Stadt Posted 24 January 2015 Posted 24 January 2015 Did the RAC come within 45 minutes like they claim?
Rincewind Posted 24 January 2015 Author Posted 24 January 2015 This is the country we live in now. http://www.katebelgrave.com/2015/01/now-for-our-next-trick-making-elderly-jsa-claimants-grovel-to-use-toilets-at-jobcentres/
MooseBreath Posted 25 January 2015 Posted 25 January 2015 This is the country we live in now. http://www.katebelgrave.com/2015/01/now-for-our-next-trick-making-elderly-jsa-claimants-grovel-to-use-toilets-at-jobcentres/ Can well imagine people dashing out to the toilet never to return. It speaks volumes of the type of people they get in there that they've felt the need to introduce such a policy. If true, of course.
Vardinhio Posted 25 January 2015 Posted 25 January 2015 Can well imagine people dashing out to the toilet never to return. It speaks volumes of the type of people they get in there that they've felt the need to introduce such a policy. If true, of course. In fairness though most drug addicts are likely to be unemployed so the job centre is exactly the kind of place where I can imagine problems are encountered. The difficulty surely comes when the job centre stops working as a viable organisation for those who are genuinely out of work dut to no fault of their own or lack of effort.
AspectFox Posted 25 January 2015 Posted 25 January 2015 I see Capitalism is truly a dead duck with most on here then. It never ceases to amaze me that the type of person vilifying capitalism is also the type of person that has never earned a bean for the country or themselves. Socialist views are all well and good when you don't actually contribute to anything!
leicsmac Posted 25 January 2015 Posted 25 January 2015 I see Capitalism is truly a dead duck with most on here then. It never ceases to amaze me that the type of person vilifying capitalism is also the type of person that has never earned a bean for the country or themselves. Socialist views are all well and good when you don't actually contribute to anything! I think it's about 50/50, actually. Capitalism and the right wing has its staunch defenders here. Loving the sweeping generalisation of socialist views, by the way. Capitalism isn't bad as such, but the present system of various world government being in bed with big business is not capitalism. Not the free market stuff that many praise, anyway.
Buce Posted 25 January 2015 Posted 25 January 2015 I see Capitalism is truly a dead duck with most on here then. It never ceases to amaze me that the type of person vilifying capitalism is also the type of person that has never earned a bean for the country or themselves. Socialist views are all well and good when you don't actually contribute to anything! Sorry, but we already have a pet troll.
Finnegan Posted 25 January 2015 Posted 25 January 2015 Sorry, but we already have a pet troll. Isn't it just Moose?
Buce Posted 25 January 2015 Posted 25 January 2015 Isn't it just Moose? We all know who it is: this usurper isn't in the same league.
Rincewind Posted 25 January 2015 Author Posted 25 January 2015 If believing fairness for all is wrong then I'm a banana.
Guest MattP Posted 25 January 2015 Posted 25 January 2015 If believing fairness for all is wrong then I'm a banana. Depends what your definition of fairness is. Taking people's hard earned money to give to people who have no intention of doing anything isn't mine.
MooseBreath Posted 25 January 2015 Posted 25 January 2015 If believing fairness for all is wrong then I'm a banana. Less problems more solutions ken. Let's say IDNO3 NASA (spacey, quick, roger) were put in charge of giving people their JSA initiations, let's say you needed to get people in a group to stay and fill out some forms that would take no more than an hour but people kept kept scuttling off to the toilet in the middle of the session and staying in there for a long time and sometimes never returning, at great additional expense to IDNO3 NASA (two-time, breakfast, starship)... how would you go about resolving this situation.
Rincewind Posted 25 January 2015 Author Posted 25 January 2015 The person in question in my post was 60 years old and had a condition which required him to visit the loo more often than you would. It is what happens as you get older as you will find out. Why are you assuming that everyone on these course are trying to avoid work? As the blogger says many have learning problems or other conditions that prevents them from being first choice when applying for jobs. If you have no experience of these problems then you have no right to judge people by your own standards.
MooseBreath Posted 25 January 2015 Posted 25 January 2015 The person in question in my post was 60 years old and had a condition which required him to visit the loo more often than you would. It is what happens as you get older as you will find out. Why are you assuming that everyone on these course are trying to avoid work? As the blogger says many have learning problems or other conditions that prevents them from being first choice when applying for jobs. If you have no experience of these problems then you have no right to judge people by your own standards. I appreciate all of that but it still leaves the problem unresolved.
formidable1 Posted 25 January 2015 Posted 25 January 2015 If believing fairness for all is wrong then I'm a banana. Yellow and mostly bruised?
Rincewind Posted 25 January 2015 Author Posted 25 January 2015 First of all the ones attending could be treated like human beings. It would only have taken the adviser a minute to go with the bloke and inform the security guard about the situation. I doubt that the room would be destroyed in his absence. The attendees were not teenagers or children. Or the security guard could have used discretion. I did security and if in that position I would have allowed the bloke to use the loo.Also there should be adequate facilities in these places. I do not accept that all those using them would be drug addicts. That is another myth that needs to be busted. The staff at job centres should be helping people not putting obstacles in their way and pandering to the stereotyping of people who for whatever reason are having difficulties finding suitable work. Not everyone is able to do highly skilled qualified or physical jobs. Anyway I believe I have stated all this before and it may seem boring now as it doesn't appear to e making any difference to your views. SoI will gracefully bow out of the debate.
Rincewind Posted 25 January 2015 Author Posted 25 January 2015 Yellow and mostly bruised? First thing I thought of.
Jon the Hat Posted 25 January 2015 Posted 25 January 2015 Ken, how do you take the demoralised mess that is most of the current job centre workforce and make into a caring organisation?
Rincewind Posted 25 January 2015 Author Posted 25 January 2015 Ken, how do you take the demoralised mess that is most of the current job centre workforce and make into a caring organisation? Well at one point in the past the staff did help people focusing on giving advice now they focus on hitting targets in order to make the jobless figures look better. The majority of jobseekers find work within 6 months. The rest are either unskilled unqualified or have other problems. The minority who are the long term unemployed will always be around. They know how to play the system and most will continue to carry on unaffected. The ones that are 'picked out' are the most vulnerable. The recently redundant after many years in one job with little knowledge in other areas, the ones with learning disabilities, ex-offenders. These are the ones that are most easy to pick on. But how to make them more caring? Maybe train them different?I know someone who had a chance to work as an adviser. He turned it down because instead of helping people he was told he had to look through lists for likely candidates to sanction for the slightest reason.
Strokes Posted 26 January 2015 Posted 26 January 2015 I know someone who had a chance to work as an adviser. He turned it down because instead of helping people he was told he had to look through lists for likely candidates to sanction for the slightest reason.
inckley fox Posted 26 January 2015 Posted 26 January 2015 I saw, in the 99% vs 1% debate, that somebody asked 'why does it bother you?' If you are alright - why care about how much others are earning? Couldn't the same apply to people on benefits? If you are well off, then why does it bother you? After all, if you're outside that 1% and wish to be inside, then you should be as, or more, worried about the haves as you are about the have-nots. Of course, both should concern all of us. The former leads to too much money being concentrated in too small a percentage of the population, leading to less opportunities for the other 99%. The latter can be linked with population rise, crime, and higher tax contributions for the middle and upper-working classes. But to equate Socialism with being lazy is a total nonsense. The importance of work, and being rewarded proportionately for it, lies at the heart of Socialism. Democratic Socialism, for example, can only work in conjunction with Capitalism. The idea that the lower classes are simply 'maintained' through a welfare state was opposed by many leading Socialists, including Orwell, who believed that we had to make people want to work and therefore be rewarded fairly for it. The idea that the poor are given a standard of life which resembles that of the well off, so we can have less social unrest and a more thriving economy, was largely pushed by economic liberalism, and that icon of the right-wing Adam Smith. If your political beliefs are defined by you believing that the poor shouldn't be granted a life which they haven't - in your opinion - earned, then you'd be closer to a Collectivist than to a modern day Tory. You'd be an advocate for inheritance tax for a start. Unless, that is, you just believe in something when it suits you to believe in it, and drop it the moment it doesn't.
Leeds Fox Posted 27 January 2015 Posted 27 January 2015 If you have minus zero in the bank you will not be able to get a loan or a credit card and when signing up for a phone contract you fill out a DD form and need enough going in to pay the phone company. I never said it was exclusive to the wealthy, just that you need to be having enough income to cover it. If that means cutting out other things they will not give a damn. Absolutely rubbish!!!
Webbo Posted 27 January 2015 Posted 27 January 2015 I saw, in the 99% vs 1% debate, that somebody asked 'why does it bother you?' If you are alright - why care about how much others are earning? Couldn't the same apply to people on benefits? If you are well off, then why does it bother you? After all, if you're outside that 1% and wish to be inside, then you should be as, or more, worried about the haves as you are about the have-nots. If you're talking about me I said ; As long as you've got enough to live on why does it matter if some people have more? 1% have a lot of money, so what? Big difference.
Rincewind Posted 27 January 2015 Author Posted 27 January 2015 Absolutely rubbish!!! My overdraft was reduced when I was unemployed and I was refused a credit card because they said not enough was going into my account to meet the payments.
Guest MattP Posted 27 January 2015 Posted 27 January 2015 My overdraft was reduced when I was unemployed and I was refused a credit card because they said not enough was going into my account to meet the payments. What were you doing applying for a credit card being unemployed and already into an overdraft?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.