any legal assistance. Right?

Reoil

ITS_A_BADGER wrote: »

telesales people! especailly the cnuts the call you up or come to your door

Yeah, I hate it when telesales people come to my front door too...

Gmol

Reoil wrote: »

Yeah, I hate it when telesales people come to my front door too...

with their phone in their hand... so rude

Grimebox

Professional Footballer. Offers nothing to the world

jdooley28

Professional Footballers provide me loads of entertainment, they give me something to talk about with strangers too!

boo3000

McCrack wrote: »

Shows how dumb you are, in fact opening a thread asking people what "professions" we don't need. In fact anybody with a job is contributing to society more so than the 400k unemployed (I do recognise some of these are not unemployed by choice).

So if i start work in the morning for Kiddyfiddlers Inc. im contributing to society? What about the guys that worked in auschwitz or that sold thalidomide, honest decent hardworking folk right? Sure where would the country be without all those property developers, bankers, banking regulators over the last few years?

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

A broad legal knowledge is not something a person can acquire overnight, You're talking about a vast diverse subject with many different facets and areas of expertise which people build careers specialising in alone. I don't think it's realistic to suggest that centuries of the common law can be whittled down to the bare bones. What will happen in criminal law for instance, who will defend and prosecute?

So you have to be an expert to understand the law but yet us simpletons are expected to understand it enough to live by it, decide on it if called to jury duty and vote on it, directly or indirectly?

My argument here is not so much against law or justice as some people seem to have taken it. What i don't see the need for is these makey uppy legal professionals, that charge a fortune to translate into and out of legal speak and have it so the only way i can get justice, (or something approximating it) is by employing them.

Yes I would need them if i went to court in the morning because i don't speak makey uppy legal language but i'd also need to speak to someone in HR (yuk) if i needed to get a job. Doesn't mean society here needs HR.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

On a side note the legal profession is currently on it's knee's in this country, particularly at solicitor. Sole practitioners have seen a 60% decrease in earnings per annum and countless solicitors are unemployed. So in Ireland at least the profession is not the golden goose you seem to think it is.

Well it's nice to start the day on some good news! Let's see that trend continue and we'll all be better for it......

razor425

Recruitment agents. Need I say more?

Pawwed Rig

Grimebox wrote: »

Professional Footballer. Offers nothing to the world

Without football my trip to the barber would be a 10 minute embarrassing silence. Professional footballers are vital to this world.

Beauty therapists, nail technicians (technician lol), 50% of Gardai, Horoscope columnists, the complete staff of the Sun, Star and Herald.

Skylinehead

Grimebox wrote: »

Professional Footballer. Offers nothing to the world

Except entertainment. Could say the same thing about anybody working in TV, film, musicians if that were the case. Which it isn't.

giant_midget

razor425 wrote: »

Recruitment agents. Need I say more?

I think they are called "Recruitment Consultants :rolleyes:" now stop me if im wrong but a consultant works in a hospital and has probably done 8 years in medical college...not some Bullsh1t numpty "sales" guy/woman who works in recruitment...makes me laugh...

McCrack

boo3000 wrote: »

So if i start work in the morning for Kiddyfiddlers Inc. im contributing to society? What about the guys that worked in auschwitz or that sold thalidomide, honest decent hardworking folk right? Sure where would the country be without all those property developers, bankers, banking regulators over the last few years?



So you have to be an expert to understand the law but yet us simpletons are expected to understand it enough to live by it, decide on it if called to jury duty and vote on it, directly or indirectly?

My argument here is not so much against law or justice as some people seem to have taken it. What i don't see the need for is these makey uppy legal professionals, that charge a fortune to translate into and out of legal speak and have it so the only way i can get justice, (or something approximating it) is by employing them.

Yes I would need them if i went to court in the morning because i don't speak makey uppy legal language but i'd also need to speak to someone in HR (yuk) if i needed to get a job. Doesn't mean society here needs HR.



Well it's nice to start the day on some good news! Let's see that trend continue and we'll all be better for it......

You are really showing your ignorance here.

If you worked for Kiddyfiddlers inc you would be a child abuser. If you were in the SS and killed many Jews and others you would be a mass murderer.

Legal professionals exist because we live in a regulated and democratic society. Legal professionals assist and defend your rights when they are infringed by others including the State and I have given many examples where that can happen.

You don't see the need for lawyers? Then sir you will only have a fool for a client.

PS I noted you posted at 12.00 pm saying "nice to start the day on some good news!"

It's probably safe to assume you were only dragging your lazy state-sponging ass out of bed then. I reckon you make a great contribution to society.

razor425

giant_midget wrote: »

I think they are called "Recruitment Consultants :rolleyes:" now stop me if im wrong but a consultant works in a hospital and has probably done 8 years in medical college...not some Bullsh1t numpty "sales" guy/woman who works in recruitment...makes me laugh...

Consultants my **se, most of these muppets have failed at a career already and then decide they would be useful in finding others for the same or similar career. Numpties.

boo3000

McCrack wrote: »

In fact anybody with a job is contributing to society more so than the 400k unemployed (I do recognise some of these are not unemployed by choice).

According to you being employed in itself means you contribute to society. According to your argument these hypothetical professional peado's, mass murderers and thalidomide salespeople all contribute to society.

McCrack wrote: »

Legal professionals exist because we live in a regulated and democratic society.

To a certain extent i get this but your confusing living in a regulated democratic society with the need for legal speak. Also, I love how it becomes legal professional or court officer, not solicitor, barrister or senior counsel when defending the role, like those guys are normal hardworking Joes.

I think my point is being proven on this thread by how much it's being avoided. I'm going to make it again as simply as possible.

I believe that legal speak or legalese if you will is completely unnecessary. It is on the basis of this makey uppy language that we go to solicitors, barristers and SC's (through a solicitor of course, cough, protectionism) to try and achieve justice or uphold the law.

We could have justice and law without all this BS. The law is created by people therefore it cannot in this sense be compared to medicine or science (as examples) in it's complexity or need for expertise.

Because we have to pay huge sums to these experts (in legalese BS, or con artistry, if you will, m'learned friend) it is more difficult to achieve justice. Sometimes justice is achieved in spite of this situation, not because of it. That does not make me pro bullying in the work place, pro dangerous driving, pro state harassment, anti-American or whatever your having.

McCrack wrote: »

It's probably safe to assume you were only dragging your lazy state-sponging ass out of bed then. I reckon you make a great contribution to society.

Now that's what i call jumping to conclusions. Maybe i was starting my boards.ie day as it was my first post. But yeah u gotta hate people on the dole (sarcasm ,just in case anyone thinks i agree with this type of nastiness)

Oh and before I finish, no, no, no, wait for it, wait, wait, wait............. no you're the fool.

CruelCoin

Modern Artists.
Shovel-leaners at county councils nationwide.

Sea Filly

Life coach
Food stylist

Sea Filly

brummytom wrote: »

Whoever it is that decided all wet floors needed to have a sign saying 'wet floor' on them.
If you can't look at a floor and tell it's wet, you deserve to fall on your arse.

You've never been in a rush before then, I take it. Plus noticing the dampness a floor is dependent on a few things - pattern, finish, light or lack thereof etc. And personally I don't look at the floor when I'm walking.

Brain Stroking

Deleted User wrote: »

Just look at what the ****ers have done with sport. The sporting associations can't even have sanctions for drug cheats without the wonderful words "Court of Arbitration for Sport" coming up.

Has that always annoyed you or just this week when the Court of Arbitration for Sport was actually in the news?

Brain Stroking

boo3000 wrote: »

According to you being employed in itself means you contribute to society. According to your argument these hypothetical professional peado's, mass murderers and thalidomide salespeople all contribute to society.



To a certain extent i get this but your confusing living in a regulated democratic society with the need for legal speak. Also, I love how it becomes legal professional or court officer, not solicitor, barrister or senior counsel when defending the role, like those guys are normal hardworking Joes.

I think my point is being proven on this thread by how much it's being avoided. I'm going to make it again as simply as possible.

I believe that legal speak or legalese if you will is completely unnecessary. It is on the basis of this makey uppy language that we go to solicitors, barristers and SC's (through a solicitor of course, cough, protectionism) to try and achieve justice or uphold the law.

We could have justice and law without all this BS. The law is created by people therefore it cannot in this sense be compared to medicine or science (as examples) in it's complexity or need for expertise.

Because we have to pay huge sums to these experts (in legalese BS, or con artistry, if you will, m'learned friend) it is more difficult to achieve justice. Sometimes justice is achieved in spite of this situation, not because of it. That does not make me pro bullying in the work place, pro dangerous driving, pro state harassment, anti-American or whatever your having.



Now that's what i call jumping to conclusions. Maybe i was starting my boards.ie day as it was my first post. But yeah u gotta hate people on the dole (sarcasm ,just in case anyone thinks i agree with this type of nastiness)

Oh and before I finish, no, no, no, wait for it, wait, wait, wait............. no you're the fool.

What's with all this talk of "legal speak"? I am a lawyer and i write my letters and advices in English. The fact that the English contained within your own lawyer's letters is beyond your comprehension and has you referring to it as "legal speak" tells me that you live in a world where you most definitely need a lawyer.

Kerrigooney

McCrack wrote: »

You are really showing your ignorance here.

If you worked for Kiddyfiddlers inc you would be a child abuser. If you were in the SS and killed many Jews and others you would be a mass murderer.

Legal professionals exist because we live in a regulated and democratic society. Legal professionals assist and defend your rights when they are infringed by others including the State and I have given many examples where that can happen.

You don't see the need for lawyers? Then sir you will only have a fool for a client.

PS I noted you posted at 12.00 pm saying "nice to start the day on some good news!"

It's probably safe to assume you were only dragging your lazy state-sponging ass out of bed then. I reckon you make a great contribution to society.

Totally uncalled for.

You`re a very unpleasant person,aren`t you?

McCrack

boo3000 wrote: »

According to you being employed in itself means you contribute to society. According to your argument these hypothetical professional peado's, mass murderers and thalidomide salespeople all contribute to society.



To a certain extent i get this but your confusing living in a regulated democratic society with the need for legal speak. Also, I love how it becomes legal professional or court officer, not solicitor, barrister or senior counsel when defending the role, like those guys are normal hardworking Joes.

I think my point is being proven on this thread by how much it's being avoided. I'm going to make it again as simply as possible.

I believe that legal speak or legalese if you will is completely unnecessary. It is on the basis of this makey uppy language that we go to solicitors, barristers and SC's (through a solicitor of course, cough, protectionism) to try and achieve justice or uphold the law.

We could have justice and law without all this BS. The law is created by people therefore it cannot in this sense be compared to medicine or science (as examples) in it's complexity or need for expertise.

Because we have to pay huge sums to these experts (in legalese BS, or con artistry, if you will, m'learned friend) it is more difficult to achieve justice. Sometimes justice is achieved in spite of this situation, not because of it. That does not make me pro bullying in the work place, pro dangerous driving, pro state harassment, anti-American or whatever your having.



Now that's what i call jumping to conclusions. Maybe i was starting my boards.ie day as it was my first post. But yeah u gotta hate people on the dole (sarcasm ,just in case anyone thinks i agree with this type of nastiness)

Oh and before I finish, no, no, no, wait for it, wait, wait, wait............. no you're the fool.

No what I said was any person that is in employment whatever that job is contributes to society. The "hypothetical professional peado's" such as child abusers or mass murderers you mentioned. Such people obviously don't contribute anything to society.

Legalese or language peculiar to law is peculiar to the legal profession. There's nothing unusual or novel there. Every profession/trade/job has its own lingo that people that do not work in that profession/trade/job will generally not understand.

The term legal professional encompasses solicitors and barristers. its an adjective. I don't get your point when you say " you love how it becomes legal professional or court officer, not solicitor, barrister or senior counsel"....?????

Law in Ireland is mainly created by the Oireachtas (Dail and Seanad) and by precedent (past judicial decisions). The practice of law is an art that has been tried and trusted by legal professionals over a long time, the very same as the practice of medicine has been developed from practice and scientific development. if you think the practice of law cannot be compared in it's complexity or need for expertise as in medicine then you have the option of not instructing a solicitor and go it alone...as I said before you will have a fool for a client.

I don't hate people on the dole, I just think it's very silly that a person who appears to be can criticise other people's jobs and display an incredible sense of ignorance.

McCrack

Kerrigooney wrote: »

Totally uncalled for.

You`re a very unpleasant person,aren`t you?

Read my previous posts carefully before jumping in with that assumption.

Brain Stroking

Brain Stroking wrote: »

Has that always annoyed you or just this week when the Court of Arbitration for Sport was actually in the news?

Was there a drugs cheat who got a ban overturned or shortened this week?

Sea Filly

BFB wrote: »

Also people who blatantly open their car doors in carparks and smack it off your car...grrr!

I fear this thread is losing its way...

Topper Harley

boo3000 wrote: »

I believe that legal speak or legalese if you will is completely unnecessary. It is on the basis of this makey uppy language that we go to solicitors, barristers and SC's (through a solicitor of course, cough, protectionism) to try and achieve justice or uphold the law.

I can't find a video for this but I couldn't just let it go:

Lionel Hutz: I move for a bad court thingy.

Judge: A mistrial?

Lionel Hutz: Yeah. That's why you're the judge and I'm the law...talking...guy.

Judge: The lawyer?

Lionel Hutz: Right.

dttq

Useless profession? I have these fellas calling to my door every few years promising healthcare reform, better schools, less crime, a booming economy etc. what are they called again?

Topper Harley

dttq wrote: »

Useless profession? I have these fellas calling to my door every few years promising healthcare reform, better schools, less crime, a booming economy etc. what are they called again?

Trick or treaters.

asherbassad

brummytom wrote: »

Whoever it is that decided all wet floors needed to have a sign saying 'wet floor' on them.
If you can't look at a floor and tell it's wet, you deserve to fall on your arse.

What about polished marble floors. Usually look the same dry and wet.

boo3000

Brain Stroking wrote: »

What's with all this talk of "legal speak"? I am a lawyer and i write my letters and advices in English. The fact that the English contained within your own lawyer's letters is beyond your comprehension and has you referring to it as "legal speak" tells me that you live in a world where you most definitely need a lawyer.

As a lawyer I'm very surprised you haven't heard of legalese (I've also referred to it as legal speak). It's a well known concept the gist of which is that lawyers use deliberately obtuse language (yes technically english) as a form of protectionism. I would argue that various other legal practices are part of this smokescreen, wigs and gowns, arcane traditions and precedents, codes of practices, requiring a solicitor to see a barrister etc.

It is a myth that is very profitable to lawyers that we need these systems to have justice. The law cannot be so complicated. If it were how could we be expected to live by it?

If understanding the law itself required such years of training (to expert level, 200 euros an hour or thereabouts) we could all be forgiven for breaking it left, right and centre. The years of training are actual spent learning all these codes and practices and language to sell us the idea that we need experts.

McCrack wrote: »

No what I said was any person that is in employment whatever that job is contributes to society. The "hypothetical professional peado's" such as child abusers or mass murderers you mentioned. Such people obviously don't contribute anything to society.

Your just going round and round on your own argument here

McCrack wrote: »

Every profession/trade/job has its own lingo that people that do not work in that profession/trade/job will generally not understand.

No they don't, some trades might have a lingo but nothing that couldn't be quickly learned. There are professions that require a specialized use of language, for example science. Scientists (and i'm not one) deal with the laws of nature. Phenomena that are hugely complicated such as quarks, higgs boson, theories of relativity etc.

Lawyers deal with the laws of people. Stuff that we create and live by. It cannot be so complicated. Oh nice to see you and Brain Stroking are in disagreement on its existence

McCrack wrote: »

if you think the practice of law cannot be compared in it's complexity or need for expertise as in medicine then you have the option of not instructing a solicitor and go it alone...as I said before you will have a fool for a client.

Yes I can but because i don't have legal speak, or know all the unnecessary codes and practices, I will lose. Likewise, I can go for a job and request the makey uppy HR person not be present at my interview. I won't get the job. It doesn't mean society needs silly makey uppy HR people. I'm not sick so I don't need a doctor. Does not mean society doesn't need doctors. Is the concept sinking in?

asherbassad

Wedding planners. .... and the retards who employ them.

If you can't organise a piss-up in a hotel by yourself then how the fcuk can you manage a marriage/family??