February 3, 201214 yr Really? You know that for a fact do you? I know someone in Bolton whose only paid jobs in 22 years have been on government sponsored "training schemes". Everyone who has worked with her would have kept her on if they'd had the funds to employ her. She works 6 full days a week in a charity shop for nothing, doesn't drink, smoke, have Sky or anything that most people would call the bare necessities. Applies for any/all jobs going too. If you could point me in the direction of any of these thousands of jobs she could have got, please do. Or rather, don't bother, she probably applied for them and didn't get anywhere. could she have set up her own business?
February 3, 201214 yr Really? You know that for a fact do you? I know someone in Bolton whose only paid jobs in 22 years have been on government sponsored "training schemes". Everyone who has worked with her would have kept her on if they'd had the funds to employ her. She works 6 full days a week in a charity shop for nothing, doesn't drink, smoke, have Sky or anything that most people would call the bare necessities. Applies for any/all jobs going too. If you could point me in the direction of any of these thousands of jobs she could have got, please do. Or rather, don't bother, she probably applied for them and didn't get anywhere. Not got a job in 22 years, Jesus! Does she get her cock out in the interviews? Edited February 3, 201214 yr by birch-chorley
February 3, 201214 yr Really? You know that for a fact do you? I know someone in Bolton whose only paid jobs in 22 years have been on government sponsored "training schemes". Everyone who has worked with her would have kept her on if they'd had the funds to employ her. She works 6 full days a week in a charity shop for nothing, doesn't drink, smoke, have Sky or anything that most people would call the bare necessities. Applies for any/all jobs going too. If you could point me in the direction of any of these thousands of jobs she could have got, please do. Or rather, don't bother, she probably applied for them and didn't get anywhere. you never mentioned that you were unemployable anyway, this person...whats up with her? Edited February 3, 201214 yr by Casino
February 4, 201214 yr anyway, this person...whats up with her? Looks different to many, bit slow talking, not particularly good at communicating on first meeting (ok when you get to know her). Not massively clever. Has a Bolton accent. Small children love her. Not afraid of hard work, trustworthy, reliable. Not given a chance due, I think, to the lack of employment opportunities in the early 90s and then when things turned round a little, having no employment history or experience went against her. Very sad, I think.
February 4, 201214 yr I've employed a lad who has been on Job seekers for four years. Has no work ethic. Lazy. Spends all his time on his phone and doesn't care about the job. It's no wonder everyone else who gave him a chance got rid.
February 4, 201214 yr I've employed a lad who has been on Job seekers for four years. Has no work ethic. Lazy. Spends all his time on his phone and doesn't care about the job. It's no wonder everyone else who gave him a chance got rid. I take it you have done the same?
February 4, 201214 yr What would she have done had there not been benefits? She didn't get benefits for many years until a friend of the family stepped in and helped. She got told she wasn't entitled to anything (when she was) and belived that. She was being kept by her widowed mother on her (basic rate) pension. Despite being told she wasn't entitled to benefits, she still went to sign on every fortnight, attended job club every day and walked everywhere as she couldn't (still can't) afford bus fares. Edited February 4, 201214 yr by Exiled Girl
February 4, 201214 yr Swanny, I know this might sound a bit tight but you not send a mail to the benefits people telling them what a lazy arse he is and that's why you no longer want to employ him. If the people who are sending him out for these jobs don't get this feedback they'll probably not know. Just a thought.
February 4, 201214 yr Report today about old couples caring for each other, with benefit for each. So they can't look after themselves, but can look after their spouse? strange.
February 4, 201214 yr 'Kin ell you two (No Balls, BoltonDiver) aren't there any dogs around need kicking or kids with sweets that need nicking?
February 5, 201214 yr Swanny, I know this might sound a bit tight but you not send a mail to the benefits people telling them what a lazy arse he is and that's why you no longer want to employ him. If the people who are sending him out for these jobs don't get this feedback they'll probably not know. Just a thought. it gets better but thats not discussion for a public forum, needless to say if they ask why i shall tell them, he is having a "final written warning" on Monday with a week to improve, TBH I need to find a backup incase.
February 5, 201214 yr Read the post, i didnt say everyone on the dole is a lazy fat bastard (i have been on it myself). Everyone who has claimed job seekers allowance for 11 years is a lazy fat bastard. Especially as from 2001 - 2007 the economy was strong. To say there are no jobs doing what you want to do for 11 years takes the piss. Look for a differnt job then! Being on benefits and getting through 200 fags a week / sky and all the other stuff also takes the piss. Take the sky / fags money away from these clowns and spend it on more deserving areas like elderly / disabled care. I have also claimed Job seekers / housing benefit in the past and it was very helpful but I only claimed for a month and I would have been fine with food vouchers and my bills paying. I did read your post. And this is what you said; "benefits should be paid in vouchers that cannot be redeemed against fags / sky etc" you didn't say that was just for people who had been on long term benefits so i questioned your views and got offended because i too had once used the welfare system. Try not generalising.
February 5, 201214 yr Being on welfare for 2 months is what it's there for. It's not there as a career. I suggest that's what Birch is referring to. & the case in question if true, 80 odd notes a week on ale & fags? Even you can't justify that's a acceptable sundry item in your budget if they've been claiming for years. Course not, thats not what BC said in his post though. Plus the government make so much off taxed cigs and ale that they probably end up making a profit when welfare is spent on these items.
February 5, 201214 yr Course not, thats not what BC said in his post though. Plus the government make so much off taxed cigs and ale that they probably end up making a profit when welfare is spent on these items. That is probably the worst rational for spending benefits on ale and fags I have ever heard. You were joking, please say you were........
February 5, 201214 yr Youri.... Should people on long term benefits be able to afford cigs ale and sky tv? It's a yes or no answer. How is that a YES or NO question? The fact you think that it is baffles me to be honest pal. I suggest opening your mind a fraction more and realising it depends on a persons circumstance. Do i think somebody genuinely on the sick claiming benefits should be able to afford cigs, ale and sky tv. The answer is yes, they have the right to such money and the right to spend their money in whatever way they like. Not that i would agree with them spending it all on that. Do i think somebody capable of work who has been on long term benefits should be able to afford cigs, ale and sky TV then the answer is no but I couldn't give a rats arse what they spend it on. Wether they choose to spend the 60 odd quid on Organic lentils or 5 crates of Fosters its irrelevent. They shouldn't have been given the money in the first place if they are capable of work. (voluntary work if there is a job crisis) If somebody doesn't want to work menial labour in a capitalist system that they struggled with from the beginning then so be it. Go create your own life so long as it doesn't jepordise others. And most importantly don't rely on any state welfare in the process. Simples. Edited February 5, 201214 yr by Youri Djorkaeff
February 5, 201214 yr Do i think somebody genuinelly on the sick claiming benefits should be able to afford cigs, ale and sky tv. The answer is yes, they have the right to spend their money in whatever way they like. You know there are people who work who can't afford those, don't you? Genuinely, there are. I'd also suggest that if someone is claiming sick benefits then smoking and drinking aren't the wisest hobbies to partake in. People are paid to check they are a genuine case and on their progress, if any, aren't they? I would expect this to be added to their notes. Edited February 5, 201214 yr by no balls
February 5, 201214 yr That is probably the worst rational for spending benefits on ale and fags I have ever heard. You were joking, please say you were........ Of course i was NB
February 5, 201214 yr You know there are people who work who can't afford those, don't you? Genuinely, there are. I'd also suggest that if someone is claiming sick benefits then smoking and drinking aren't the wisest hobbies to partake in. People are paid to check they are a genuine case and on their progress, if any, aren't they? I would expect this to be added to their notes. Course i know that but what is your solution exactly? Cigs and booze can be cheap as fook and im not going to advocate the policing of welfare money, its backwards thinking and would cost shite loads to police anyway. A waste of tax and quite frankly immoral. If somebody is actually to sick to work then its unfair to tell them what they can and can't spend their money on. As far as im concerned policing what people spend their welfare money on is an absolute load of bollocks. The problem is those capable of work being given money not what they spend their money on.
February 5, 201214 yr Course i know that but what is your solution exactly? Cigs and booze can be cheap as fook and im not going to advocate the policing of welfare money, its backwards thinking and would cost shite loads to police anyway. A waste of tax and quite frankly immoral. If somebody is actually to sick to work then its unfair to tell them what they can and can't spend their money on. As far as im concerned policing what people spend their welfare money on is an absolute load of bollocks. The problem is those capable of work being given money not what they spend their money on. That's a fair comment. It just irks though to find out those claiming benefits appear to have more expendable income than those working. But as you say, they might be living on ?1 iceland donner pizzas for their tea every night to afford the ale & cigs whereas others might spend more on food as they don't want to eat shit.
February 5, 201214 yr I've employed a lad who has been on Job seekers for four years. Has no work ethic. Lazy. Spends all his time on his phone and doesn't care about the job. It's no wonder everyone else who gave him a chance got rid. Does your company get any help from the govenment to help pay his wages? I recently spoke to a lad who was employed by a certain company and he reckons that after a couple of months there they were itching to get rid of him. Apparently they have sacked about 30 people in the last 6 months. All came via the job centre. And every time they take people on, they get money for doing it. 1+1=
February 5, 201214 yr i'm afraid it's a dog eat dog world out there, every man for himself and all that, So whether it's right or not that some people get benefits, they have to survive some how. Can remember in the 60s you could walk out of one job in the morning and get another by the afternoon, ok they were Menial but it payed for your grub and ale money,. suppose ive been lucky the fact that i get a decent private Pension... and i am still paying tax after over 45yrs.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.