'Reluctant' decision made on council benefits

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Council leader Dave Green Council leader Dave Green

Bradford Council’s executive “reluctantly” agreed yesterday to changes in council tax benefit which will hit tens of thousands of people across the district.

The plans involve reducing the maximum council tax benefit for working age adults from April.

Pensioners will be protected from the cuts, but others, such as the unemployed, disabled, and families on low incomes, face having to pay up to 25 per cent more.

The move to scrap a discount of up to 100 per cent given to 34,000 in the district has come amid cuts of ten per cent to the amount the authority receives from the Government in council tax support, amounting to more than £4 million.

A total of 27,000 people, who receive a full discount, would be sent a bill with an amount to pay for the first time. The average weekly amount extra to pay is expected to be £3.75, although changes would continue to be means tested.

Bradford Council leader, Councillor David Green, told the decision-making executive: “This has been forced on us by the Government who has passed on the responsibility for council tax support to local government and refused to fully fund it.

“Local authorities have been struggling with the financial impact of these changes at a time when we are facing the biggest threat to funding.”

He added that the Labour group had not wanted to make these cuts, but had felt it had no choice put to pass them on. Otherwise it could have ended up with other services relied on by the most vulnerable being hit instead.

Other decisions made by the executive committee yesterday include:

  • The introduction of three new dog control orders across the district which involves banning dogs from children's play areas, multi-activity areas and skateboard parks, as well as Muslim areas within Council-owned cemeteries; keeping dogs on a lead at cemeteries, certain ornamental gardens and two entire parks and bowling greens; and requiring owners to put their dog on a lead if asked by an authorised officer.
  • A plan to stimulate economic development, investment and regeneration in Bradford city centre over the next decade will be drawn up by Council chiefs. The Bradford City Plan is expected to define and position Bradford's future direction to help create "a vibrant and successful city that everyone can be proud of ".
  • Councillors also agreed to bring grounds maintenance works in south Bradford back within the authority after a contract expires at the end of March. Grounds maintenance is currently contracted out to Glendale Grounds Management in this area.

Comments (149)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:24am Wed 5 Dec 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

No doubt the labour council has ringfenced the money paid to unions and the salaries of the top brass in city hall before agreeing all this.
No doubt the labour council has ringfenced the money paid to unions and the salaries of the top brass in city hall before agreeing all this. Thee Voice of Reason

8:49am Wed 5 Dec 12

undercliffebantam says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
No doubt the labour council has ringfenced the money paid to unions and the salaries of the top brass in city hall before agreeing all this.
I hope the unions funds haven't been cut, they are needed now more than ever.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: No doubt the labour council has ringfenced the money paid to unions and the salaries of the top brass in city hall before agreeing all this.[/p][/quote]I hope the unions funds haven't been cut, they are needed now more than ever. undercliffebantam

9:06am Wed 5 Dec 12

angry bradfordian says...

undercliffebantam wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
No doubt the labour council has ringfenced the money paid to unions and the salaries of the top brass in city hall before agreeing all this.
I hope the unions funds haven't been cut, they are needed now more than ever.
That may be the case, but they should be funded by their members (how many private sector employers give money to unions?) and not the taxpayer.
This is nothing other than political bias. Do you think the council should also be funding the Taxpayers Alliance or the Institute of Directors? If not then this bung is nothing other than political bias.

I don't remember Green moaning when the discount for second & empty homes was removed a couple of months ago. Didn't suit the demographic of his core vote I assume.
[quote][p][bold]undercliffebantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: No doubt the labour council has ringfenced the money paid to unions and the salaries of the top brass in city hall before agreeing all this.[/p][/quote]I hope the unions funds haven't been cut, they are needed now more than ever.[/p][/quote]That may be the case, but they should be funded by their members (how many private sector employers give money to unions?) and not the taxpayer. This is nothing other than political bias. Do you think the council should also be funding the Taxpayers Alliance or the Institute of Directors? If not then this bung is nothing other than political bias. I don't remember Green moaning when the discount for second & empty homes was removed a couple of months ago. Didn't suit the demographic of his core vote I assume. angry bradfordian

9:26am Wed 5 Dec 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

angry bradfordian wrote:
undercliffebantam wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: No doubt the labour council has ringfenced the money paid to unions and the salaries of the top brass in city hall before agreeing all this.
I hope the unions funds haven't been cut, they are needed now more than ever.
That may be the case, but they should be funded by their members (how many private sector employers give money to unions?) and not the taxpayer. This is nothing other than political bias. Do you think the council should also be funding the Taxpayers Alliance or the Institute of Directors? If not then this bung is nothing other than political bias. I don't remember Green moaning when the discount for second & empty homes was removed a couple of months ago. Didn't suit the demographic of his core vote I assume.
There, Angry Bradfordian answered it for me. Union subs should go to fund the union staff, not taxpayers funds.

One thing, this figure of 34,000 which recieve 100% discount is this people or households as council tax is usually paid per property and not per person.

Can anyone clarify this because it it's households that must be a large percentage of people paying nothing.
[quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]undercliffebantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: No doubt the labour council has ringfenced the money paid to unions and the salaries of the top brass in city hall before agreeing all this.[/p][/quote]I hope the unions funds haven't been cut, they are needed now more than ever.[/p][/quote]That may be the case, but they should be funded by their members (how many private sector employers give money to unions?) and not the taxpayer. This is nothing other than political bias. Do you think the council should also be funding the Taxpayers Alliance or the Institute of Directors? If not then this bung is nothing other than political bias. I don't remember Green moaning when the discount for second & empty homes was removed a couple of months ago. Didn't suit the demographic of his core vote I assume.[/p][/quote]There, Angry Bradfordian answered it for me. Union subs should go to fund the union staff, not taxpayers funds. One thing, this figure of 34,000 which recieve 100% discount is this people or households as council tax is usually paid per property and not per person. Can anyone clarify this because it it's households that must be a large percentage of people paying nothing. Thee Voice of Reason

9:38am Wed 5 Dec 12

angry bradfordian says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
angry bradfordian wrote:
undercliffebantam wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: No doubt the labour council has ringfenced the money paid to unions and the salaries of the top brass in city hall before agreeing all this.
I hope the unions funds haven't been cut, they are needed now more than ever.
That may be the case, but they should be funded by their members (how many private sector employers give money to unions?) and not the taxpayer. This is nothing other than political bias. Do you think the council should also be funding the Taxpayers Alliance or the Institute of Directors? If not then this bung is nothing other than political bias. I don't remember Green moaning when the discount for second & empty homes was removed a couple of months ago. Didn't suit the demographic of his core vote I assume.
There, Angry Bradfordian answered it for me. Union subs should go to fund the union staff, not taxpayers funds.

One thing, this figure of 34,000 which recieve 100% discount is this people or households as council tax is usually paid per property and not per person.

Can anyone clarify this because it it's households that must be a large percentage of people paying nothing.
There are approximately 180,000 households in Bradford, so if it is households there are 1 in 5 not contributing anything towards Council Tax.
Perhaps this rise is a good thing- they're still only having to pay 25% of the amount everybody else is.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]undercliffebantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: No doubt the labour council has ringfenced the money paid to unions and the salaries of the top brass in city hall before agreeing all this.[/p][/quote]I hope the unions funds haven't been cut, they are needed now more than ever.[/p][/quote]That may be the case, but they should be funded by their members (how many private sector employers give money to unions?) and not the taxpayer. This is nothing other than political bias. Do you think the council should also be funding the Taxpayers Alliance or the Institute of Directors? If not then this bung is nothing other than political bias. I don't remember Green moaning when the discount for second & empty homes was removed a couple of months ago. Didn't suit the demographic of his core vote I assume.[/p][/quote]There, Angry Bradfordian answered it for me. Union subs should go to fund the union staff, not taxpayers funds. One thing, this figure of 34,000 which recieve 100% discount is this people or households as council tax is usually paid per property and not per person. Can anyone clarify this because it it's households that must be a large percentage of people paying nothing.[/p][/quote]There are approximately 180,000 households in Bradford, so if it is households there are 1 in 5 not contributing anything towards Council Tax. Perhaps this rise is a good thing- they're still only having to pay 25% of the amount everybody else is. angry bradfordian

10:58am Wed 5 Dec 12

Cooperlane2 says...

If people don't pay for a service then they don't appreciate the cost of providing it.
As an example, the number of missed doctor appointments at my local surgery costs around half a doctor a week. That would be £100k a year with all their employment costs. But, hey, it's free at the point of use, so many people think it is 'free'.
If people don't pay for a service then they don't appreciate the cost of providing it. As an example, the number of missed doctor appointments at my local surgery costs around half a doctor a week. That would be £100k a year with all their employment costs. But, hey, it's free at the point of use, so many people think it is 'free'. Cooperlane2

11:21am Wed 5 Dec 12

undercliffebantam says...

Cooperlane2 wrote:
If people don't pay for a service then they don't appreciate the cost of providing it.
As an example, the number of missed doctor appointments at my local surgery costs around half a doctor a week. That would be £100k a year with all their employment costs. But, hey, it's free at the point of use, so many people think it is 'free'.
The reality of the provision of facilities and facility time for union reps is that they cannot be simply be regarded as ‘costs’ to employers, that on the contrary, union reps and the work that they do for members and with employers represent an important workplace resource for UK employers in both the public and private sector.

Union representatives make a significant contribution to increasing productivity they make workplaces safer, reduce the costs of recruitment and help business became more responsive to change by helping staff acquire new skills.
[quote][p][bold]Cooperlane2[/bold] wrote: If people don't pay for a service then they don't appreciate the cost of providing it. As an example, the number of missed doctor appointments at my local surgery costs around half a doctor a week. That would be £100k a year with all their employment costs. But, hey, it's free at the point of use, so many people think it is 'free'.[/p][/quote]The reality of the provision of facilities and facility time for union reps is that they cannot be simply be regarded as ‘costs’ to employers, that on the contrary, union reps and the work that they do for members and with employers represent an important workplace resource for UK employers in both the public and private sector. Union representatives make a significant contribution to increasing productivity they make workplaces safer, reduce the costs of recruitment and help business became more responsive to change by helping staff acquire new skills. undercliffebantam

11:23am Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

£3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...
£3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green... Another Landless Peasant

11:30am Wed 5 Dec 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
£3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...
I'm presuming the bedroom tax is due because your living in a place with a spare room and at the taxpayer expense.

They should move you into a one room appartment and you should be grateful of it, not living it up with spare rooms at the taxpayers expense.
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: £3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...[/p][/quote]I'm presuming the bedroom tax is due because your living in a place with a spare room and at the taxpayer expense. They should move you into a one room appartment and you should be grateful of it, not living it up with spare rooms at the taxpayers expense. Thee Voice of Reason

11:48am Wed 5 Dec 12

i hate bradford says...

It is the discrimination against non muslims that disgusts me in this report!

Who pays for extra security and staff to police this graveyard farce?

The muslims in Bradford are hypocrites concerning dogs because many have dogs of their own. You only have to walk around an area where there are mostly muslims to see this.

This is pandering to the muslims and if they didn't waste money on policing and bringing in the silly laws about graveyards maybe they wouldn't have to penalise the disabled. This is a christian country regardless what these bullies think.

Not the paying of council tax by the vulnerable is disgusting also.

We don't have Muslim areas in the UK we are all equal in law, obviously some are more equal than others!

Why are our council listening to Muslim council they were not voted for by anyone.
It is the discrimination against non muslims that disgusts me in this report! Who pays for extra security and staff to police this graveyard farce? The muslims in Bradford are hypocrites concerning dogs because many have dogs of their own. You only have to walk around an area where there are mostly muslims to see this. This is pandering to the muslims and if they didn't waste money on policing and bringing in the silly laws about graveyards maybe they wouldn't have to penalise the disabled. This is a christian country regardless what these bullies think. Not the paying of council tax by the vulnerable is disgusting also. We don't have Muslim areas in the UK we are all equal in law, obviously some are more equal than others! Why are our council listening to Muslim council they were not voted for by anyone. i hate bradford

11:53am Wed 5 Dec 12

i hate bradford says...

Edited slightly due to mistake in previous post.

It is the discrimination against non muslims that disgusts me in this report!

Who pays for extra security and staff to police this graveyard farce?

The muslims in Bradford are hypocrites concerning dogs because many have dogs of their own. You only have to walk around an area where there are mostly muslims to see this.

This is pandering to the muslims and if they didn't waste money on policing and bringing in the silly laws about graveyards maybe they wouldn't have to penalise the disabled. This is a christian country regardless what these bullies think.


We don't have Muslim areas in the UK we are all equal in law, obviously some are more equal than others!

Why are our council listening to Muslim council they were not voted for by anyone.
Edited slightly due to mistake in previous post. It is the discrimination against non muslims that disgusts me in this report! Who pays for extra security and staff to police this graveyard farce? The muslims in Bradford are hypocrites concerning dogs because many have dogs of their own. You only have to walk around an area where there are mostly muslims to see this. This is pandering to the muslims and if they didn't waste money on policing and bringing in the silly laws about graveyards maybe they wouldn't have to penalise the disabled. This is a christian country regardless what these bullies think. We don't have Muslim areas in the UK we are all equal in law, obviously some are more equal than others! Why are our council listening to Muslim council they were not voted for by anyone. i hate bradford

12:04pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Albion. says...

i hate bradford wrote:
Edited slightly due to mistake in previous post.

It is the discrimination against non muslims that disgusts me in this report!

Who pays for extra security and staff to police this graveyard farce?

The muslims in Bradford are hypocrites concerning dogs because many have dogs of their own. You only have to walk around an area where there are mostly muslims to see this.

This is pandering to the muslims and if they didn't waste money on policing and bringing in the silly laws about graveyards maybe they wouldn't have to penalise the disabled. This is a christian country regardless what these bullies think.


We don't have Muslim areas in the UK we are all equal in law, obviously some are more equal than others!

Why are our council listening to Muslim council they were not voted for by anyone.
There shouldn't actually be separate sections in cemeteries.
[quote][p][bold]i hate bradford[/bold] wrote: Edited slightly due to mistake in previous post. It is the discrimination against non muslims that disgusts me in this report! Who pays for extra security and staff to police this graveyard farce? The muslims in Bradford are hypocrites concerning dogs because many have dogs of their own. You only have to walk around an area where there are mostly muslims to see this. This is pandering to the muslims and if they didn't waste money on policing and bringing in the silly laws about graveyards maybe they wouldn't have to penalise the disabled. This is a christian country regardless what these bullies think. We don't have Muslim areas in the UK we are all equal in law, obviously some are more equal than others! Why are our council listening to Muslim council they were not voted for by anyone.[/p][/quote]There shouldn't actually be separate sections in cemeteries. Albion.

12:12pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Bone_idle18 says...

I'd ban dogs from all areas, especially the one that craps outside my gate!

Back to council tax, it's pretty fair. Landless Peasent said under £4 a week, which is very good value for all the stuff it pays for.

Bedroom tax is fine too, I have a house I can afford, if I couldn't I'd downsize. Why should I have to think differently to him?
I'd ban dogs from all areas, especially the one that craps outside my gate! Back to council tax, it's pretty fair. Landless Peasent said under £4 a week, which is very good value for all the stuff it pays for. Bedroom tax is fine too, I have a house I can afford, if I couldn't I'd downsize. Why should I have to think differently to him? Bone_idle18

12:14pm Wed 5 Dec 12

RollandSmoke says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
£3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...
They have to fund the £107,000 tax cut for millionaires somehow.
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: £3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...[/p][/quote]They have to fund the £107,000 tax cut for millionaires somehow. RollandSmoke

12:21pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote: £3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...
They have to fund the £107,000 tax cut for millionaires somehow.
Those millionaires taxes which pay for your and landless peasants way of life you mean.
Why should some have to pay more when others are paying nothing?
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: £3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...[/p][/quote]They have to fund the £107,000 tax cut for millionaires somehow.[/p][/quote]Those millionaires taxes which pay for your and landless peasants way of life you mean. Why should some have to pay more when others are paying nothing? Thee Voice of Reason

12:25pm Wed 5 Dec 12

RollandSmoke says...

Bone_idle18 wrote:
I'd ban dogs from all areas, especially the one that craps outside my gate!

Back to council tax, it's pretty fair. Landless Peasent said under £4 a week, which is very good value for all the stuff it pays for.

Bedroom tax is fine too, I have a house I can afford, if I couldn't I'd downsize. Why should I have to think differently to him?
I'm also going to be affected by the bedroom tax but I'm left no choice but to pay it as I need the room for my daughter. Do you believe fathers that want to remain an active part of their child's life after the breakdown of their relationship with their mother should have a financial disincentive from making their home somewhere their child thinks of as home from home rather than somewhere they go to doss on the couch? The room is also needed occasionally for a carer which is also not covered.
[quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: I'd ban dogs from all areas, especially the one that craps outside my gate! Back to council tax, it's pretty fair. Landless Peasent said under £4 a week, which is very good value for all the stuff it pays for. Bedroom tax is fine too, I have a house I can afford, if I couldn't I'd downsize. Why should I have to think differently to him?[/p][/quote]I'm also going to be affected by the bedroom tax but I'm left no choice but to pay it as I need the room for my daughter. Do you believe fathers that want to remain an active part of their child's life after the breakdown of their relationship with their mother should have a financial disincentive from making their home somewhere their child thinks of as home from home rather than somewhere they go to doss on the couch? The room is also needed occasionally for a carer which is also not covered. RollandSmoke

12:29pm Wed 5 Dec 12

RollandSmoke says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote: £3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...
They have to fund the £107,000 tax cut for millionaires somehow.
Those millionaires taxes which pay for your and landless peasants way of life you mean.
Why should some have to pay more when others are paying nothing?
Until such a time as VAT is scrapped there is no-one who is paying nothing. Add up all the duties, VAT ect that we do pay and work out what percentage of our overall income that equates to then come back and tell us we pay nothing.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: £3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...[/p][/quote]They have to fund the £107,000 tax cut for millionaires somehow.[/p][/quote]Those millionaires taxes which pay for your and landless peasants way of life you mean. Why should some have to pay more when others are paying nothing?[/p][/quote]Until such a time as VAT is scrapped there is no-one who is paying nothing. Add up all the duties, VAT ect that we do pay and work out what percentage of our overall income that equates to then come back and tell us we pay nothing. RollandSmoke

12:34pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote: £3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...
They have to fund the £107,000 tax cut for millionaires somehow.
Those millionaires taxes which pay for your and landless peasants way of life you mean. Why should some have to pay more when others are paying nothing?
Until such a time as VAT is scrapped there is no-one who is paying nothing. Add up all the duties, VAT ect that we do pay and work out what percentage of our overall income that equates to then come back and tell us we pay nothing.
VAT is mainly charged on luxury items, there are exceptions I agree, but someone who is claiming they don't have any money shouldn't be buying things like Cig's which I'm presuming as part of your username you do.
Benefits aren't handed out so people can enjoy smoking and drinking.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: £3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...[/p][/quote]They have to fund the £107,000 tax cut for millionaires somehow.[/p][/quote]Those millionaires taxes which pay for your and landless peasants way of life you mean. Why should some have to pay more when others are paying nothing?[/p][/quote]Until such a time as VAT is scrapped there is no-one who is paying nothing. Add up all the duties, VAT ect that we do pay and work out what percentage of our overall income that equates to then come back and tell us we pay nothing.[/p][/quote]VAT is mainly charged on luxury items, there are exceptions I agree, but someone who is claiming they don't have any money shouldn't be buying things like Cig's which I'm presuming as part of your username you do. Benefits aren't handed out so people can enjoy smoking and drinking. Thee Voice of Reason

12:49pm Wed 5 Dec 12

RollandSmoke says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote: £3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...
They have to fund the £107,000 tax cut for millionaires somehow.
Those millionaires taxes which pay for your and landless peasants way of life you mean. Why should some have to pay more when others are paying nothing?
Until such a time as VAT is scrapped there is no-one who is paying nothing. Add up all the duties, VAT ect that we do pay and work out what percentage of our overall income that equates to then come back and tell us we pay nothing.
VAT is mainly charged on luxury items, there are exceptions I agree, but someone who is claiming they don't have any money shouldn't be buying things like Cig's which I'm presuming as part of your username you do.
Benefits aren't handed out so people can enjoy smoking and drinking.
Luxury items? what like water, gas and electric? I haven't bought a packet of cigarettes for over 20 years. Thanks to the black market that has grown up due to extortionate rates of duty it cost me under £10 pw to smoke tobacco. Now I know you'll still say that's too much but who the hell are you to tell me how I can spend what little money I have?. Once these changes in council tax and the bedroom tax come into force I will be paying around 25-30% of my income in tax yet you say I'm paying nothing?
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: £3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...[/p][/quote]They have to fund the £107,000 tax cut for millionaires somehow.[/p][/quote]Those millionaires taxes which pay for your and landless peasants way of life you mean. Why should some have to pay more when others are paying nothing?[/p][/quote]Until such a time as VAT is scrapped there is no-one who is paying nothing. Add up all the duties, VAT ect that we do pay and work out what percentage of our overall income that equates to then come back and tell us we pay nothing.[/p][/quote]VAT is mainly charged on luxury items, there are exceptions I agree, but someone who is claiming they don't have any money shouldn't be buying things like Cig's which I'm presuming as part of your username you do. Benefits aren't handed out so people can enjoy smoking and drinking.[/p][/quote]Luxury items? what like water, gas and electric? I haven't bought a packet of cigarettes for over 20 years. Thanks to the black market that has grown up due to extortionate rates of duty it cost me under £10 pw to smoke tobacco. Now I know you'll still say that's too much but who the hell are you to tell me how I can spend what little money I have?. Once these changes in council tax and the bedroom tax come into force I will be paying around 25-30% of my income in tax yet you say I'm paying nothing? RollandSmoke

12:58pm Wed 5 Dec 12

pellethead says...

i hate bradford wrote:
It is the discrimination against non muslims that disgusts me in this report!

Who pays for extra security and staff to police this graveyard farce?

The muslims in Bradford are hypocrites concerning dogs because many have dogs of their own. You only have to walk around an area where there are mostly muslims to see this.

This is pandering to the muslims and if they didn't waste money on policing and bringing in the silly laws about graveyards maybe they wouldn't have to penalise the disabled. This is a christian country regardless what these bullies think.

Not the paying of council tax by the vulnerable is disgusting also.

We don't have Muslim areas in the UK we are all equal in law, obviously some are more equal than others!

Why are our council listening to Muslim council they were not voted for by anyone.
People like you make me want to vomit
[quote][p][bold]i hate bradford[/bold] wrote: It is the discrimination against non muslims that disgusts me in this report! Who pays for extra security and staff to police this graveyard farce? The muslims in Bradford are hypocrites concerning dogs because many have dogs of their own. You only have to walk around an area where there are mostly muslims to see this. This is pandering to the muslims and if they didn't waste money on policing and bringing in the silly laws about graveyards maybe they wouldn't have to penalise the disabled. This is a christian country regardless what these bullies think. Not the paying of council tax by the vulnerable is disgusting also. We don't have Muslim areas in the UK we are all equal in law, obviously some are more equal than others! Why are our council listening to Muslim council they were not voted for by anyone.[/p][/quote]People like you make me want to vomit pellethead

1:18pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Albion. says...

pellethead wrote:
i hate bradford wrote:
It is the discrimination against non muslims that disgusts me in this report!

Who pays for extra security and staff to police this graveyard farce?

The muslims in Bradford are hypocrites concerning dogs because many have dogs of their own. You only have to walk around an area where there are mostly muslims to see this.

This is pandering to the muslims and if they didn't waste money on policing and bringing in the silly laws about graveyards maybe they wouldn't have to penalise the disabled. This is a christian country regardless what these bullies think.

Not the paying of council tax by the vulnerable is disgusting also.

We don't have Muslim areas in the UK we are all equal in law, obviously some are more equal than others!

Why are our council listening to Muslim council they were not voted for by anyone.
People like you make me want to vomit
I thought it was quite a good post.
[quote][p][bold]pellethead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i hate bradford[/bold] wrote: It is the discrimination against non muslims that disgusts me in this report! Who pays for extra security and staff to police this graveyard farce? The muslims in Bradford are hypocrites concerning dogs because many have dogs of their own. You only have to walk around an area where there are mostly muslims to see this. This is pandering to the muslims and if they didn't waste money on policing and bringing in the silly laws about graveyards maybe they wouldn't have to penalise the disabled. This is a christian country regardless what these bullies think. Not the paying of council tax by the vulnerable is disgusting also. We don't have Muslim areas in the UK we are all equal in law, obviously some are more equal than others! Why are our council listening to Muslim council they were not voted for by anyone.[/p][/quote]People like you make me want to vomit[/p][/quote]I thought it was quite a good post. Albion.

1:29pm Wed 5 Dec 12

pellethead says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote: £3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...
They have to fund the £107,000 tax cut for millionaires somehow.
Those millionaires taxes which pay for your and landless peasants way of life you mean. Why should some have to pay more when others are paying nothing?
Until such a time as VAT is scrapped there is no-one who is paying nothing. Add up all the duties, VAT ect that we do pay and work out what percentage of our overall income that equates to then come back and tell us we pay nothing.
VAT is mainly charged on luxury items, there are exceptions I agree, but someone who is claiming they don't have any money shouldn't be buying things like Cig's which I'm presuming as part of your username you do.
Benefits aren't handed out so people can enjoy smoking and drinking.
Luxury items? what like water, gas and electric? I haven't bought a packet of cigarettes for over 20 years. Thanks to the black market that has grown up due to extortionate rates of duty it cost me under £10 pw to smoke tobacco. Now I know you'll still say that's too much but who the hell are you to tell me how I can spend what little money I have?. Once these changes in council tax and the bedroom tax come into force I will be paying around 25-30% of my income in tax yet you say I'm paying nothing?
Well said. I work full-time earning a reasonable wage. This does not give me the right to pontificate to those out of work about how to spend their meagre benefits.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: £3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...[/p][/quote]They have to fund the £107,000 tax cut for millionaires somehow.[/p][/quote]Those millionaires taxes which pay for your and landless peasants way of life you mean. Why should some have to pay more when others are paying nothing?[/p][/quote]Until such a time as VAT is scrapped there is no-one who is paying nothing. Add up all the duties, VAT ect that we do pay and work out what percentage of our overall income that equates to then come back and tell us we pay nothing.[/p][/quote]VAT is mainly charged on luxury items, there are exceptions I agree, but someone who is claiming they don't have any money shouldn't be buying things like Cig's which I'm presuming as part of your username you do. Benefits aren't handed out so people can enjoy smoking and drinking.[/p][/quote]Luxury items? what like water, gas and electric? I haven't bought a packet of cigarettes for over 20 years. Thanks to the black market that has grown up due to extortionate rates of duty it cost me under £10 pw to smoke tobacco. Now I know you'll still say that's too much but who the hell are you to tell me how I can spend what little money I have?. Once these changes in council tax and the bedroom tax come into force I will be paying around 25-30% of my income in tax yet you say I'm paying nothing?[/p][/quote]Well said. I work full-time earning a reasonable wage. This does not give me the right to pontificate to those out of work about how to spend their meagre benefits. pellethead

1:32pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote: £3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...
They have to fund the £107,000 tax cut for millionaires somehow.
Those millionaires taxes which pay for your and landless peasants way of life you mean. Why should some have to pay more when others are paying nothing?
Until such a time as VAT is scrapped there is no-one who is paying nothing. Add up all the duties, VAT ect that we do pay and work out what percentage of our overall income that equates to then come back and tell us we pay nothing.
VAT is mainly charged on luxury items, there are exceptions I agree, but someone who is claiming they don't have any money shouldn't be buying things like Cig's which I'm presuming as part of your username you do. Benefits aren't handed out so people can enjoy smoking and drinking.
Luxury items? what like water, gas and electric? I haven't bought a packet of cigarettes for over 20 years. Thanks to the black market that has grown up due to extortionate rates of duty it cost me under £10 pw to smoke tobacco. Now I know you'll still say that's too much but who the hell are you to tell me how I can spend what little money I have?. Once these changes in council tax and the bedroom tax come into force I will be paying around 25-30% of my income in tax yet you say I'm paying nothing?
So you spend £40 per month smoking tobacco, and your moaning about having to pay a little council tax. which works out than less than half you pay on cigs a week.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: £3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...[/p][/quote]They have to fund the £107,000 tax cut for millionaires somehow.[/p][/quote]Those millionaires taxes which pay for your and landless peasants way of life you mean. Why should some have to pay more when others are paying nothing?[/p][/quote]Until such a time as VAT is scrapped there is no-one who is paying nothing. Add up all the duties, VAT ect that we do pay and work out what percentage of our overall income that equates to then come back and tell us we pay nothing.[/p][/quote]VAT is mainly charged on luxury items, there are exceptions I agree, but someone who is claiming they don't have any money shouldn't be buying things like Cig's which I'm presuming as part of your username you do. Benefits aren't handed out so people can enjoy smoking and drinking.[/p][/quote]Luxury items? what like water, gas and electric? I haven't bought a packet of cigarettes for over 20 years. Thanks to the black market that has grown up due to extortionate rates of duty it cost me under £10 pw to smoke tobacco. Now I know you'll still say that's too much but who the hell are you to tell me how I can spend what little money I have?. Once these changes in council tax and the bedroom tax come into force I will be paying around 25-30% of my income in tax yet you say I'm paying nothing?[/p][/quote]So you spend £40 per month smoking tobacco, and your moaning about having to pay a little council tax. which works out than less than half you pay on cigs a week. Thee Voice of Reason

1:34pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Albion. says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote: £3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...
They have to fund the £107,000 tax cut for millionaires somehow.
Those millionaires taxes which pay for your and landless peasants way of life you mean. Why should some have to pay more when others are paying nothing?
Until such a time as VAT is scrapped there is no-one who is paying nothing. Add up all the duties, VAT ect that we do pay and work out what percentage of our overall income that equates to then come back and tell us we pay nothing.
VAT is mainly charged on luxury items, there are exceptions I agree, but someone who is claiming they don't have any money shouldn't be buying things like Cig's which I'm presuming as part of your username you do. Benefits aren't handed out so people can enjoy smoking and drinking.
Luxury items? what like water, gas and electric? I haven't bought a packet of cigarettes for over 20 years. Thanks to the black market that has grown up due to extortionate rates of duty it cost me under £10 pw to smoke tobacco. Now I know you'll still say that's too much but who the hell are you to tell me how I can spend what little money I have?. Once these changes in council tax and the bedroom tax come into force I will be paying around 25-30% of my income in tax yet you say I'm paying nothing?
So you spend £40 per month smoking tobacco, and your moaning about having to pay a little council tax. which works out than less than half you pay on cigs a week.
And he is sponsoring criminals!
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: £3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...[/p][/quote]They have to fund the £107,000 tax cut for millionaires somehow.[/p][/quote]Those millionaires taxes which pay for your and landless peasants way of life you mean. Why should some have to pay more when others are paying nothing?[/p][/quote]Until such a time as VAT is scrapped there is no-one who is paying nothing. Add up all the duties, VAT ect that we do pay and work out what percentage of our overall income that equates to then come back and tell us we pay nothing.[/p][/quote]VAT is mainly charged on luxury items, there are exceptions I agree, but someone who is claiming they don't have any money shouldn't be buying things like Cig's which I'm presuming as part of your username you do. Benefits aren't handed out so people can enjoy smoking and drinking.[/p][/quote]Luxury items? what like water, gas and electric? I haven't bought a packet of cigarettes for over 20 years. Thanks to the black market that has grown up due to extortionate rates of duty it cost me under £10 pw to smoke tobacco. Now I know you'll still say that's too much but who the hell are you to tell me how I can spend what little money I have?. Once these changes in council tax and the bedroom tax come into force I will be paying around 25-30% of my income in tax yet you say I'm paying nothing?[/p][/quote]So you spend £40 per month smoking tobacco, and your moaning about having to pay a little council tax. which works out than less than half you pay on cigs a week.[/p][/quote]And he is sponsoring criminals! Albion.

1:37pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Can I get a 100% reduction on my council tax please so I can take up smoking.
Can I get a 100% reduction on my council tax please so I can take up smoking. Thee Voice of Reason

1:53pm Wed 5 Dec 12

RollandSmoke says...

As it seems some in this country are determined to devide the country by demonising the people who are struggling most, I suppose I should get in on the game. Those who are constantly on the attack are scum. They are not human in any sense of the word. They are sadistic psychopaths who take pleasure in the suffering of others. I realise those who are really struggling in the current climate are an inconvinience to you and you would prefer they just die to reduce your tax burden but I have no intention of doing so any time soon and as far as I'm concerned the more I P you sick slime off, the better.
As it seems some in this country are determined to devide the country by demonising the people who are struggling most, I suppose I should get in on the game. Those who are constantly on the attack are scum. They are not human in any sense of the word. They are sadistic psychopaths who take pleasure in the suffering of others. I realise those who are really struggling in the current climate are an inconvinience to you and you would prefer they just die to reduce your tax burden but I have no intention of doing so any time soon and as far as I'm concerned the more I P you sick slime off, the better. RollandSmoke

1:57pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Bone_idle18 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Bone_idle18 wrote:
I'd ban dogs from all areas, especially the one that craps outside my gate!

Back to council tax, it's pretty fair. Landless Peasent said under £4 a week, which is very good value for all the stuff it pays for.

Bedroom tax is fine too, I have a house I can afford, if I couldn't I'd downsize. Why should I have to think differently to him?
I'm also going to be affected by the bedroom tax but I'm left no choice but to pay it as I need the room for my daughter. Do you believe fathers that want to remain an active part of their child's life after the breakdown of their relationship with their mother should have a financial disincentive from making their home somewhere their child thinks of as home from home rather than somewhere they go to doss on the couch? The room is also needed occasionally for a carer which is also not covered.
If it's a struggle, do what most people do, make a choice, £10 a week on tobacco or £10 a week to provide a room for your Daughter!

I bet there's plenty of single dad who would love the luxury of an extra bedroom for only £10 a week, but because they work and pay their way, they just can't afford it.

Surely the small sacrifice of stopping smoking is worth it?
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: I'd ban dogs from all areas, especially the one that craps outside my gate! Back to council tax, it's pretty fair. Landless Peasent said under £4 a week, which is very good value for all the stuff it pays for. Bedroom tax is fine too, I have a house I can afford, if I couldn't I'd downsize. Why should I have to think differently to him?[/p][/quote]I'm also going to be affected by the bedroom tax but I'm left no choice but to pay it as I need the room for my daughter. Do you believe fathers that want to remain an active part of their child's life after the breakdown of their relationship with their mother should have a financial disincentive from making their home somewhere their child thinks of as home from home rather than somewhere they go to doss on the couch? The room is also needed occasionally for a carer which is also not covered.[/p][/quote]If it's a struggle, do what most people do, make a choice, £10 a week on tobacco or £10 a week to provide a room for your Daughter! I bet there's plenty of single dad who would love the luxury of an extra bedroom for only £10 a week, but because they work and pay their way, they just can't afford it. Surely the small sacrifice of stopping smoking is worth it? Bone_idle18

2:01pm Wed 5 Dec 12

RollandSmoke says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Can I get a 100% reduction on my council tax please so I can take up smoking.
As I'm on incapacity for reasons that don't concern you, I have been paying a sizable contribution to my council tax for years.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Can I get a 100% reduction on my council tax please so I can take up smoking.[/p][/quote]As I'm on incapacity for reasons that don't concern you, I have been paying a sizable contribution to my council tax for years. RollandSmoke

2:05pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Shelfrhino says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
£3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...
Ha.

Have a word with Jesus, see if he can bung you a few quid, we're sick of subsidising the hard of thinking.
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: £3.75 + £10 Bedroom Tax = £13.75 extra per week that I don't have. See you in Court Mr.Green...[/p][/quote]Ha. Have a word with Jesus, see if he can bung you a few quid, we're sick of subsidising the hard of thinking. Shelfrhino

2:09pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Shelfrhino says...

Albion. wrote:
pellethead wrote:
i hate bradford wrote:
It is the discrimination against non muslims that disgusts me in this report!

Who pays for extra security and staff to police this graveyard farce?

The muslims in Bradford are hypocrites concerning dogs because many have dogs of their own. You only have to walk around an area where there are mostly muslims to see this.

This is pandering to the muslims and if they didn't waste money on policing and bringing in the silly laws about graveyards maybe they wouldn't have to penalise the disabled. This is a christian country regardless what these bullies think.

Not the paying of council tax by the vulnerable is disgusting also.

We don't have Muslim areas in the UK we are all equal in law, obviously some are more equal than others!

Why are our council listening to Muslim council they were not voted for by anyone.
People like you make me want to vomit
I thought it was quite a good post.
So did I
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pellethead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i hate bradford[/bold] wrote: It is the discrimination against non muslims that disgusts me in this report! Who pays for extra security and staff to police this graveyard farce? The muslims in Bradford are hypocrites concerning dogs because many have dogs of their own. You only have to walk around an area where there are mostly muslims to see this. This is pandering to the muslims and if they didn't waste money on policing and bringing in the silly laws about graveyards maybe they wouldn't have to penalise the disabled. This is a christian country regardless what these bullies think. Not the paying of council tax by the vulnerable is disgusting also. We don't have Muslim areas in the UK we are all equal in law, obviously some are more equal than others! Why are our council listening to Muslim council they were not voted for by anyone.[/p][/quote]People like you make me want to vomit[/p][/quote]I thought it was quite a good post.[/p][/quote]So did I Shelfrhino

2:13pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Shelfrhino says...

All benefits should be paid direct to the supplier of the service given to the claimant. They should have no access to cash.
All benefits should be paid direct to the supplier of the service given to the claimant. They should have no access to cash. Shelfrhino

2:39pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Can I get a 100% reduction on my council tax please so I can take up smoking.
As I'm on incapacity for reasons that don't concern you, I have been paying a sizable contribution to my council tax for years.
Your right it doesn't concern me, but when you admit to paying £40pm on a smoking habit but object to paying a small amount for council services your moaning can fall on deaf ears.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Can I get a 100% reduction on my council tax please so I can take up smoking.[/p][/quote]As I'm on incapacity for reasons that don't concern you, I have been paying a sizable contribution to my council tax for years.[/p][/quote]Your right it doesn't concern me, but when you admit to paying £40pm on a smoking habit but object to paying a small amount for council services your moaning can fall on deaf ears. Thee Voice of Reason

3:01pm Wed 5 Dec 12

RollandSmoke says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Can I get a 100% reduction on my council tax please so I can take up smoking.
As I'm on incapacity for reasons that don't concern you, I have been paying a sizable contribution to my council tax for years.
Your right it doesn't concern me, but when you admit to paying £40pm on a smoking habit but object to paying a small amount for council services your moaning can fall on deaf ears.
The small amount you speak of (council tax and bedroom tax) relates to around 15% of my weekly benefit and for ALP that % will be higher. This on a day that we hear we are going to be subject to a real terms cut in benefits. If you were to learn that your taxes were going up by 15% would you complain? If the government wants people to stop smoking they would do well to stop piling on the stress.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Can I get a 100% reduction on my council tax please so I can take up smoking.[/p][/quote]As I'm on incapacity for reasons that don't concern you, I have been paying a sizable contribution to my council tax for years.[/p][/quote]Your right it doesn't concern me, but when you admit to paying £40pm on a smoking habit but object to paying a small amount for council services your moaning can fall on deaf ears.[/p][/quote]The small amount you speak of (council tax and bedroom tax) relates to around 15% of my weekly benefit and for ALP that % will be higher. This on a day that we hear we are going to be subject to a real terms cut in benefits. If you were to learn that your taxes were going up by 15% would you complain? If the government wants people to stop smoking they would do well to stop piling on the stress. RollandSmoke

3:09pm Wed 5 Dec 12

i hate bradford says...

pellethead wrote:
i hate bradford wrote:
It is the discrimination against non muslims that disgusts me in this report!

Who pays for extra security and staff to police this graveyard farce?

The muslims in Bradford are hypocrites concerning dogs because many have dogs of their own. You only have to walk around an area where there are mostly muslims to see this.

This is pandering to the muslims and if they didn't waste money on policing and bringing in the silly laws about graveyards maybe they wouldn't have to penalise the disabled. This is a christian country regardless what these bullies think.

Not the paying of council tax by the vulnerable is disgusting also.

We don't have Muslim areas in the UK we are all equal in law, obviously some are more equal than others!

Why are our council listening to Muslim council they were not voted for by anyone.
People like you make me want to vomit
and people who are like you who think the laws should be different for different skin colour or different religions make me want to vomit. It is a form of racism and I hate racists!!

It should be equality all round or nothing.

I am sick of this muslim group of old men calling themselves a "council" which they are NOT in any shape or form, sticking their noses where it isn't wanted and causing unrest and discrimination and fuelling the fires of hatred!

They are not a council they are a group of old religiously ignorant fools who instead of accepting equal rights for muslims they demand more which causes the normal muslims more segregation and hatred and more people are feeling angry towards them.

They were not voted in so their pathetic demands should be ignored and thrown in the bin where they belong with all the other crackpot town segregating ideas.

If you think racism in any form is acceptable then please feel free to choke on said vomit.
[quote][p][bold]pellethead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i hate bradford[/bold] wrote: It is the discrimination against non muslims that disgusts me in this report! Who pays for extra security and staff to police this graveyard farce? The muslims in Bradford are hypocrites concerning dogs because many have dogs of their own. You only have to walk around an area where there are mostly muslims to see this. This is pandering to the muslims and if they didn't waste money on policing and bringing in the silly laws about graveyards maybe they wouldn't have to penalise the disabled. This is a christian country regardless what these bullies think. Not the paying of council tax by the vulnerable is disgusting also. We don't have Muslim areas in the UK we are all equal in law, obviously some are more equal than others! Why are our council listening to Muslim council they were not voted for by anyone.[/p][/quote]People like you make me want to vomit[/p][/quote]and people who are like you who think the laws should be different for different skin colour or different religions make me want to vomit. It is a form of racism and I hate racists!! It should be equality all round or nothing. I am sick of this muslim group of old men calling themselves a "council" which they are NOT in any shape or form, sticking their noses where it isn't wanted and causing unrest and discrimination and fuelling the fires of hatred! They are not a council they are a group of old religiously ignorant fools who instead of accepting equal rights for muslims they demand more which causes the normal muslims more segregation and hatred and more people are feeling angry towards them. They were not voted in so their pathetic demands should be ignored and thrown in the bin where they belong with all the other crackpot town segregating ideas. If you think racism in any form is acceptable then please feel free to choke on said vomit. i hate bradford

3:24pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Storck says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Can I get a 100% reduction on my council tax please so I can take up smoking.
As I'm on incapacity for reasons that don't concern you, I have been paying a sizable contribution to my council tax for years.
Your right it doesn't concern me, but when you admit to paying £40pm on a smoking habit but object to paying a small amount for council services your moaning can fall on deaf ears.
The small amount you speak of (council tax and bedroom tax) relates to around 15% of my weekly benefit and for ALP that % will be higher. This on a day that we hear we are going to be subject to a real terms cut in benefits. If you were to learn that your taxes were going up by 15% would you complain? If the government wants people to stop smoking they would do well to stop piling on the stress.
So it is 15% of your income. So you now pay about 20-25% of your income in tax, I think you will find most people pay that as a minimum if you include the Council Tax, NIC and income tax. So think your self lucky.

As for the lack of real term increases in your benefit get over it, most people who are working have not had real terms pay rises for the last few years.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Can I get a 100% reduction on my council tax please so I can take up smoking.[/p][/quote]As I'm on incapacity for reasons that don't concern you, I have been paying a sizable contribution to my council tax for years.[/p][/quote]Your right it doesn't concern me, but when you admit to paying £40pm on a smoking habit but object to paying a small amount for council services your moaning can fall on deaf ears.[/p][/quote]The small amount you speak of (council tax and bedroom tax) relates to around 15% of my weekly benefit and for ALP that % will be higher. This on a day that we hear we are going to be subject to a real terms cut in benefits. If you were to learn that your taxes were going up by 15% would you complain? If the government wants people to stop smoking they would do well to stop piling on the stress.[/p][/quote]So it is 15% of your income. So you now pay about 20-25% of your income in tax, I think you will find most people pay that as a minimum if you include the Council Tax, NIC and income tax. So think your self lucky. As for the lack of real term increases in your benefit get over it, most people who are working have not had real terms pay rises for the last few years. Storck

3:24pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Can I get a 100% reduction on my council tax please so I can take up smoking.
As I'm on incapacity for reasons that don't concern you, I have been paying a sizable contribution to my council tax for years.
Your right it doesn't concern me, but when you admit to paying £40pm on a smoking habit but object to paying a small amount for council services your moaning can fall on deaf ears.
The small amount you speak of (council tax and bedroom tax) relates to around 15% of my weekly benefit and for ALP that % will be higher. This on a day that we hear we are going to be subject to a real terms cut in benefits. If you were to learn that your taxes were going up by 15% would you complain? If the government wants people to stop smoking they would do well to stop piling on the stress.
I'm guessing that 100% council tax which will be about £100 per month relates to about a decent percentage of someone's income before mortgage and rent is put on top, their costs of childcare and travelling to and from work, etc, etc.

Everyone is having a tough time, I guess the easiest thing for the council to do is increase council tax but still give the 100% allowances and let those who pay, paymore.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Can I get a 100% reduction on my council tax please so I can take up smoking.[/p][/quote]As I'm on incapacity for reasons that don't concern you, I have been paying a sizable contribution to my council tax for years.[/p][/quote]Your right it doesn't concern me, but when you admit to paying £40pm on a smoking habit but object to paying a small amount for council services your moaning can fall on deaf ears.[/p][/quote]The small amount you speak of (council tax and bedroom tax) relates to around 15% of my weekly benefit and for ALP that % will be higher. This on a day that we hear we are going to be subject to a real terms cut in benefits. If you were to learn that your taxes were going up by 15% would you complain? If the government wants people to stop smoking they would do well to stop piling on the stress.[/p][/quote]I'm guessing that 100% council tax which will be about £100 per month relates to about a decent percentage of someone's income before mortgage and rent is put on top, their costs of childcare and travelling to and from work, etc, etc. Everyone is having a tough time, I guess the easiest thing for the council to do is increase council tax but still give the 100% allowances and let those who pay, paymore. Thee Voice of Reason

3:37pm Wed 5 Dec 12

RollandSmoke says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Can I get a 100% reduction on my council tax please so I can take up smoking.
As I'm on incapacity for reasons that don't concern you, I have been paying a sizable contribution to my council tax for years.
Your right it doesn't concern me, but when you admit to paying £40pm on a smoking habit but object to paying a small amount for council services your moaning can fall on deaf ears.
The small amount you speak of (council tax and bedroom tax) relates to around 15% of my weekly benefit and for ALP that % will be higher. This on a day that we hear we are going to be subject to a real terms cut in benefits. If you were to learn that your taxes were going up by 15% would you complain? If the government wants people to stop smoking they would do well to stop piling on the stress.
I'm guessing that 100% council tax which will be about £100 per month relates to about a decent percentage of someone's income before mortgage and rent is put on top, their costs of childcare and travelling to and from work, etc, etc.

Everyone is having a tough time, I guess the easiest thing for the council to do is increase council tax but still give the 100% allowances and let those who pay, paymore.
Everyone is having a hard time? What like those earning over a million who have had a cut in their tax burden of £107,000? Is that why sales of Aston Martin, Jaguar, BMW, Mercedes are on the increase? I think you need to Question the "All in this together" mantra a little more. When Things like JSA are calculated on the minimum someone can legally be expected to live on.how much chipping away at that income can they logically be able to withstand?
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Can I get a 100% reduction on my council tax please so I can take up smoking.[/p][/quote]As I'm on incapacity for reasons that don't concern you, I have been paying a sizable contribution to my council tax for years.[/p][/quote]Your right it doesn't concern me, but when you admit to paying £40pm on a smoking habit but object to paying a small amount for council services your moaning can fall on deaf ears.[/p][/quote]The small amount you speak of (council tax and bedroom tax) relates to around 15% of my weekly benefit and for ALP that % will be higher. This on a day that we hear we are going to be subject to a real terms cut in benefits. If you were to learn that your taxes were going up by 15% would you complain? If the government wants people to stop smoking they would do well to stop piling on the stress.[/p][/quote]I'm guessing that 100% council tax which will be about £100 per month relates to about a decent percentage of someone's income before mortgage and rent is put on top, their costs of childcare and travelling to and from work, etc, etc. Everyone is having a tough time, I guess the easiest thing for the council to do is increase council tax but still give the 100% allowances and let those who pay, paymore.[/p][/quote]Everyone is having a hard time? What like those earning over a million who have had a cut in their tax burden of £107,000? Is that why sales of Aston Martin, Jaguar, BMW, Mercedes are on the increase? I think you need to Question the "All in this together" mantra a little more. When Things like JSA are calculated on the minimum someone can legally be expected to live on.how much chipping away at that income can they logically be able to withstand? RollandSmoke

3:47pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Can I get a 100% reduction on my council tax please so I can take up smoking.
As I'm on incapacity for reasons that don't concern you, I have been paying a sizable contribution to my council tax for years.
Your right it doesn't concern me, but when you admit to paying £40pm on a smoking habit but object to paying a small amount for council services your moaning can fall on deaf ears.
The small amount you speak of (council tax and bedroom tax) relates to around 15% of my weekly benefit and for ALP that % will be higher. This on a day that we hear we are going to be subject to a real terms cut in benefits. If you were to learn that your taxes were going up by 15% would you complain? If the government wants people to stop smoking they would do well to stop piling on the stress.
I'm guessing that 100% council tax which will be about £100 per month relates to about a decent percentage of someone's income before mortgage and rent is put on top, their costs of childcare and travelling to and from work, etc, etc. Everyone is having a tough time, I guess the easiest thing for the council to do is increase council tax but still give the 100% allowances and let those who pay, paymore.
Everyone is having a hard time? What like those earning over a million who have had a cut in their tax burden of £107,000? Is that why sales of Aston Martin, Jaguar, BMW, Mercedes are on the increase? I think you need to Question the "All in this together" mantra a little more. When Things like JSA are calculated on the minimum someone can legally be expected to live on.how much chipping away at that income can they logically be able to withstand?
Why should the rich pay more because people like landless peasant who openly can't be arsed working don't have to pay a bean?

Who should many people in Bradford work and pay 100% council tax so that 34,000 households can get the same services without paying.

Forget these millionaires for a second, the truth is if the 100% discount goes the costs won't be passed onto those who currently work to pay their share. If the 100% discount stays then it's the workers who will make up the shortfall.

Tax the rich is easy to shout, but look how many leave and end up in Monaco or some other tax haven leaving us with nothing. Do you want millionaires paying the going rate or do you want them to disappear overseas and end up paying nothing?
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Can I get a 100% reduction on my council tax please so I can take up smoking.[/p][/quote]As I'm on incapacity for reasons that don't concern you, I have been paying a sizable contribution to my council tax for years.[/p][/quote]Your right it doesn't concern me, but when you admit to paying £40pm on a smoking habit but object to paying a small amount for council services your moaning can fall on deaf ears.[/p][/quote]The small amount you speak of (council tax and bedroom tax) relates to around 15% of my weekly benefit and for ALP that % will be higher. This on a day that we hear we are going to be subject to a real terms cut in benefits. If you were to learn that your taxes were going up by 15% would you complain? If the government wants people to stop smoking they would do well to stop piling on the stress.[/p][/quote]I'm guessing that 100% council tax which will be about £100 per month relates to about a decent percentage of someone's income before mortgage and rent is put on top, their costs of childcare and travelling to and from work, etc, etc. Everyone is having a tough time, I guess the easiest thing for the council to do is increase council tax but still give the 100% allowances and let those who pay, paymore.[/p][/quote]Everyone is having a hard time? What like those earning over a million who have had a cut in their tax burden of £107,000? Is that why sales of Aston Martin, Jaguar, BMW, Mercedes are on the increase? I think you need to Question the "All in this together" mantra a little more. When Things like JSA are calculated on the minimum someone can legally be expected to live on.how much chipping away at that income can they logically be able to withstand?[/p][/quote]Why should the rich pay more because people like landless peasant who openly can't be arsed working don't have to pay a bean? Who should many people in Bradford work and pay 100% council tax so that 34,000 households can get the same services without paying. Forget these millionaires for a second, the truth is if the 100% discount goes the costs won't be passed onto those who currently work to pay their share. If the 100% discount stays then it's the workers who will make up the shortfall. Tax the rich is easy to shout, but look how many leave and end up in Monaco or some other tax haven leaving us with nothing. Do you want millionaires paying the going rate or do you want them to disappear overseas and end up paying nothing? Thee Voice of Reason

4:12pm Wed 5 Dec 12

RollandSmoke says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Can I get a 100% reduction on my council tax please so I can take up smoking.
As I'm on incapacity for reasons that don't concern you, I have been paying a sizable contribution to my council tax for years.
Your right it doesn't concern me, but when you admit to paying £40pm on a smoking habit but object to paying a small amount for council services your moaning can fall on deaf ears.
The small amount you speak of (council tax and bedroom tax) relates to around 15% of my weekly benefit and for ALP that % will be higher. This on a day that we hear we are going to be subject to a real terms cut in benefits. If you were to learn that your taxes were going up by 15% would you complain? If the government wants people to stop smoking they would do well to stop piling on the stress.
I'm guessing that 100% council tax which will be about £100 per month relates to about a decent percentage of someone's income before mortgage and rent is put on top, their costs of childcare and travelling to and from work, etc, etc. Everyone is having a tough time, I guess the easiest thing for the council to do is increase council tax but still give the 100% allowances and let those who pay, paymore.
Everyone is having a hard time? What like those earning over a million who have had a cut in their tax burden of £107,000? Is that why sales of Aston Martin, Jaguar, BMW, Mercedes are on the increase? I think you need to Question the "All in this together" mantra a little more. When Things like JSA are calculated on the minimum someone can legally be expected to live on.how much chipping away at that income can they logically be able to withstand?
Why should the rich pay more because people like landless peasant who openly can't be arsed working don't have to pay a bean?

Who should many people in Bradford work and pay 100% council tax so that 34,000 households can get the same services without paying.

Forget these millionaires for a second, the truth is if the 100% discount goes the costs won't be passed onto those who currently work to pay their share. If the 100% discount stays then it's the workers who will make up the shortfall.

Tax the rich is easy to shout, but look how many leave and end up in Monaco or some other tax haven leaving us with nothing. Do you want millionaires paying the going rate or do you want them to disappear overseas and end up paying nothing?
For all too many their money is disappearing overseas to these tax havens anyway, they may as well do one if they are not willing to contribute to the society that they live in. But it seems you share George Osborne's logic that if the rich don't want to pay the taxes at the rate the government sets it like everyone else does, the answer is not to enforce laws against tax evasion or discourage tax avoidence but to give them a tax cut and call them immoral and they'll stop doing it. Well guess what, they know they're immoral, in many cases that's why they're in the position they are in. I know lets provide them with free labour through the workfare scheme, they'll like us then and stop fleecing the system leaving those in the middle to pay for it. But it's ok cos those daft sods are too thick to realise that a millionaire paying £107,000 less in tax a year is going to have a bigger effect than someone out of work getting £71 a week on the amount they themselves are having to pay and they will direct their anger accordingly
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Can I get a 100% reduction on my council tax please so I can take up smoking.[/p][/quote]As I'm on incapacity for reasons that don't concern you, I have been paying a sizable contribution to my council tax for years.[/p][/quote]Your right it doesn't concern me, but when you admit to paying £40pm on a smoking habit but object to paying a small amount for council services your moaning can fall on deaf ears.[/p][/quote]The small amount you speak of (council tax and bedroom tax) relates to around 15% of my weekly benefit and for ALP that % will be higher. This on a day that we hear we are going to be subject to a real terms cut in benefits. If you were to learn that your taxes were going up by 15% would you complain? If the government wants people to stop smoking they would do well to stop piling on the stress.[/p][/quote]I'm guessing that 100% council tax which will be about £100 per month relates to about a decent percentage of someone's income before mortgage and rent is put on top, their costs of childcare and travelling to and from work, etc, etc. Everyone is having a tough time, I guess the easiest thing for the council to do is increase council tax but still give the 100% allowances and let those who pay, paymore.[/p][/quote]Everyone is having a hard time? What like those earning over a million who have had a cut in their tax burden of £107,000? Is that why sales of Aston Martin, Jaguar, BMW, Mercedes are on the increase? I think you need to Question the "All in this together" mantra a little more. When Things like JSA are calculated on the minimum someone can legally be expected to live on.how much chipping away at that income can they logically be able to withstand?[/p][/quote]Why should the rich pay more because people like landless peasant who openly can't be arsed working don't have to pay a bean? Who should many people in Bradford work and pay 100% council tax so that 34,000 households can get the same services without paying. Forget these millionaires for a second, the truth is if the 100% discount goes the costs won't be passed onto those who currently work to pay their share. If the 100% discount stays then it's the workers who will make up the shortfall. Tax the rich is easy to shout, but look how many leave and end up in Monaco or some other tax haven leaving us with nothing. Do you want millionaires paying the going rate or do you want them to disappear overseas and end up paying nothing?[/p][/quote]For all too many their money is disappearing overseas to these tax havens anyway, they may as well do one if they are not willing to contribute to the society that they live in. But it seems you share George Osborne's logic that if the rich don't want to pay the taxes at the rate the government sets it like everyone else does, the answer is not to enforce laws against tax evasion or discourage tax avoidence but to give them a tax cut and call them immoral and they'll stop doing it. Well guess what, they know they're immoral, in many cases that's why they're in the position they are in. I know lets provide them with free labour through the workfare scheme, they'll like us then and stop fleecing the system leaving those in the middle to pay for it. But it's ok cos those daft sods are too thick to realise that a millionaire paying £107,000 less in tax a year is going to have a bigger effect than someone out of work getting £71 a week on the amount they themselves are having to pay and they will direct their anger accordingly RollandSmoke

4:16pm Wed 5 Dec 12

dellorri says...

Good lord, why is it that none of you, including rolly and ALP have pointed out an obvious fact about housing benefit, that I have tried to tell you about before. That it is NOT an out of work benefit, and that approximately 79% of claimants on full housing benefit are in FULL TIME employment on min imum wages, and because their wage is so low, they are entitled to claim this benefit due to LOW income, yet you ALL automatically jump on the "lets bash the scrounger" bandwagon. There are people out there working their guts out, so they don't have the stigma of being on the dole, and to survive they HAVE to claim housing benefit, and then they get this hurled at them, Boy I really hope you think about who you're tarring next time you chuck your accusations about, you see it.s a MEANS TESTED benefit, which even you should understand, it depends how much you have coming in that counts, not whether you're working or not, for goodness sake grow up will you, stop arguing and think about what you're saying for a change.
Good lord, why is it that none of you, including rolly and ALP have pointed out an obvious fact about housing benefit, that I have tried to tell you about before. That it is NOT an out of work benefit, and that approximately 79% of claimants on full housing benefit are in FULL TIME employment on min imum wages, and because their wage is so low, they are entitled to claim this benefit due to LOW income, yet you ALL automatically jump on the "lets bash the scrounger" bandwagon. There are people out there working their guts out, so they don't have the stigma of being on the dole, and to survive they HAVE to claim housing benefit, and then they get this hurled at them, Boy I really hope you think about who you're tarring next time you chuck your accusations about, you see it.s a MEANS TESTED benefit, which even you should understand, it depends how much you have coming in that counts, not whether you're working or not, for goodness sake grow up will you, stop arguing and think about what you're saying for a change. dellorri

4:39pm Wed 5 Dec 12

angry bradfordian says...

dellorri wrote:
Good lord, why is it that none of you, including rolly and ALP have pointed out an obvious fact about housing benefit, that I have tried to tell you about before. That it is NOT an out of work benefit, and that approximately 79% of claimants on full housing benefit are in FULL TIME employment on min imum wages, and because their wage is so low, they are entitled to claim this benefit due to LOW income, yet you ALL automatically jump on the "lets bash the scrounger" bandwagon. There are people out there working their guts out, so they don't have the stigma of being on the dole, and to survive they HAVE to claim housing benefit, and then they get this hurled at them, Boy I really hope you think about who you're tarring next time you chuck your accusations about, you see it.s a MEANS TESTED benefit, which even you should understand, it depends how much you have coming in that counts, not whether you're working or not, for goodness sake grow up will you, stop arguing and think about what you're saying for a change.
To put in in perspective, the lowest Council Tax band (the one I would assume the lowest paid workers would live in) is £851 a year. That's £212 on the discounted rate.

That's only £4.09 a week- half a packet of fags or a pint and a half. It's not a lot to pay for schools, roads, libraries, police, fire and all the other services that the council are supposed to supply.
The left wing scoff at the 'we're all in this together' statement, but they some people seem to think they should be exempt and the rich should pay it all.
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: Good lord, why is it that none of you, including rolly and ALP have pointed out an obvious fact about housing benefit, that I have tried to tell you about before. That it is NOT an out of work benefit, and that approximately 79% of claimants on full housing benefit are in FULL TIME employment on min imum wages, and because their wage is so low, they are entitled to claim this benefit due to LOW income, yet you ALL automatically jump on the "lets bash the scrounger" bandwagon. There are people out there working their guts out, so they don't have the stigma of being on the dole, and to survive they HAVE to claim housing benefit, and then they get this hurled at them, Boy I really hope you think about who you're tarring next time you chuck your accusations about, you see it.s a MEANS TESTED benefit, which even you should understand, it depends how much you have coming in that counts, not whether you're working or not, for goodness sake grow up will you, stop arguing and think about what you're saying for a change.[/p][/quote]To put in in perspective, the lowest Council Tax band (the one I would assume the lowest paid workers would live in) is £851 a year. That's £212 on the discounted rate. That's only £4.09 a week- half a packet of fags or a pint and a half. It's not a lot to pay for schools, roads, libraries, police, fire and all the other services that the council are supposed to supply. The left wing scoff at the 'we're all in this together' statement, but they some people seem to think they should be exempt and the rich should pay it all. angry bradfordian

5:32pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

Thee Voice of Reason:
It's not that I "can't be arrsed working", I am incapable of working and am completely unemployable, plus the fact that there are a great many more workers than there are jobs!
Thee Voice of Reason: It's not that I "can't be arrsed working", I am incapable of working and am completely unemployable, plus the fact that there are a great many more workers than there are jobs! Another Landless Peasant

5:34pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

Shelfrhino says...
2:13pm Wed 5 Dec 12
"All benefits should be paid direct to the supplier of the service given to the claimant. They should have no access to cash."

Then why are the Government stopping payment of Housing Benefit directly to Landlords and instead paying it to Tenants?
Shelfrhino says... 2:13pm Wed 5 Dec 12 "All benefits should be paid direct to the supplier of the service given to the claimant. They should have no access to cash." Then why are the Government stopping payment of Housing Benefit directly to Landlords and instead paying it to Tenants? Another Landless Peasant

5:37pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

Shelfrhino says...


"Have a word with Jesus, see if he can bung you a few quid"

I have done, and continue to do so, how do you think I survive? The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want. Whenever I need things I simply ask and hey presto, I find what I need comes to me.
Shelfrhino says... "Have a word with Jesus, see if he can bung you a few quid" I have done, and continue to do so, how do you think I survive? The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want. Whenever I need things I simply ask and hey presto, I find what I need comes to me. Another Landless Peasant

5:44pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

Thee Voice Of Insanity said:

"I'm presuming the bedroom tax is due because your living in a place with a spare room and at the taxpayer expense.

They should move you into a one room appartment and you should be grateful of it, not living it up with spare rooms at the taxpayers expense."

Yes, I live in very spacious and well-appointed accomodation that would cost a fortune to rent if it was situated elsewhere, and I do so at your expense, thanks. But I did ask for a transfer but was told there are insufficient one-bedroom properties available for all those who need them, so pay the Bedroom Tax I must. It just means I will spend less on other items, thereby further damaging the economy. Satisfied?
Thee Voice Of Insanity said: "I'm presuming the bedroom tax is due because your living in a place with a spare room and at the taxpayer expense. They should move you into a one room appartment and you should be grateful of it, not living it up with spare rooms at the taxpayers expense." Yes, I live in very spacious and well-appointed accomodation that would cost a fortune to rent if it was situated elsewhere, and I do so at your expense, thanks. But I did ask for a transfer but was told there are insufficient one-bedroom properties available for all those who need them, so pay the Bedroom Tax I must. It just means I will spend less on other items, thereby further damaging the economy. Satisfied? Another Landless Peasant

5:46pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Shelfrhino says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
Shelfrhino says...
2:13pm Wed 5 Dec 12
"All benefits should be paid direct to the supplier of the service given to the claimant. They should have no access to cash."

Then why are the Government stopping payment of Housing Benefit directly to Landlords and instead paying it to Tenants?
Because this government is too soft and left leaning, that's why.
If I had my way, the only people getting any kind of benefit would be those who have contributed in the last four years, all the rest could wither on the vine for all I care.
This country is screaming out for a proper right wing government, only then will our problems begin to be tackled.
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: Shelfrhino says... 2:13pm Wed 5 Dec 12 "All benefits should be paid direct to the supplier of the service given to the claimant. They should have no access to cash." Then why are the Government stopping payment of Housing Benefit directly to Landlords and instead paying it to Tenants?[/p][/quote]Because this government is too soft and left leaning, that's why. If I had my way, the only people getting any kind of benefit would be those who have contributed in the last four years, all the rest could wither on the vine for all I care. This country is screaming out for a proper right wing government, only then will our problems begin to be tackled. Shelfrhino

5:48pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

angry bradfordian:

yes, it may only be about four quid a week, but when you have nothing that is impossible. I am at the moment compleetly penniless, and both my Gas and Electricity are running on Emergency Credit. I have very little food, and cannot afford to put the heating on. I don't have a penny to my name, never mind £4.
angry bradfordian: yes, it may only be about four quid a week, but when you have nothing that is impossible. I am at the moment compleetly penniless, and both my Gas and Electricity are running on Emergency Credit. I have very little food, and cannot afford to put the heating on. I don't have a penny to my name, never mind £4. Another Landless Peasant

5:49pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

Shelrhino:

"If I had my way...blah, blah"

Yes well, luckily you don't! LOL
Shelrhino: "If I had my way...blah, blah" Yes well, luckily you don't! LOL Another Landless Peasant

6:07pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
angry bradfordian:

yes, it may only be about four quid a week, but when you have nothing that is impossible. I am at the moment compleetly penniless, and both my Gas and Electricity are running on Emergency Credit. I have very little food, and cannot afford to put the heating on. I don't have a penny to my name, never mind £4.
Yet you appear to have a laptop and internet connection.
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: angry bradfordian: yes, it may only be about four quid a week, but when you have nothing that is impossible. I am at the moment compleetly penniless, and both my Gas and Electricity are running on Emergency Credit. I have very little food, and cannot afford to put the heating on. I don't have a penny to my name, never mind £4.[/p][/quote]Yet you appear to have a laptop and internet connection. Thee Voice of Reason

6:11pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason:
It's not that I "can't be arrsed working", I am incapable of working and am completely unemployable, plus the fact that there are a great many more workers than there are jobs!
You are incapable of working?
You seem to know your way round a computer and I bet you could use a phone. So you could do an office job. Incapable of working, more a case of can't be arsed.
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: Thee Voice of Reason: It's not that I "can't be arrsed working", I am incapable of working and am completely unemployable, plus the fact that there are a great many more workers than there are jobs![/p][/quote]You are incapable of working? You seem to know your way round a computer and I bet you could use a phone. So you could do an office job. Incapable of working, more a case of can't be arsed. Thee Voice of Reason

6:29pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

Thee Voice of Reason:

I apply for ten jobs per fortnight, as instructed. Whilst on New Deal I applied for 250 jobs, and sent out 20 CVs per day, still did not even get an interview. I am unemployable. Accept it.
Thee Voice of Reason: I apply for ten jobs per fortnight, as instructed. Whilst on New Deal I applied for 250 jobs, and sent out 20 CVs per day, still did not even get an interview. I am unemployable. Accept it. Another Landless Peasant

6:30pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

...and no, I can't use a phone!
...and no, I can't use a phone! Another Landless Peasant

6:31pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

"Yet you appear to have a laptop and internet connection."

Yes, and an unpaid bill for same....
"Yet you appear to have a laptop and internet connection." Yes, and an unpaid bill for same.... Another Landless Peasant

6:33pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

Shelfrhino said:

"..this government is too soft and left leaning..."


LOLOLOLOLOL

You're obviously round the bend matey.
Shelfrhino said: "..this government is too soft and left leaning..." LOLOLOLOLOL You're obviously round the bend matey. Another Landless Peasant

6:35pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

SEE YOU IN COURT MR. GREEN, AND NEXT TIME I MIGHT VOTE FOR RESPECT. UP YOURS.
SEE YOU IN COURT MR. GREEN, AND NEXT TIME I MIGHT VOTE FOR RESPECT. UP YOURS. Another Landless Peasant

6:42pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Albion. says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
Shelrhino:

"If I had my way...blah, blah"

Yes well, luckily you don't! LOL
And even luckier that YOU don't!
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: Shelrhino: "If I had my way...blah, blah" Yes well, luckily you don't! LOL[/p][/quote]And even luckier that YOU don't! Albion.

6:43pm Wed 5 Dec 12

RollandSmoke says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
Shelfrhino said:

"..this government is too soft and left leaning..."


LOLOLOLOLOL

You're obviously round the bend matey.
He's a bit peeved that people arn't being dragged into the streets and shot. Patience sherif it's coming. We need a jump to the left, not a step to the riiiiight. Lets do the timewarp again!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: Shelfrhino said: "..this government is too soft and left leaning..." LOLOLOLOLOL You're obviously round the bend matey.[/p][/quote]He's a bit peeved that people arn't being dragged into the streets and shot. Patience sherif it's coming. We need a jump to the left, not a step to the riiiiight. Lets do the timewarp again!!!!!!!! RollandSmoke

6:56pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

I suppose that's what comes of living in Shelf = Redneck territory!
I suppose that's what comes of living in Shelf = Redneck territory! Another Landless Peasant

7:00pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

Albion said:

"And even luckier that YOU don't!"

Oh but I DO! My cup runneth over.
Albion said: "And even luckier that YOU don't!" Oh but I DO! My cup runneth over. Another Landless Peasant

7:13pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Outraged English Subject says...

i hate bradford wrote:
pellethead wrote:
i hate bradford wrote:
It is the discrimination against non muslims that disgusts me in this report!

Who pays for extra security and staff to police this graveyard farce?

The muslims in Bradford are hypocrites concerning dogs because many have dogs of their own. You only have to walk around an area where there are mostly muslims to see this.

This is pandering to the muslims and if they didn't waste money on policing and bringing in the silly laws about graveyards maybe they wouldn't have to penalise the disabled. This is a christian country regardless what these bullies think.

Not the paying of council tax by the vulnerable is disgusting also.

We don't have Muslim areas in the UK we are all equal in law, obviously some are more equal than others!

Why are our council listening to Muslim council they were not voted for by anyone.
People like you make me want to vomit
and people who are like you who think the laws should be different for different skin colour or different religions make me want to vomit. It is a form of racism and I hate racists!!

It should be equality all round or nothing.

I am sick of this muslim group of old men calling themselves a "council" which they are NOT in any shape or form, sticking their noses where it isn't wanted and causing unrest and discrimination and fuelling the fires of hatred!

They are not a council they are a group of old religiously ignorant fools who instead of accepting equal rights for muslims they demand more which causes the normal muslims more segregation and hatred and more people are feeling angry towards them.

They were not voted in so their pathetic demands should be ignored and thrown in the bin where they belong with all the other crackpot town segregating ideas.

If you think racism in any form is acceptable then please feel free to choke on said vomit.
I enjoyed reading this person’s second post.
[quote][p][bold]i hate bradford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pellethead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i hate bradford[/bold] wrote: It is the discrimination against non muslims that disgusts me in this report! Who pays for extra security and staff to police this graveyard farce? The muslims in Bradford are hypocrites concerning dogs because many have dogs of their own. You only have to walk around an area where there are mostly muslims to see this. This is pandering to the muslims and if they didn't waste money on policing and bringing in the silly laws about graveyards maybe they wouldn't have to penalise the disabled. This is a christian country regardless what these bullies think. Not the paying of council tax by the vulnerable is disgusting also. We don't have Muslim areas in the UK we are all equal in law, obviously some are more equal than others! Why are our council listening to Muslim council they were not voted for by anyone.[/p][/quote]People like you make me want to vomit[/p][/quote]and people who are like you who think the laws should be different for different skin colour or different religions make me want to vomit. It is a form of racism and I hate racists!! It should be equality all round or nothing. I am sick of this muslim group of old men calling themselves a "council" which they are NOT in any shape or form, sticking their noses where it isn't wanted and causing unrest and discrimination and fuelling the fires of hatred! They are not a council they are a group of old religiously ignorant fools who instead of accepting equal rights for muslims they demand more which causes the normal muslims more segregation and hatred and more people are feeling angry towards them. They were not voted in so their pathetic demands should be ignored and thrown in the bin where they belong with all the other crackpot town segregating ideas. If you think racism in any form is acceptable then please feel free to choke on said vomit.[/p][/quote]I enjoyed reading this person’s second post. Outraged English Subject

7:14pm Wed 5 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
...and no, I can't use a phone!
ALP

Callcentre staff get headphones and a microphone. You can use a computer and you CAN use a phone attached to headphones and mike. You dont even have to dial.

SO you CAN use a phone, unless you are profoundly deaf (and there are ways round that too).

SO you CAN work in a callcentre..

I see Provident (or more correctly, Vanquis Bank) have 250 jobs coming up, in their callcentre..

Have you applied? Or is the job/employer not to your liking?
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: ...and no, I can't use a phone![/p][/quote]ALP Callcentre staff get headphones and a microphone. You can use a computer and you CAN use a phone attached to headphones and mike. You dont even have to dial. SO you CAN use a phone, unless you are profoundly deaf (and there are ways round that too). SO you CAN work in a callcentre.. I see Provident (or more correctly, Vanquis Bank) have 250 jobs coming up, in their callcentre.. Have you applied? Or is the job/employer not to your liking? WayneRouke

7:21pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

They require previous experience I'm afraid. And you must be able to pass a credit check and CRB check, plus have references. Plus the fact that I have health problems. So I CAN'T work in a call centre.
They require previous experience I'm afraid. And you must be able to pass a credit check and CRB check, plus have references. Plus the fact that I have health problems. So I CAN'T work in a call centre. Another Landless Peasant

7:34pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Albion. says...

WayneRouke wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote:
...and no, I can't use a phone!
ALP

Callcentre staff get headphones and a microphone. You can use a computer and you CAN use a phone attached to headphones and mike. You dont even have to dial.

SO you CAN use a phone, unless you are profoundly deaf (and there are ways round that too).

SO you CAN work in a callcentre..

I see Provident (or more correctly, Vanquis Bank) have 250 jobs coming up, in their callcentre..

Have you applied? Or is the job/employer not to your liking?
There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them.
[quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: ...and no, I can't use a phone![/p][/quote]ALP Callcentre staff get headphones and a microphone. You can use a computer and you CAN use a phone attached to headphones and mike. You dont even have to dial. SO you CAN use a phone, unless you are profoundly deaf (and there are ways round that too). SO you CAN work in a callcentre.. I see Provident (or more correctly, Vanquis Bank) have 250 jobs coming up, in their callcentre.. Have you applied? Or is the job/employer not to your liking?[/p][/quote]There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them. Albion.

7:39pm Wed 5 Dec 12

RollandSmoke says...

Albion. wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote:
...and no, I can't use a phone!
ALP

Callcentre staff get headphones and a microphone. You can use a computer and you CAN use a phone attached to headphones and mike. You dont even have to dial.

SO you CAN use a phone, unless you are profoundly deaf (and there are ways round that too).

SO you CAN work in a callcentre..

I see Provident (or more correctly, Vanquis Bank) have 250 jobs coming up, in their callcentre..

Have you applied? Or is the job/employer not to your liking?
There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them.
Like explaining that you have an ongoing health problem that will mean you having to take time off at short notice?
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: ...and no, I can't use a phone![/p][/quote]ALP Callcentre staff get headphones and a microphone. You can use a computer and you CAN use a phone attached to headphones and mike. You dont even have to dial. SO you CAN use a phone, unless you are profoundly deaf (and there are ways round that too). SO you CAN work in a callcentre.. I see Provident (or more correctly, Vanquis Bank) have 250 jobs coming up, in their callcentre.. Have you applied? Or is the job/employer not to your liking?[/p][/quote]There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them.[/p][/quote]Like explaining that you have an ongoing health problem that will mean you having to take time off at short notice? RollandSmoke

7:42pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

"There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them."

Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?
"There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them." Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ? Another Landless Peasant

7:42pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Outraged English Subject says...

dellorri wrote:
Good lord, why is it that none of you, including rolly and ALP have pointed out an obvious fact about housing benefit, that I have tried to tell you about before. That it is NOT an out of work benefit, and that approximately 79% of claimants on full housing benefit are in FULL TIME employment on min imum wages, and because their wage is so low, they are entitled to claim this benefit due to LOW income, yet you ALL automatically jump on the "lets bash the scrounger" bandwagon. There are people out there working their guts out, so they don't have the stigma of being on the dole, and to survive they HAVE to claim housing benefit, and then they get this hurled at them, Boy I really hope you think about who you're tarring next time you chuck your accusations about, you see it.s a MEANS TESTED benefit, which even you should understand, it depends how much you have coming in that counts, not whether you're working or not, for goodness sake grow up will you, stop arguing and think about what you're saying for a change.
A lot of people do overlook that point. I’ve just paid my final instalment of council tax, not another payment needed until April 2013, can’t believe that I’ve managed to pay it off three months early, makes you feel proud, however not that proud it becomes a deadly sin. ;-) (that’s how it is, up here in Shelf)
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: Good lord, why is it that none of you, including rolly and ALP have pointed out an obvious fact about housing benefit, that I have tried to tell you about before. That it is NOT an out of work benefit, and that approximately 79% of claimants on full housing benefit are in FULL TIME employment on min imum wages, and because their wage is so low, they are entitled to claim this benefit due to LOW income, yet you ALL automatically jump on the "lets bash the scrounger" bandwagon. There are people out there working their guts out, so they don't have the stigma of being on the dole, and to survive they HAVE to claim housing benefit, and then they get this hurled at them, Boy I really hope you think about who you're tarring next time you chuck your accusations about, you see it.s a MEANS TESTED benefit, which even you should understand, it depends how much you have coming in that counts, not whether you're working or not, for goodness sake grow up will you, stop arguing and think about what you're saying for a change.[/p][/quote]A lot of people do overlook that point. I’ve just paid my final instalment of council tax, not another payment needed until April 2013, can’t believe that I’ve managed to pay it off three months early, makes you feel proud, however not that proud it becomes a deadly sin. ;-) (that’s how it is, up here in Shelf) Outraged English Subject

7:43pm Wed 5 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
They require previous experience I'm afraid. And you must be able to pass a credit check and CRB check, plus have references. Plus the fact that I have health problems. So I CAN'T work in a call centre.
ALP, you did not answer my question. You replied with some possible conditions which may or may not prevent you from getting the job, not whether you have applied or not.

Have you applied? Or is the job or employer not to your liking?

In spite of the barriers, have you tried?
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: They require previous experience I'm afraid. And you must be able to pass a credit check and CRB check, plus have references. Plus the fact that I have health problems. So I CAN'T work in a call centre.[/p][/quote]ALP, you did not answer my question. You replied with some possible conditions which may or may not prevent you from getting the job, not whether you have applied or not. Have you applied? Or is the job or employer not to your liking? In spite of the barriers, have you tried? WayneRouke

7:45pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

"Like explaining that you have an ongoing health problem that will mean you having to take time off at short notice?"

YES.

AND, like explaining that because of health problkems you cannot guarantee to be on time every day. Or that your particular set of health problems would directly interfere with your ability to do the job. Let alone the fact that you do not even meet the application criteria. Or are deemed to be academically over-qualified for the position. Et cetera.
"Like explaining that you have an ongoing health problem that will mean you having to take time off at short notice?" YES. AND, like explaining that because of health problkems you cannot guarantee to be on time every day. Or that your particular set of health problems would directly interfere with your ability to do the job. Let alone the fact that you do not even meet the application criteria. Or are deemed to be academically over-qualified for the position. Et cetera. Another Landless Peasant

7:46pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

@ WayneRouke

What are you, my ferkin Work Coach? Pisss off mate.
@ WayneRouke What are you, my ferkin Work Coach? Pisss off mate. Another Landless Peasant

7:48pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Albion. says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Albion. wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote:
...and no, I can't use a phone!
ALP

Callcentre staff get headphones and a microphone. You can use a computer and you CAN use a phone attached to headphones and mike. You dont even have to dial.

SO you CAN use a phone, unless you are profoundly deaf (and there are ways round that too).

SO you CAN work in a callcentre..

I see Provident (or more correctly, Vanquis Bank) have 250 jobs coming up, in their callcentre..

Have you applied? Or is the job/employer not to your liking?
There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them.
Like explaining that you have an ongoing health problem that will mean you having to take time off at short notice?
Like presenting yourself and your CV in a less than impressive way.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: ...and no, I can't use a phone![/p][/quote]ALP Callcentre staff get headphones and a microphone. You can use a computer and you CAN use a phone attached to headphones and mike. You dont even have to dial. SO you CAN use a phone, unless you are profoundly deaf (and there are ways round that too). SO you CAN work in a callcentre.. I see Provident (or more correctly, Vanquis Bank) have 250 jobs coming up, in their callcentre.. Have you applied? Or is the job/employer not to your liking?[/p][/quote]There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them.[/p][/quote]Like explaining that you have an ongoing health problem that will mean you having to take time off at short notice?[/p][/quote]Like presenting yourself and your CV in a less than impressive way. Albion.

7:53pm Wed 5 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
"There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them."

Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?
I do have to say that, if ALP is telling the truth and applying for jobs then he is worthy of support and help, in spite of his extremist views.

Its not like he is some degenerate who only see the jobcentre on signing on day.

But, as said, there are ways of applying and not getting the job.

If he genuinely wants to work, and not getting past base, then he needs to look at the process and at himself.

A revamp of the CV, a positive attitude (even when completing the application form helps), a well written covering letter, a polite phone call chasing up.

Even after interview or rejection, you can ring the employer and ask for feedback as to why you werent selected.

When I was last out of work, I scoured the jobsites and applied for those I could do. I fired off via email the application forms, gave it ten minutes then rang to see if it had been received. This was my opening gambit. After three days of hearing nothing, I followed up with a phone call to ascertain the reason why I had been rejected.

I did this 8 hours per day, between 9am and 6pm.

And I reacted accordingly to the feedback.. It took me thirteen days.
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: "There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them." Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?[/p][/quote]I do have to say that, if ALP is telling the truth and applying for jobs then he is worthy of support and help, in spite of his extremist views. Its not like he is some degenerate who only see the jobcentre on signing on day. But, as said, there are ways of applying and not getting the job. If he genuinely wants to work, and not getting past base, then he needs to look at the process and at himself. A revamp of the CV, a positive attitude (even when completing the application form helps), a well written covering letter, a polite phone call chasing up. Even after interview or rejection, you can ring the employer and ask for feedback as to why you werent selected. When I was last out of work, I scoured the jobsites and applied for those I could do. I fired off via email the application forms, gave it ten minutes then rang to see if it had been received. This was my opening gambit. After three days of hearing nothing, I followed up with a phone call to ascertain the reason why I had been rejected. I did this 8 hours per day, between 9am and 6pm. And I reacted accordingly to the feedback.. It took me thirteen days. WayneRouke

8:01pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

Albion reckons:

"Like presenting yourself and your CV in a less than impressive way."

Wrong again. CVs are re-written by various Advisers, Work Coaches, etc at every back-to-work scheme under the sun. In many cases they insist on writing it for you. Many of them can't spell, or use Word correctly. I have corrected their mistakes many a time. It makes no difference, if you are the wrong side of 50, have no recent experience, no vocational skills, no references, no driving licence, no CSCS card, perhaps a criminal record, perhaps health problems too, you do not stand a cat in hell's chance. Combine that with the fact that there are AT LEAST 3 million people chasing half a million jobs....
Albion reckons: "Like presenting yourself and your CV in a less than impressive way." Wrong again. CVs are re-written by various Advisers, Work Coaches, etc at every back-to-work scheme under the sun. In many cases they insist on writing it for you. Many of them can't spell, or use Word correctly. I have corrected their mistakes many a time. It makes no difference, if you are the wrong side of 50, have no recent experience, no vocational skills, no references, no driving licence, no CSCS card, perhaps a criminal record, perhaps health problems too, you do not stand a cat in hell's chance. Combine that with the fact that there are AT LEAST 3 million people chasing half a million jobs.... Another Landless Peasant

8:03pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

Meanwhile, back to the story....

There are thousands like me who cannot pay Council Tax, and it will cost the them more money than what it's worth to take everyone to Court. It's unworkable.
Meanwhile, back to the story.... There are thousands like me who cannot pay Council Tax, and it will cost the them more money than what it's worth to take everyone to Court. It's unworkable. Another Landless Peasant

8:04pm Wed 5 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
@ WayneRouke

What are you, my ferkin Work Coach? Pisss off mate.
Actually, I am trying to help you. Because I happen to know how demoralising it is to be able to wallpaper your lounge with the rejection letters.

I took professional advice and acted on it. It worked. If it worked for me, it can work for you.

You clearly are not succeeding with your current approach, so I am simply providing you with the benefit of my experience, in the hope you will possibly act on it and accept it in the manner in which it is delivered (in good faith).

But, if you do not want to benefit from someone who managed to break the circle, then say so and I will quite happily start slagging you off, as many others on here appear to do.

As for health, I am but one step away from being disabled. I suffer from heart, kidney and liver disease. I may soon have to go on dyalisis, for which I will require 2 mornings per week off work minimum. I have regular trips to hospital and the time off is agreed. I cannot always make it to work on time, so I am requested to make the time up when I can, if possible.
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: @ WayneRouke What are you, my ferkin Work Coach? Pisss off mate.[/p][/quote]Actually, I am trying to help you. Because I happen to know how demoralising it is to be able to wallpaper your lounge with the rejection letters. I took professional advice and acted on it. It worked. If it worked for me, it can work for you. You clearly are not succeeding with your current approach, so I am simply providing you with the benefit of my experience, in the hope you will possibly act on it and accept it in the manner in which it is delivered (in good faith). But, if you do not want to benefit from someone who managed to break the circle, then say so and I will quite happily start slagging you off, as many others on here appear to do. As for health, I am but one step away from being disabled. I suffer from heart, kidney and liver disease. I may soon have to go on dyalisis, for which I will require 2 mornings per week off work minimum. I have regular trips to hospital and the time off is agreed. I cannot always make it to work on time, so I am requested to make the time up when I can, if possible. WayneRouke

8:08pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Shelfrhino says...

Brainless peasant,
You say there are more people out of work than there are jobs available, yet it is your beloved Labour party's open door policy of letting any Pavel, Oleg or Ahmed in to the country that has lead to the bone idle wasters like yourself to become a burden on the taxpayer.
If the government we need comes into power, the likes of you will wonder what's hit them.
I don't live in Shelf any more by the way, I moved to Guiseley in September, very nice it is to, and warm, very warm.
Brainless peasant, You say there are more people out of work than there are jobs available, yet it is your beloved Labour party's open door policy of letting any Pavel, Oleg or Ahmed in to the country that has lead to the bone idle wasters like yourself to become a burden on the taxpayer. If the government we need comes into power, the likes of you will wonder what's hit them. I don't live in Shelf any more by the way, I moved to Guiseley in September, very nice it is to, and warm, very warm. Shelfrhino

8:10pm Wed 5 Dec 12

RollandSmoke says...

WayneRouke wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote:
"There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them."

Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?
I do have to say that, if ALP is telling the truth and applying for jobs then he is worthy of support and help, in spite of his extremist views.

Its not like he is some degenerate who only see the jobcentre on signing on day.

But, as said, there are ways of applying and not getting the job.

If he genuinely wants to work, and not getting past base, then he needs to look at the process and at himself.

A revamp of the CV, a positive attitude (even when completing the application form helps), a well written covering letter, a polite phone call chasing up.

Even after interview or rejection, you can ring the employer and ask for feedback as to why you werent selected.

When I was last out of work, I scoured the jobsites and applied for those I could do. I fired off via email the application forms, gave it ten minutes then rang to see if it had been received. This was my opening gambit. After three days of hearing nothing, I followed up with a phone call to ascertain the reason why I had been rejected.

I did this 8 hours per day, between 9am and 6pm.

And I reacted accordingly to the feedback.. It took me thirteen days.
I'm sure that your ability to articulate well impressed the prospective employer as would your relevant skill set and recent employment status. It can be hard to remain positive after sustained rejection. What would you suggest someone who hasn't worked since leaving school with little if any qualifications put on their CV?
[quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: "There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them." Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?[/p][/quote]I do have to say that, if ALP is telling the truth and applying for jobs then he is worthy of support and help, in spite of his extremist views. Its not like he is some degenerate who only see the jobcentre on signing on day. But, as said, there are ways of applying and not getting the job. If he genuinely wants to work, and not getting past base, then he needs to look at the process and at himself. A revamp of the CV, a positive attitude (even when completing the application form helps), a well written covering letter, a polite phone call chasing up. Even after interview or rejection, you can ring the employer and ask for feedback as to why you werent selected. When I was last out of work, I scoured the jobsites and applied for those I could do. I fired off via email the application forms, gave it ten minutes then rang to see if it had been received. This was my opening gambit. After three days of hearing nothing, I followed up with a phone call to ascertain the reason why I had been rejected. I did this 8 hours per day, between 9am and 6pm. And I reacted accordingly to the feedback.. It took me thirteen days.[/p][/quote]I'm sure that your ability to articulate well impressed the prospective employer as would your relevant skill set and recent employment status. It can be hard to remain positive after sustained rejection. What would you suggest someone who hasn't worked since leaving school with little if any qualifications put on their CV? RollandSmoke

8:18pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Albion. says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
Albion reckons:

"Like presenting yourself and your CV in a less than impressive way."

Wrong again. CVs are re-written by various Advisers, Work Coaches, etc at every back-to-work scheme under the sun. In many cases they insist on writing it for you. Many of them can't spell, or use Word correctly. I have corrected their mistakes many a time. It makes no difference, if you are the wrong side of 50, have no recent experience, no vocational skills, no references, no driving licence, no CSCS card, perhaps a criminal record, perhaps health problems too, you do not stand a cat in hell's chance. Combine that with the fact that there are AT LEAST 3 million people chasing half a million jobs....
Exactly! A poorly presented CV!
Irrespective of whose fault it is.
When I employed people, there would be characters who turned up who were scruffy, conversationally unforthcoming and evasive. It was obvious that they were just going through the motions.
All this talk from you about "oh I wouldn't get out of bed for that money" and so on, there is never any mention of pride or self respect, someone going to work, even if it's only for a few pounds more than their benefits, can be proud of themselves.
The real trouble with you is that you haven't the bottle, when the going gets tough you fold up mentally. All this bragging about avoiding work and how people should follow your example, is all a front! You know it, I know it and you know that I know it.
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: Albion reckons: "Like presenting yourself and your CV in a less than impressive way." Wrong again. CVs are re-written by various Advisers, Work Coaches, etc at every back-to-work scheme under the sun. In many cases they insist on writing it for you. Many of them can't spell, or use Word correctly. I have corrected their mistakes many a time. It makes no difference, if you are the wrong side of 50, have no recent experience, no vocational skills, no references, no driving licence, no CSCS card, perhaps a criminal record, perhaps health problems too, you do not stand a cat in hell's chance. Combine that with the fact that there are AT LEAST 3 million people chasing half a million jobs....[/p][/quote]Exactly! A poorly presented CV! Irrespective of whose fault it is. When I employed people, there would be characters who turned up who were scruffy, conversationally unforthcoming and evasive. It was obvious that they were just going through the motions. All this talk from you about "oh I wouldn't get out of bed for that money" and so on, there is never any mention of pride or self respect, someone going to work, even if it's only for a few pounds more than their benefits, can be proud of themselves. The real trouble with you is that you haven't the bottle, when the going gets tough you fold up mentally. All this bragging about avoiding work and how people should follow your example, is all a front! You know it, I know it and you know that I know it. Albion.

8:27pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Outraged English Subject says...

Albion. wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote:
Albion reckons:

"Like presenting yourself and your CV in a less than impressive way."

Wrong again. CVs are re-written by various Advisers, Work Coaches, etc at every back-to-work scheme under the sun. In many cases they insist on writing it for you. Many of them can't spell, or use Word correctly. I have corrected their mistakes many a time. It makes no difference, if you are the wrong side of 50, have no recent experience, no vocational skills, no references, no driving licence, no CSCS card, perhaps a criminal record, perhaps health problems too, you do not stand a cat in hell's chance. Combine that with the fact that there are AT LEAST 3 million people chasing half a million jobs....
Exactly! A poorly presented CV!
Irrespective of whose fault it is.
When I employed people, there would be characters who turned up who were scruffy, conversationally unforthcoming and evasive. It was obvious that they were just going through the motions.
All this talk from you about "oh I wouldn't get out of bed for that money" and so on, there is never any mention of pride or self respect, someone going to work, even if it's only for a few pounds more than their benefits, can be proud of themselves.
The real trouble with you is that you haven't the bottle, when the going gets tough you fold up mentally. All this bragging about avoiding work and how people should follow your example, is all a front! You know it, I know it and you know that I know it.
I have to agree, however he’ll never admit it.
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: Albion reckons: "Like presenting yourself and your CV in a less than impressive way." Wrong again. CVs are re-written by various Advisers, Work Coaches, etc at every back-to-work scheme under the sun. In many cases they insist on writing it for you. Many of them can't spell, or use Word correctly. I have corrected their mistakes many a time. It makes no difference, if you are the wrong side of 50, have no recent experience, no vocational skills, no references, no driving licence, no CSCS card, perhaps a criminal record, perhaps health problems too, you do not stand a cat in hell's chance. Combine that with the fact that there are AT LEAST 3 million people chasing half a million jobs....[/p][/quote]Exactly! A poorly presented CV! Irrespective of whose fault it is. When I employed people, there would be characters who turned up who were scruffy, conversationally unforthcoming and evasive. It was obvious that they were just going through the motions. All this talk from you about "oh I wouldn't get out of bed for that money" and so on, there is never any mention of pride or self respect, someone going to work, even if it's only for a few pounds more than their benefits, can be proud of themselves. The real trouble with you is that you haven't the bottle, when the going gets tough you fold up mentally. All this bragging about avoiding work and how people should follow your example, is all a front! You know it, I know it and you know that I know it.[/p][/quote]I have to agree, however he’ll never admit it. Outraged English Subject

8:48pm Wed 5 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote:
"There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them."

Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?
I do have to say that, if ALP is telling the truth and applying for jobs then he is worthy of support and help, in spite of his extremist views.

Its not like he is some degenerate who only see the jobcentre on signing on day.

But, as said, there are ways of applying and not getting the job.

If he genuinely wants to work, and not getting past base, then he needs to look at the process and at himself.

A revamp of the CV, a positive attitude (even when completing the application form helps), a well written covering letter, a polite phone call chasing up.

Even after interview or rejection, you can ring the employer and ask for feedback as to why you werent selected.

When I was last out of work, I scoured the jobsites and applied for those I could do. I fired off via email the application forms, gave it ten minutes then rang to see if it had been received. This was my opening gambit. After three days of hearing nothing, I followed up with a phone call to ascertain the reason why I had been rejected.

I did this 8 hours per day, between 9am and 6pm.

And I reacted accordingly to the feedback.. It took me thirteen days.
I'm sure that your ability to articulate well impressed the prospective employer as would your relevant skill set and recent employment status. It can be hard to remain positive after sustained rejection. What would you suggest someone who hasn't worked since leaving school with little if any qualifications put on their CV?
RollandSmoke

I would firstly look at the job market very carefully and decide what I wanted to do, which would be the up and coming jobs or those which have little chance of disappearing (such as an undertaker, there arent many of them out of work).

Personally, I would try a college course and try to obtain some work related qualifications and some skills. Possibly a degree course at night school. Certainly something to put on my CV. I would improve my written and spoken word.

I would polish up my interview technique, buy a second hand suit and continue studying and learning.

I would polish up my appearance. Believe it or not, but the decision to hire a person or not happens in the first 30 seconds of interview. Appearance matters. Wear a suit, and a tie. Give a good confident handshake. DONT drink alcohol the night before and definitely no weed. If you smoke, carry some polos to mask your breath smell (and use them).

Prepare some questions to ask, and ask them.

I have thousands of little tips such as this, and I come from both sides of the interviewer/intervie
wee fence. Trust me when I say the interviewer is just as nervous as you, as their status may be affected by employing the right or wrong person.

Dont "overanswer" questions. Be confident. Do your homework and research the company (it pays tenfold if you can quote their last years profit and loss for example).

accept a drink if you want one. Be positive

I would then apply to work on placement for say a month at a time in return for out of pocket expenses only.

During this time, I would keep my head down and nose to the grindstone, and I would gain as much experience as possible (which would then go on the CV). After the placement, I would approach my manager and ask for full employment. If refused, I would ask why and act accordingly.

Basically, I would work for next to nothing until such a time as I was proficient and there was sufficient experience on my CV to command at least an interview.

Ignore the job centre coaches, go to one of the employment agencies and ask for help there. They might be salesmen and sharks, but they do know the market and its trends. Listen to what they say and act on it.

And (heres the one that keeps me going).. If you get refused, simply regard it as their loss, forget it and move on.. (Difficult to do, but not impossible, and it does help you stay positive).

However, having said all that, if I had my time again, I would train to be a plumber and go self employed.

Hope that helps.

WR
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: "There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them." Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?[/p][/quote]I do have to say that, if ALP is telling the truth and applying for jobs then he is worthy of support and help, in spite of his extremist views. Its not like he is some degenerate who only see the jobcentre on signing on day. But, as said, there are ways of applying and not getting the job. If he genuinely wants to work, and not getting past base, then he needs to look at the process and at himself. A revamp of the CV, a positive attitude (even when completing the application form helps), a well written covering letter, a polite phone call chasing up. Even after interview or rejection, you can ring the employer and ask for feedback as to why you werent selected. When I was last out of work, I scoured the jobsites and applied for those I could do. I fired off via email the application forms, gave it ten minutes then rang to see if it had been received. This was my opening gambit. After three days of hearing nothing, I followed up with a phone call to ascertain the reason why I had been rejected. I did this 8 hours per day, between 9am and 6pm. And I reacted accordingly to the feedback.. It took me thirteen days.[/p][/quote]I'm sure that your ability to articulate well impressed the prospective employer as would your relevant skill set and recent employment status. It can be hard to remain positive after sustained rejection. What would you suggest someone who hasn't worked since leaving school with little if any qualifications put on their CV?[/p][/quote]RollandSmoke I would firstly look at the job market very carefully and decide what I wanted to do, which would be the up and coming jobs or those which have little chance of disappearing (such as an undertaker, there arent many of them out of work). Personally, I would try a college course and try to obtain some work related qualifications and some skills. Possibly a degree course at night school. Certainly something to put on my CV. I would improve my written and spoken word. I would polish up my interview technique, buy a second hand suit and continue studying and learning. I would polish up my appearance. Believe it or not, but the decision to hire a person or not happens in the first 30 seconds of interview. Appearance matters. Wear a suit, and a tie. Give a good confident handshake. DONT drink alcohol the night before and definitely no weed. If you smoke, carry some polos to mask your breath smell (and use them). Prepare some questions to ask, and ask them. I have thousands of little tips such as this, and I come from both sides of the interviewer/intervie wee fence. Trust me when I say the interviewer is just as nervous as you, as their status may be affected by employing the right or wrong person. Dont "overanswer" questions. Be confident. Do your homework and research the company (it pays tenfold if you can quote their last years profit and loss for example). accept a drink if you want one. Be positive I would then apply to work on placement for say a month at a time in return for out of pocket expenses only. During this time, I would keep my head down and nose to the grindstone, and I would gain as much experience as possible (which would then go on the CV). After the placement, I would approach my manager and ask for full employment. If refused, I would ask why and act accordingly. Basically, I would work for next to nothing until such a time as I was proficient and there was sufficient experience on my CV to command at least an interview. Ignore the job centre coaches, go to one of the employment agencies and ask for help there. They might be salesmen and sharks, but they do know the market and its trends. Listen to what they say and act on it. And (heres the one that keeps me going).. If you get refused, simply regard it as their loss, forget it and move on.. (Difficult to do, but not impossible, and it does help you stay positive). However, having said all that, if I had my time again, I would train to be a plumber and go self employed. Hope that helps. WR WayneRouke

9:17pm Wed 5 Dec 12

RollandSmoke says...

WayneRouke wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote:
"There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them."

Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?
I do have to say that, if ALP is telling the truth and applying for jobs then he is worthy of support and help, in spite of his extremist views.

Its not like he is some degenerate who only see the jobcentre on signing on day.

But, as said, there are ways of applying and not getting the job.

If he genuinely wants to work, and not getting past base, then he needs to look at the process and at himself.

A revamp of the CV, a positive attitude (even when completing the application form helps), a well written covering letter, a polite phone call chasing up.

Even after interview or rejection, you can ring the employer and ask for feedback as to why you werent selected.

When I was last out of work, I scoured the jobsites and applied for those I could do. I fired off via email the application forms, gave it ten minutes then rang to see if it had been received. This was my opening gambit. After three days of hearing nothing, I followed up with a phone call to ascertain the reason why I had been rejected.

I did this 8 hours per day, between 9am and 6pm.

And I reacted accordingly to the feedback.. It took me thirteen days.
I'm sure that your ability to articulate well impressed the prospective employer as would your relevant skill set and recent employment status. It can be hard to remain positive after sustained rejection. What would you suggest someone who hasn't worked since leaving school with little if any qualifications put on their CV?
RollandSmoke

I would firstly look at the job market very carefully and decide what I wanted to do, which would be the up and coming jobs or those which have little chance of disappearing (such as an undertaker, there arent many of them out of work).

Personally, I would try a college course and try to obtain some work related qualifications and some skills. Possibly a degree course at night school. Certainly something to put on my CV. I would improve my written and spoken word.

I would polish up my interview technique, buy a second hand suit and continue studying and learning.

I would polish up my appearance. Believe it or not, but the decision to hire a person or not happens in the first 30 seconds of interview. Appearance matters. Wear a suit, and a tie. Give a good confident handshake. DONT drink alcohol the night before and definitely no weed. If you smoke, carry some polos to mask your breath smell (and use them).

Prepare some questions to ask, and ask them.

I have thousands of little tips such as this, and I come from both sides of the interviewer/intervie

wee fence. Trust me when I say the interviewer is just as nervous as you, as their status may be affected by employing the right or wrong person.

Dont "overanswer" questions. Be confident. Do your homework and research the company (it pays tenfold if you can quote their last years profit and loss for example).

accept a drink if you want one. Be positive

I would then apply to work on placement for say a month at a time in return for out of pocket expenses only.

During this time, I would keep my head down and nose to the grindstone, and I would gain as much experience as possible (which would then go on the CV). After the placement, I would approach my manager and ask for full employment. If refused, I would ask why and act accordingly.

Basically, I would work for next to nothing until such a time as I was proficient and there was sufficient experience on my CV to command at least an interview.

Ignore the job centre coaches, go to one of the employment agencies and ask for help there. They might be salesmen and sharks, but they do know the market and its trends. Listen to what they say and act on it.

And (heres the one that keeps me going).. If you get refused, simply regard it as their loss, forget it and move on.. (Difficult to do, but not impossible, and it does help you stay positive).

However, having said all that, if I had my time again, I would train to be a plumber and go self employed.

Hope that helps.

WR
All good advice Wayne but as an interviewer are there character types that for what ever reason you wouldn't touch with a barge pole? If you have that opinion of them would other employers share your viewpoint? You can put on a front for an interview but if that's all it is you arn't going to last long. The academic under achievers would traditionally have done jobs in factories or other labour intensive industries that are now a distant memory. The lower their academic achievement the less likely they are to expand on it. If they have a cannabis conviction does that count against them?
My daughter is training to be a plumber.
[quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: "There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them." Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?[/p][/quote]I do have to say that, if ALP is telling the truth and applying for jobs then he is worthy of support and help, in spite of his extremist views. Its not like he is some degenerate who only see the jobcentre on signing on day. But, as said, there are ways of applying and not getting the job. If he genuinely wants to work, and not getting past base, then he needs to look at the process and at himself. A revamp of the CV, a positive attitude (even when completing the application form helps), a well written covering letter, a polite phone call chasing up. Even after interview or rejection, you can ring the employer and ask for feedback as to why you werent selected. When I was last out of work, I scoured the jobsites and applied for those I could do. I fired off via email the application forms, gave it ten minutes then rang to see if it had been received. This was my opening gambit. After three days of hearing nothing, I followed up with a phone call to ascertain the reason why I had been rejected. I did this 8 hours per day, between 9am and 6pm. And I reacted accordingly to the feedback.. It took me thirteen days.[/p][/quote]I'm sure that your ability to articulate well impressed the prospective employer as would your relevant skill set and recent employment status. It can be hard to remain positive after sustained rejection. What would you suggest someone who hasn't worked since leaving school with little if any qualifications put on their CV?[/p][/quote]RollandSmoke I would firstly look at the job market very carefully and decide what I wanted to do, which would be the up and coming jobs or those which have little chance of disappearing (such as an undertaker, there arent many of them out of work). Personally, I would try a college course and try to obtain some work related qualifications and some skills. Possibly a degree course at night school. Certainly something to put on my CV. I would improve my written and spoken word. I would polish up my interview technique, buy a second hand suit and continue studying and learning. I would polish up my appearance. Believe it or not, but the decision to hire a person or not happens in the first 30 seconds of interview. Appearance matters. Wear a suit, and a tie. Give a good confident handshake. DONT drink alcohol the night before and definitely no weed. If you smoke, carry some polos to mask your breath smell (and use them). Prepare some questions to ask, and ask them. I have thousands of little tips such as this, and I come from both sides of the interviewer/intervie wee fence. Trust me when I say the interviewer is just as nervous as you, as their status may be affected by employing the right or wrong person. Dont "overanswer" questions. Be confident. Do your homework and research the company (it pays tenfold if you can quote their last years profit and loss for example). accept a drink if you want one. Be positive I would then apply to work on placement for say a month at a time in return for out of pocket expenses only. During this time, I would keep my head down and nose to the grindstone, and I would gain as much experience as possible (which would then go on the CV). After the placement, I would approach my manager and ask for full employment. If refused, I would ask why and act accordingly. Basically, I would work for next to nothing until such a time as I was proficient and there was sufficient experience on my CV to command at least an interview. Ignore the job centre coaches, go to one of the employment agencies and ask for help there. They might be salesmen and sharks, but they do know the market and its trends. Listen to what they say and act on it. And (heres the one that keeps me going).. If you get refused, simply regard it as their loss, forget it and move on.. (Difficult to do, but not impossible, and it does help you stay positive). However, having said all that, if I had my time again, I would train to be a plumber and go self employed. Hope that helps. WR[/p][/quote]All good advice Wayne but as an interviewer are there character types that for what ever reason you wouldn't touch with a barge pole? If you have that opinion of them would other employers share your viewpoint? You can put on a front for an interview but if that's all it is you arn't going to last long. The academic under achievers would traditionally have done jobs in factories or other labour intensive industries that are now a distant memory. The lower their academic achievement the less likely they are to expand on it. If they have a cannabis conviction does that count against them? My daughter is training to be a plumber. RollandSmoke

9:19pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Shelfrhino says...

What chance does Bradford have of being taken seriously when the leader looks like a complete Burk with his earrings in.
Typical left wing plank.
What chance does Bradford have of being taken seriously when the leader looks like a complete Burk with his earrings in. Typical left wing plank. Shelfrhino

9:39pm Wed 5 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote:
"There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them."

Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?
I do have to say that, if ALP is telling the truth and applying for jobs then he is worthy of support and help, in spite of his extremist views.

Its not like he is some degenerate who only see the jobcentre on signing on day.

But, as said, there are ways of applying and not getting the job.

If he genuinely wants to work, and not getting past base, then he needs to look at the process and at himself.

A revamp of the CV, a positive attitude (even when completing the application form helps), a well written covering letter, a polite phone call chasing up.

Even after interview or rejection, you can ring the employer and ask for feedback as to why you werent selected.

When I was last out of work, I scoured the jobsites and applied for those I could do. I fired off via email the application forms, gave it ten minutes then rang to see if it had been received. This was my opening gambit. After three days of hearing nothing, I followed up with a phone call to ascertain the reason why I had been rejected.

I did this 8 hours per day, between 9am and 6pm.

And I reacted accordingly to the feedback.. It took me thirteen days.
I'm sure that your ability to articulate well impressed the prospective employer as would your relevant skill set and recent employment status. It can be hard to remain positive after sustained rejection. What would you suggest someone who hasn't worked since leaving school with little if any qualifications put on their CV?
RollandSmoke

I would firstly look at the job market very carefully and decide what I wanted to do, which would be the up and coming jobs or those which have little chance of disappearing (such as an undertaker, there arent many of them out of work).

Personally, I would try a college course and try to obtain some work related qualifications and some skills. Possibly a degree course at night school. Certainly something to put on my CV. I would improve my written and spoken word.

I would polish up my interview technique, buy a second hand suit and continue studying and learning.

I would polish up my appearance. Believe it or not, but the decision to hire a person or not happens in the first 30 seconds of interview. Appearance matters. Wear a suit, and a tie. Give a good confident handshake. DONT drink alcohol the night before and definitely no weed. If you smoke, carry some polos to mask your breath smell (and use them).

Prepare some questions to ask, and ask them.

I have thousands of little tips such as this, and I come from both sides of the interviewer/intervie


wee fence. Trust me when I say the interviewer is just as nervous as you, as their status may be affected by employing the right or wrong person.

Dont "overanswer" questions. Be confident. Do your homework and research the company (it pays tenfold if you can quote their last years profit and loss for example).

accept a drink if you want one. Be positive

I would then apply to work on placement for say a month at a time in return for out of pocket expenses only.

During this time, I would keep my head down and nose to the grindstone, and I would gain as much experience as possible (which would then go on the CV). After the placement, I would approach my manager and ask for full employment. If refused, I would ask why and act accordingly.

Basically, I would work for next to nothing until such a time as I was proficient and there was sufficient experience on my CV to command at least an interview.

Ignore the job centre coaches, go to one of the employment agencies and ask for help there. They might be salesmen and sharks, but they do know the market and its trends. Listen to what they say and act on it.

And (heres the one that keeps me going).. If you get refused, simply regard it as their loss, forget it and move on.. (Difficult to do, but not impossible, and it does help you stay positive).

However, having said all that, if I had my time again, I would train to be a plumber and go self employed.

Hope that helps.

WR
All good advice Wayne but as an interviewer are there character types that for what ever reason you wouldn't touch with a barge pole? If you have that opinion of them would other employers share your viewpoint? You can put on a front for an interview but if that's all it is you arn't going to last long. The academic under achievers would traditionally have done jobs in factories or other labour intensive industries that are now a distant memory. The lower their academic achievement the less likely they are to expand on it. If they have a cannabis conviction does that count against them?
My daughter is training to be a plumber.
There are certain character types I MAY not employ, but I rely on my instincts more than anything. If someone goes to the trouble of being clean and smart, that goes well with me. If a person turns up in a torn T shirt, jeans, dirty trainers and a safety pin through their nose, they wont even get through the door.

Funnily enough, I look at the fingernails, and how well they are kept and how clean they are.

Pre interview, the application form must be completed (and devoid of text speak), the same with the CV. A personal preference I know, but I hate bad spelling and grammar (although I am no expert, I have a basic grasp), and nowadays spelling mistakes are needless and help is available for grammar. A covering letter supporting the CV helps.

I am solely interested in a persons ability to do the job, not their personal feelings on race, religion, gender sexuality, political persuasion or anything else. If they are rude or offensive, they will be asked to leave (politely),

They must be amiable and 'fit in'. They must be prepared to 'bend' a little to meet the demands of the job. They should be flexible in their outlook.

I would, of course, have another member of staff present, to support each other and get a balanced view.

A 'front' will last for as long as you wish to remain in employment.. I have been doing it for 40 years.

As for underachievers. I disagree, people find their level and should accept it and go with it, BUT should always have an eye to bettering themselves. OK, not everyone can be a rocket scientists or Nuclear physicist, but most can do a little study in their spare time (we all got the hang of windows even those over 65, so we all have the capacity to learn).

As for convictions, it would depend upon one factor only, if the conviction is spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act, then it is illegal to ask about it.

If the job itself was outside the act, then the conviction must be declared. However, for me, a conviction for weed alone would not necessary count against them, UNLESS it impaired their ability to do the job (eg Driver), and the extent of the habit (if still a habit).

Anything more serious than cannabis would probably end in a refusal. Dealing would always get a refusal. I have to admit that I despise illegal substances, but I do believe cannabis is in a grey area, and am prepared to take all circumstances into account.

Being under the influence of weed at interview would definitely go against you,
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: "There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them." Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?[/p][/quote]I do have to say that, if ALP is telling the truth and applying for jobs then he is worthy of support and help, in spite of his extremist views. Its not like he is some degenerate who only see the jobcentre on signing on day. But, as said, there are ways of applying and not getting the job. If he genuinely wants to work, and not getting past base, then he needs to look at the process and at himself. A revamp of the CV, a positive attitude (even when completing the application form helps), a well written covering letter, a polite phone call chasing up. Even after interview or rejection, you can ring the employer and ask for feedback as to why you werent selected. When I was last out of work, I scoured the jobsites and applied for those I could do. I fired off via email the application forms, gave it ten minutes then rang to see if it had been received. This was my opening gambit. After three days of hearing nothing, I followed up with a phone call to ascertain the reason why I had been rejected. I did this 8 hours per day, between 9am and 6pm. And I reacted accordingly to the feedback.. It took me thirteen days.[/p][/quote]I'm sure that your ability to articulate well impressed the prospective employer as would your relevant skill set and recent employment status. It can be hard to remain positive after sustained rejection. What would you suggest someone who hasn't worked since leaving school with little if any qualifications put on their CV?[/p][/quote]RollandSmoke I would firstly look at the job market very carefully and decide what I wanted to do, which would be the up and coming jobs or those which have little chance of disappearing (such as an undertaker, there arent many of them out of work). Personally, I would try a college course and try to obtain some work related qualifications and some skills. Possibly a degree course at night school. Certainly something to put on my CV. I would improve my written and spoken word. I would polish up my interview technique, buy a second hand suit and continue studying and learning. I would polish up my appearance. Believe it or not, but the decision to hire a person or not happens in the first 30 seconds of interview. Appearance matters. Wear a suit, and a tie. Give a good confident handshake. DONT drink alcohol the night before and definitely no weed. If you smoke, carry some polos to mask your breath smell (and use them). Prepare some questions to ask, and ask them. I have thousands of little tips such as this, and I come from both sides of the interviewer/intervie wee fence. Trust me when I say the interviewer is just as nervous as you, as their status may be affected by employing the right or wrong person. Dont "overanswer" questions. Be confident. Do your homework and research the company (it pays tenfold if you can quote their last years profit and loss for example). accept a drink if you want one. Be positive I would then apply to work on placement for say a month at a time in return for out of pocket expenses only. During this time, I would keep my head down and nose to the grindstone, and I would gain as much experience as possible (which would then go on the CV). After the placement, I would approach my manager and ask for full employment. If refused, I would ask why and act accordingly. Basically, I would work for next to nothing until such a time as I was proficient and there was sufficient experience on my CV to command at least an interview. Ignore the job centre coaches, go to one of the employment agencies and ask for help there. They might be salesmen and sharks, but they do know the market and its trends. Listen to what they say and act on it. And (heres the one that keeps me going).. If you get refused, simply regard it as their loss, forget it and move on.. (Difficult to do, but not impossible, and it does help you stay positive). However, having said all that, if I had my time again, I would train to be a plumber and go self employed. Hope that helps. WR[/p][/quote]All good advice Wayne but as an interviewer are there character types that for what ever reason you wouldn't touch with a barge pole? If you have that opinion of them would other employers share your viewpoint? You can put on a front for an interview but if that's all it is you arn't going to last long. The academic under achievers would traditionally have done jobs in factories or other labour intensive industries that are now a distant memory. The lower their academic achievement the less likely they are to expand on it. If they have a cannabis conviction does that count against them? My daughter is training to be a plumber.[/p][/quote]There are certain character types I MAY not employ, but I rely on my instincts more than anything. If someone goes to the trouble of being clean and smart, that goes well with me. If a person turns up in a torn T shirt, jeans, dirty trainers and a safety pin through their nose, they wont even get through the door. Funnily enough, I look at the fingernails, and how well they are kept and how clean they are. Pre interview, the application form must be completed (and devoid of text speak), the same with the CV. A personal preference I know, but I hate bad spelling and grammar (although I am no expert, I have a basic grasp), and nowadays spelling mistakes are needless and help is available for grammar. A covering letter supporting the CV helps. I am solely interested in a persons ability to do the job, not their personal feelings on race, religion, gender sexuality, political persuasion or anything else. If they are rude or offensive, they will be asked to leave (politely), They must be amiable and 'fit in'. They must be prepared to 'bend' a little to meet the demands of the job. They should be flexible in their outlook. I would, of course, have another member of staff present, to support each other and get a balanced view. A 'front' will last for as long as you wish to remain in employment.. I have been doing it for 40 years. As for underachievers. I disagree, people find their level and should accept it and go with it, BUT should always have an eye to bettering themselves. OK, not everyone can be a rocket scientists or Nuclear physicist, but most can do a little study in their spare time (we all got the hang of windows even those over 65, so we all have the capacity to learn). As for convictions, it would depend upon one factor only, if the conviction is spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act, then it is illegal to ask about it. If the job itself was outside the act, then the conviction must be declared. However, for me, a conviction for weed alone would not necessary count against them, UNLESS it impaired their ability to do the job (eg Driver), and the extent of the habit (if still a habit). Anything more serious than cannabis would probably end in a refusal. Dealing would always get a refusal. I have to admit that I despise illegal substances, but I do believe cannabis is in a grey area, and am prepared to take all circumstances into account. Being under the influence of weed at interview would definitely go against you, WayneRouke

9:40pm Wed 5 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

WayneRouke wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote:
"There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them."

Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?
I do have to say that, if ALP is telling the truth and applying for jobs then he is worthy of support and help, in spite of his extremist views.

Its not like he is some degenerate who only see the jobcentre on signing on day.

But, as said, there are ways of applying and not getting the job.

If he genuinely wants to work, and not getting past base, then he needs to look at the process and at himself.

A revamp of the CV, a positive attitude (even when completing the application form helps), a well written covering letter, a polite phone call chasing up.

Even after interview or rejection, you can ring the employer and ask for feedback as to why you werent selected.

When I was last out of work, I scoured the jobsites and applied for those I could do. I fired off via email the application forms, gave it ten minutes then rang to see if it had been received. This was my opening gambit. After three days of hearing nothing, I followed up with a phone call to ascertain the reason why I had been rejected.

I did this 8 hours per day, between 9am and 6pm.

And I reacted accordingly to the feedback.. It took me thirteen days.
I'm sure that your ability to articulate well impressed the prospective employer as would your relevant skill set and recent employment status. It can be hard to remain positive after sustained rejection. What would you suggest someone who hasn't worked since leaving school with little if any qualifications put on their CV?
RollandSmoke

I would firstly look at the job market very carefully and decide what I wanted to do, which would be the up and coming jobs or those which have little chance of disappearing (such as an undertaker, there arent many of them out of work).

Personally, I would try a college course and try to obtain some work related qualifications and some skills. Possibly a degree course at night school. Certainly something to put on my CV. I would improve my written and spoken word.

I would polish up my interview technique, buy a second hand suit and continue studying and learning.

I would polish up my appearance. Believe it or not, but the decision to hire a person or not happens in the first 30 seconds of interview. Appearance matters. Wear a suit, and a tie. Give a good confident handshake. DONT drink alcohol the night before and definitely no weed. If you smoke, carry some polos to mask your breath smell (and use them).

Prepare some questions to ask, and ask them.

I have thousands of little tips such as this, and I come from both sides of the interviewer/intervie



wee fence. Trust me when I say the interviewer is just as nervous as you, as their status may be affected by employing the right or wrong person.

Dont "overanswer" questions. Be confident. Do your homework and research the company (it pays tenfold if you can quote their last years profit and loss for example).

accept a drink if you want one. Be positive

I would then apply to work on placement for say a month at a time in return for out of pocket expenses only.

During this time, I would keep my head down and nose to the grindstone, and I would gain as much experience as possible (which would then go on the CV). After the placement, I would approach my manager and ask for full employment. If refused, I would ask why and act accordingly.

Basically, I would work for next to nothing until such a time as I was proficient and there was sufficient experience on my CV to command at least an interview.

Ignore the job centre coaches, go to one of the employment agencies and ask for help there. They might be salesmen and sharks, but they do know the market and its trends. Listen to what they say and act on it.

And (heres the one that keeps me going).. If you get refused, simply regard it as their loss, forget it and move on.. (Difficult to do, but not impossible, and it does help you stay positive).

However, having said all that, if I had my time again, I would train to be a plumber and go self employed.

Hope that helps.

WR
All good advice Wayne but as an interviewer are there character types that for what ever reason you wouldn't touch with a barge pole? If you have that opinion of them would other employers share your viewpoint? You can put on a front for an interview but if that's all it is you arn't going to last long. The academic under achievers would traditionally have done jobs in factories or other labour intensive industries that are now a distant memory. The lower their academic achievement the less likely they are to expand on it. If they have a cannabis conviction does that count against them?
My daughter is training to be a plumber.
There are certain character types I MAY not employ, but I rely on my instincts more than anything. If someone goes to the trouble of being clean and smart, that goes well with me. If a person turns up in a torn T shirt, jeans, dirty trainers and a safety pin through their nose, they wont even get through the door.

Funnily enough, I look at the fingernails, and how well they are kept and how clean they are.

Pre interview, the application form must be completed (and devoid of text speak), the same with the CV. A personal preference I know, but I hate bad spelling and grammar (although I am no expert, I have a basic grasp), and nowadays spelling mistakes are needless and help is available for grammar. A covering letter supporting the CV helps.

I am solely interested in a persons ability to do the job, not their personal feelings on race, religion, gender sexuality, political persuasion or anything else. If they are rude or offensive, they will be asked to leave (politely),

They must be amiable and 'fit in'. They must be prepared to 'bend' a little to meet the demands of the job. They should be flexible in their outlook.

I would, of course, have another member of staff present, to support each other and get a balanced view.

A 'front' will last for as long as you wish to remain in employment.. I have been doing it for 40 years.

As for underachievers. I disagree, people find their level and should accept it and go with it, BUT should always have an eye to bettering themselves. OK, not everyone can be a rocket scientists or Nuclear physicist, but most can do a little study in their spare time (we all got the hang of windows even those over 65, so we all have the capacity to learn).

As for convictions, it would depend upon one factor only, if the conviction is spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act, then it is illegal to ask about it.

If the job itself was outside the act, then the conviction must be declared. However, for me, a conviction for weed alone would not necessary count against them, UNLESS it impaired their ability to do the job (eg Driver), and the extent of the habit (if still a habit).

Anything more serious than cannabis would probably end in a refusal. Dealing would always get a refusal. I have to admit that I despise illegal substances, but I do believe cannabis is in a grey area, and am prepared to take all circumstances into account.

Being under the influence of weed at interview would definitely go against you,
By the way, Lollerpedia.com is back...

IS ALP Erik?
[quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: "There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them." Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?[/p][/quote]I do have to say that, if ALP is telling the truth and applying for jobs then he is worthy of support and help, in spite of his extremist views. Its not like he is some degenerate who only see the jobcentre on signing on day. But, as said, there are ways of applying and not getting the job. If he genuinely wants to work, and not getting past base, then he needs to look at the process and at himself. A revamp of the CV, a positive attitude (even when completing the application form helps), a well written covering letter, a polite phone call chasing up. Even after interview or rejection, you can ring the employer and ask for feedback as to why you werent selected. When I was last out of work, I scoured the jobsites and applied for those I could do. I fired off via email the application forms, gave it ten minutes then rang to see if it had been received. This was my opening gambit. After three days of hearing nothing, I followed up with a phone call to ascertain the reason why I had been rejected. I did this 8 hours per day, between 9am and 6pm. And I reacted accordingly to the feedback.. It took me thirteen days.[/p][/quote]I'm sure that your ability to articulate well impressed the prospective employer as would your relevant skill set and recent employment status. It can be hard to remain positive after sustained rejection. What would you suggest someone who hasn't worked since leaving school with little if any qualifications put on their CV?[/p][/quote]RollandSmoke I would firstly look at the job market very carefully and decide what I wanted to do, which would be the up and coming jobs or those which have little chance of disappearing (such as an undertaker, there arent many of them out of work). Personally, I would try a college course and try to obtain some work related qualifications and some skills. Possibly a degree course at night school. Certainly something to put on my CV. I would improve my written and spoken word. I would polish up my interview technique, buy a second hand suit and continue studying and learning. I would polish up my appearance. Believe it or not, but the decision to hire a person or not happens in the first 30 seconds of interview. Appearance matters. Wear a suit, and a tie. Give a good confident handshake. DONT drink alcohol the night before and definitely no weed. If you smoke, carry some polos to mask your breath smell (and use them). Prepare some questions to ask, and ask them. I have thousands of little tips such as this, and I come from both sides of the interviewer/intervie wee fence. Trust me when I say the interviewer is just as nervous as you, as their status may be affected by employing the right or wrong person. Dont "overanswer" questions. Be confident. Do your homework and research the company (it pays tenfold if you can quote their last years profit and loss for example). accept a drink if you want one. Be positive I would then apply to work on placement for say a month at a time in return for out of pocket expenses only. During this time, I would keep my head down and nose to the grindstone, and I would gain as much experience as possible (which would then go on the CV). After the placement, I would approach my manager and ask for full employment. If refused, I would ask why and act accordingly. Basically, I would work for next to nothing until such a time as I was proficient and there was sufficient experience on my CV to command at least an interview. Ignore the job centre coaches, go to one of the employment agencies and ask for help there. They might be salesmen and sharks, but they do know the market and its trends. Listen to what they say and act on it. And (heres the one that keeps me going).. If you get refused, simply regard it as their loss, forget it and move on.. (Difficult to do, but not impossible, and it does help you stay positive). However, having said all that, if I had my time again, I would train to be a plumber and go self employed. Hope that helps. WR[/p][/quote]All good advice Wayne but as an interviewer are there character types that for what ever reason you wouldn't touch with a barge pole? If you have that opinion of them would other employers share your viewpoint? You can put on a front for an interview but if that's all it is you arn't going to last long. The academic under achievers would traditionally have done jobs in factories or other labour intensive industries that are now a distant memory. The lower their academic achievement the less likely they are to expand on it. If they have a cannabis conviction does that count against them? My daughter is training to be a plumber.[/p][/quote]There are certain character types I MAY not employ, but I rely on my instincts more than anything. If someone goes to the trouble of being clean and smart, that goes well with me. If a person turns up in a torn T shirt, jeans, dirty trainers and a safety pin through their nose, they wont even get through the door. Funnily enough, I look at the fingernails, and how well they are kept and how clean they are. Pre interview, the application form must be completed (and devoid of text speak), the same with the CV. A personal preference I know, but I hate bad spelling and grammar (although I am no expert, I have a basic grasp), and nowadays spelling mistakes are needless and help is available for grammar. A covering letter supporting the CV helps. I am solely interested in a persons ability to do the job, not their personal feelings on race, religion, gender sexuality, political persuasion or anything else. If they are rude or offensive, they will be asked to leave (politely), They must be amiable and 'fit in'. They must be prepared to 'bend' a little to meet the demands of the job. They should be flexible in their outlook. I would, of course, have another member of staff present, to support each other and get a balanced view. A 'front' will last for as long as you wish to remain in employment.. I have been doing it for 40 years. As for underachievers. I disagree, people find their level and should accept it and go with it, BUT should always have an eye to bettering themselves. OK, not everyone can be a rocket scientists or Nuclear physicist, but most can do a little study in their spare time (we all got the hang of windows even those over 65, so we all have the capacity to learn). As for convictions, it would depend upon one factor only, if the conviction is spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act, then it is illegal to ask about it. If the job itself was outside the act, then the conviction must be declared. However, for me, a conviction for weed alone would not necessary count against them, UNLESS it impaired their ability to do the job (eg Driver), and the extent of the habit (if still a habit). Anything more serious than cannabis would probably end in a refusal. Dealing would always get a refusal. I have to admit that I despise illegal substances, but I do believe cannabis is in a grey area, and am prepared to take all circumstances into account. Being under the influence of weed at interview would definitely go against you,[/p][/quote]By the way, Lollerpedia.com is back... IS ALP Erik? WayneRouke

10:02pm Wed 5 Dec 12

RollandSmoke says...

WayneRouke wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote:
"There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them."

Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?
I do have to say that, if ALP is telling the truth and applying for jobs then he is worthy of support and help, in spite of his extremist views.

Its not like he is some degenerate who only see the jobcentre on signing on day.

But, as said, there are ways of applying and not getting the job.

If he genuinely wants to work, and not getting past base, then he needs to look at the process and at himself.

A revamp of the CV, a positive attitude (even when completing the application form helps), a well written covering letter, a polite phone call chasing up.

Even after interview or rejection, you can ring the employer and ask for feedback as to why you werent selected.

When I was last out of work, I scoured the jobsites and applied for those I could do. I fired off via email the application forms, gave it ten minutes then rang to see if it had been received. This was my opening gambit. After three days of hearing nothing, I followed up with a phone call to ascertain the reason why I had been rejected.

I did this 8 hours per day, between 9am and 6pm.

And I reacted accordingly to the feedback.. It took me thirteen days.
I'm sure that your ability to articulate well impressed the prospective employer as would your relevant skill set and recent employment status. It can be hard to remain positive after sustained rejection. What would you suggest someone who hasn't worked since leaving school with little if any qualifications put on their CV?
RollandSmoke

I would firstly look at the job market very carefully and decide what I wanted to do, which would be the up and coming jobs or those which have little chance of disappearing (such as an undertaker, there arent many of them out of work).

Personally, I would try a college course and try to obtain some work related qualifications and some skills. Possibly a degree course at night school. Certainly something to put on my CV. I would improve my written and spoken word.

I would polish up my interview technique, buy a second hand suit and continue studying and learning.

I would polish up my appearance. Believe it or not, but the decision to hire a person or not happens in the first 30 seconds of interview. Appearance matters. Wear a suit, and a tie. Give a good confident handshake. DONT drink alcohol the night before and definitely no weed. If you smoke, carry some polos to mask your breath smell (and use them).

Prepare some questions to ask, and ask them.

I have thousands of little tips such as this, and I come from both sides of the interviewer/intervie



wee fence. Trust me when I say the interviewer is just as nervous as you, as their status may be affected by employing the right or wrong person.

Dont "overanswer" questions. Be confident. Do your homework and research the company (it pays tenfold if you can quote their last years profit and loss for example).

accept a drink if you want one. Be positive

I would then apply to work on placement for say a month at a time in return for out of pocket expenses only.

During this time, I would keep my head down and nose to the grindstone, and I would gain as much experience as possible (which would then go on the CV). After the placement, I would approach my manager and ask for full employment. If refused, I would ask why and act accordingly.

Basically, I would work for next to nothing until such a time as I was proficient and there was sufficient experience on my CV to command at least an interview.

Ignore the job centre coaches, go to one of the employment agencies and ask for help there. They might be salesmen and sharks, but they do know the market and its trends. Listen to what they say and act on it.

And (heres the one that keeps me going).. If you get refused, simply regard it as their loss, forget it and move on.. (Difficult to do, but not impossible, and it does help you stay positive).

However, having said all that, if I had my time again, I would train to be a plumber and go self employed.

Hope that helps.

WR
All good advice Wayne but as an interviewer are there character types that for what ever reason you wouldn't touch with a barge pole? If you have that opinion of them would other employers share your viewpoint? You can put on a front for an interview but if that's all it is you arn't going to last long. The academic under achievers would traditionally have done jobs in factories or other labour intensive industries that are now a distant memory. The lower their academic achievement the less likely they are to expand on it. If they have a cannabis conviction does that count against them?
My daughter is training to be a plumber.
There are certain character types I MAY not employ, but I rely on my instincts more than anything. If someone goes to the trouble of being clean and smart, that goes well with me. If a person turns up in a torn T shirt, jeans, dirty trainers and a safety pin through their nose, they wont even get through the door.

Funnily enough, I look at the fingernails, and how well they are kept and how clean they are.

Pre interview, the application form must be completed (and devoid of text speak), the same with the CV. A personal preference I know, but I hate bad spelling and grammar (although I am no expert, I have a basic grasp), and nowadays spelling mistakes are needless and help is available for grammar. A covering letter supporting the CV helps.

I am solely interested in a persons ability to do the job, not their personal feelings on race, religion, gender sexuality, political persuasion or anything else. If they are rude or offensive, they will be asked to leave (politely),

They must be amiable and 'fit in'. They must be prepared to 'bend' a little to meet the demands of the job. They should be flexible in their outlook.

I would, of course, have another member of staff present, to support each other and get a balanced view.

A 'front' will last for as long as you wish to remain in employment.. I have been doing it for 40 years.

As for underachievers. I disagree, people find their level and should accept it and go with it, BUT should always have an eye to bettering themselves. OK, not everyone can be a rocket scientists or Nuclear physicist, but most can do a little study in their spare time (we all got the hang of windows even those over 65, so we all have the capacity to learn).

As for convictions, it would depend upon one factor only, if the conviction is spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act, then it is illegal to ask about it.

If the job itself was outside the act, then the conviction must be declared. However, for me, a conviction for weed alone would not necessary count against them, UNLESS it impaired their ability to do the job (eg Driver), and the extent of the habit (if still a habit).

Anything more serious than cannabis would probably end in a refusal. Dealing would always get a refusal. I have to admit that I despise illegal substances, but I do believe cannabis is in a grey area, and am prepared to take all circumstances into account.

Being under the influence of weed at interview would definitely go against you,
That's quite a list of criteria. How many of Bradfords current unemployed would fail to meet that criteria? If someone were using cannabis for medicinal use would you suggest they stop even if by doing so they would become less able to cope with their illness and may ultimately require time off because of it?
Do you think David Camerons cannabis use at Eton or George Osbornes alleged coke use with a certain lady of the night has effected their ability to carry out their jobs?
Short snappy replies work better in this forum.
[quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: "There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them." Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?[/p][/quote]I do have to say that, if ALP is telling the truth and applying for jobs then he is worthy of support and help, in spite of his extremist views. Its not like he is some degenerate who only see the jobcentre on signing on day. But, as said, there are ways of applying and not getting the job. If he genuinely wants to work, and not getting past base, then he needs to look at the process and at himself. A revamp of the CV, a positive attitude (even when completing the application form helps), a well written covering letter, a polite phone call chasing up. Even after interview or rejection, you can ring the employer and ask for feedback as to why you werent selected. When I was last out of work, I scoured the jobsites and applied for those I could do. I fired off via email the application forms, gave it ten minutes then rang to see if it had been received. This was my opening gambit. After three days of hearing nothing, I followed up with a phone call to ascertain the reason why I had been rejected. I did this 8 hours per day, between 9am and 6pm. And I reacted accordingly to the feedback.. It took me thirteen days.[/p][/quote]I'm sure that your ability to articulate well impressed the prospective employer as would your relevant skill set and recent employment status. It can be hard to remain positive after sustained rejection. What would you suggest someone who hasn't worked since leaving school with little if any qualifications put on their CV?[/p][/quote]RollandSmoke I would firstly look at the job market very carefully and decide what I wanted to do, which would be the up and coming jobs or those which have little chance of disappearing (such as an undertaker, there arent many of them out of work). Personally, I would try a college course and try to obtain some work related qualifications and some skills. Possibly a degree course at night school. Certainly something to put on my CV. I would improve my written and spoken word. I would polish up my interview technique, buy a second hand suit and continue studying and learning. I would polish up my appearance. Believe it or not, but the decision to hire a person or not happens in the first 30 seconds of interview. Appearance matters. Wear a suit, and a tie. Give a good confident handshake. DONT drink alcohol the night before and definitely no weed. If you smoke, carry some polos to mask your breath smell (and use them). Prepare some questions to ask, and ask them. I have thousands of little tips such as this, and I come from both sides of the interviewer/intervie wee fence. Trust me when I say the interviewer is just as nervous as you, as their status may be affected by employing the right or wrong person. Dont "overanswer" questions. Be confident. Do your homework and research the company (it pays tenfold if you can quote their last years profit and loss for example). accept a drink if you want one. Be positive I would then apply to work on placement for say a month at a time in return for out of pocket expenses only. During this time, I would keep my head down and nose to the grindstone, and I would gain as much experience as possible (which would then go on the CV). After the placement, I would approach my manager and ask for full employment. If refused, I would ask why and act accordingly. Basically, I would work for next to nothing until such a time as I was proficient and there was sufficient experience on my CV to command at least an interview. Ignore the job centre coaches, go to one of the employment agencies and ask for help there. They might be salesmen and sharks, but they do know the market and its trends. Listen to what they say and act on it. And (heres the one that keeps me going).. If you get refused, simply regard it as their loss, forget it and move on.. (Difficult to do, but not impossible, and it does help you stay positive). However, having said all that, if I had my time again, I would train to be a plumber and go self employed. Hope that helps. WR[/p][/quote]All good advice Wayne but as an interviewer are there character types that for what ever reason you wouldn't touch with a barge pole? If you have that opinion of them would other employers share your viewpoint? You can put on a front for an interview but if that's all it is you arn't going to last long. The academic under achievers would traditionally have done jobs in factories or other labour intensive industries that are now a distant memory. The lower their academic achievement the less likely they are to expand on it. If they have a cannabis conviction does that count against them? My daughter is training to be a plumber.[/p][/quote]There are certain character types I MAY not employ, but I rely on my instincts more than anything. If someone goes to the trouble of being clean and smart, that goes well with me. If a person turns up in a torn T shirt, jeans, dirty trainers and a safety pin through their nose, they wont even get through the door. Funnily enough, I look at the fingernails, and how well they are kept and how clean they are. Pre interview, the application form must be completed (and devoid of text speak), the same with the CV. A personal preference I know, but I hate bad spelling and grammar (although I am no expert, I have a basic grasp), and nowadays spelling mistakes are needless and help is available for grammar. A covering letter supporting the CV helps. I am solely interested in a persons ability to do the job, not their personal feelings on race, religion, gender sexuality, political persuasion or anything else. If they are rude or offensive, they will be asked to leave (politely), They must be amiable and 'fit in'. They must be prepared to 'bend' a little to meet the demands of the job. They should be flexible in their outlook. I would, of course, have another member of staff present, to support each other and get a balanced view. A 'front' will last for as long as you wish to remain in employment.. I have been doing it for 40 years. As for underachievers. I disagree, people find their level and should accept it and go with it, BUT should always have an eye to bettering themselves. OK, not everyone can be a rocket scientists or Nuclear physicist, but most can do a little study in their spare time (we all got the hang of windows even those over 65, so we all have the capacity to learn). As for convictions, it would depend upon one factor only, if the conviction is spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act, then it is illegal to ask about it. If the job itself was outside the act, then the conviction must be declared. However, for me, a conviction for weed alone would not necessary count against them, UNLESS it impaired their ability to do the job (eg Driver), and the extent of the habit (if still a habit). Anything more serious than cannabis would probably end in a refusal. Dealing would always get a refusal. I have to admit that I despise illegal substances, but I do believe cannabis is in a grey area, and am prepared to take all circumstances into account. Being under the influence of weed at interview would definitely go against you,[/p][/quote]That's quite a list of criteria. How many of Bradfords current unemployed would fail to meet that criteria? If someone were using cannabis for medicinal use would you suggest they stop even if by doing so they would become less able to cope with their illness and may ultimately require time off because of it? Do you think David Camerons cannabis use at Eton or George Osbornes alleged coke use with a certain lady of the night has effected their ability to carry out their jobs? Short snappy replies work better in this forum. RollandSmoke

10:26pm Wed 5 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote:
"There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them."

Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?
I do have to say that, if ALP is telling the truth and applying for jobs then he is worthy of support and help, in spite of his extremist views.

Its not like he is some degenerate who only see the jobcentre on signing on day.

But, as said, there are ways of applying and not getting the job.

If he genuinely wants to work, and not getting past base, then he needs to look at the process and at himself.

A revamp of the CV, a positive attitude (even when completing the application form helps), a well written covering letter, a polite phone call chasing up.

Even after interview or rejection, you can ring the employer and ask for feedback as to why you werent selected.

When I was last out of work, I scoured the jobsites and applied for those I could do. I fired off via email the application forms, gave it ten minutes then rang to see if it had been received. This was my opening gambit. After three days of hearing nothing, I followed up with a phone call to ascertain the reason why I had been rejected.

I did this 8 hours per day, between 9am and 6pm.

And I reacted accordingly to the feedback.. It took me thirteen days.
I'm sure that your ability to articulate well impressed the prospective employer as would your relevant skill set and recent employment status. It can be hard to remain positive after sustained rejection. What would you suggest someone who hasn't worked since leaving school with little if any qualifications put on their CV?
RollandSmoke

I would firstly look at the job market very carefully and decide what I wanted to do, which would be the up and coming jobs or those which have little chance of disappearing (such as an undertaker, there arent many of them out of work).

Personally, I would try a college course and try to obtain some work related qualifications and some skills. Possibly a degree course at night school. Certainly something to put on my CV. I would improve my written and spoken word.

I would polish up my interview technique, buy a second hand suit and continue studying and learning.

I would polish up my appearance. Believe it or not, but the decision to hire a person or not happens in the first 30 seconds of interview. Appearance matters. Wear a suit, and a tie. Give a good confident handshake. DONT drink alcohol the night before and definitely no weed. If you smoke, carry some polos to mask your breath smell (and use them).

Prepare some questions to ask, and ask them.

I have thousands of little tips such as this, and I come from both sides of the interviewer/intervie




wee fence. Trust me when I say the interviewer is just as nervous as you, as their status may be affected by employing the right or wrong person.

Dont "overanswer" questions. Be confident. Do your homework and research the company (it pays tenfold if you can quote their last years profit and loss for example).

accept a drink if you want one. Be positive

I would then apply to work on placement for say a month at a time in return for out of pocket expenses only.

During this time, I would keep my head down and nose to the grindstone, and I would gain as much experience as possible (which would then go on the CV). After the placement, I would approach my manager and ask for full employment. If refused, I would ask why and act accordingly.

Basically, I would work for next to nothing until such a time as I was proficient and there was sufficient experience on my CV to command at least an interview.

Ignore the job centre coaches, go to one of the employment agencies and ask for help there. They might be salesmen and sharks, but they do know the market and its trends. Listen to what they say and act on it.

And (heres the one that keeps me going).. If you get refused, simply regard it as their loss, forget it and move on.. (Difficult to do, but not impossible, and it does help you stay positive).

However, having said all that, if I had my time again, I would train to be a plumber and go self employed.

Hope that helps.

WR
All good advice Wayne but as an interviewer are there character types that for what ever reason you wouldn't touch with a barge pole? If you have that opinion of them would other employers share your viewpoint? You can put on a front for an interview but if that's all it is you arn't going to last long. The academic under achievers would traditionally have done jobs in factories or other labour intensive industries that are now a distant memory. The lower their academic achievement the less likely they are to expand on it. If they have a cannabis conviction does that count against them?
My daughter is training to be a plumber.
There are certain character types I MAY not employ, but I rely on my instincts more than anything. If someone goes to the trouble of being clean and smart, that goes well with me. If a person turns up in a torn T shirt, jeans, dirty trainers and a safety pin through their nose, they wont even get through the door.

Funnily enough, I look at the fingernails, and how well they are kept and how clean they are.

Pre interview, the application form must be completed (and devoid of text speak), the same with the CV. A personal preference I know, but I hate bad spelling and grammar (although I am no expert, I have a basic grasp), and nowadays spelling mistakes are needless and help is available for grammar. A covering letter supporting the CV helps.

I am solely interested in a persons ability to do the job, not their personal feelings on race, religion, gender sexuality, political persuasion or anything else. If they are rude or offensive, they will be asked to leave (politely),

They must be amiable and 'fit in'. They must be prepared to 'bend' a little to meet the demands of the job. They should be flexible in their outlook.

I would, of course, have another member of staff present, to support each other and get a balanced view.

A 'front' will last for as long as you wish to remain in employment.. I have been doing it for 40 years.

As for underachievers. I disagree, people find their level and should accept it and go with it, BUT should always have an eye to bettering themselves. OK, not everyone can be a rocket scientists or Nuclear physicist, but most can do a little study in their spare time (we all got the hang of windows even those over 65, so we all have the capacity to learn).

As for convictions, it would depend upon one factor only, if the conviction is spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act, then it is illegal to ask about it.

If the job itself was outside the act, then the conviction must be declared. However, for me, a conviction for weed alone would not necessary count against them, UNLESS it impaired their ability to do the job (eg Driver), and the extent of the habit (if still a habit).

Anything more serious than cannabis would probably end in a refusal. Dealing would always get a refusal. I have to admit that I despise illegal substances, but I do believe cannabis is in a grey area, and am prepared to take all circumstances into account.

Being under the influence of weed at interview would definitely go against you,
That's quite a list of criteria. How many of Bradfords current unemployed would fail to meet that criteria? If someone were using cannabis for medicinal use would you suggest they stop even if by doing so they would become less able to cope with their illness and may ultimately require time off because of it?
Do you think David Camerons cannabis use at Eton or George Osbornes alleged coke use with a certain lady of the night has effected their ability to carry out their jobs?
Short snappy replies work better in this forum.
You asked, I answered. They are not criteria, they are what I like to see and use as guidelines. The job and its type generally drive the criteria.

Each one is achievable, through a little application.

I refer to current use of anything more serious than weed.

The other offences, if convicted, would be spent and as such not declarable, so the question would not arise.

Medicinal use of cannabis, if supported by prescription, would not go against a candidate. In these circumstances, I may ask for a waiver and request a doctors certificate. I would also take professional advice, as I am unsure as to where I would stand legally.

Ask a prisoner what they did wrong, and they will answer "got caught".

But you are talking specifics, and I am generalising. I assess each candidate on their own merit. I cannot answer specifics such as Cameron or Osbourne, no more than I can answer whether I would employ you or not. I do not know enough to make a decision.

You asked what I would do, I answered.

Short and snappy enough?
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: "There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them." Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?[/p][/quote]I do have to say that, if ALP is telling the truth and applying for jobs then he is worthy of support and help, in spite of his extremist views. Its not like he is some degenerate who only see the jobcentre on signing on day. But, as said, there are ways of applying and not getting the job. If he genuinely wants to work, and not getting past base, then he needs to look at the process and at himself. A revamp of the CV, a positive attitude (even when completing the application form helps), a well written covering letter, a polite phone call chasing up. Even after interview or rejection, you can ring the employer and ask for feedback as to why you werent selected. When I was last out of work, I scoured the jobsites and applied for those I could do. I fired off via email the application forms, gave it ten minutes then rang to see if it had been received. This was my opening gambit. After three days of hearing nothing, I followed up with a phone call to ascertain the reason why I had been rejected. I did this 8 hours per day, between 9am and 6pm. And I reacted accordingly to the feedback.. It took me thirteen days.[/p][/quote]I'm sure that your ability to articulate well impressed the prospective employer as would your relevant skill set and recent employment status. It can be hard to remain positive after sustained rejection. What would you suggest someone who hasn't worked since leaving school with little if any qualifications put on their CV?[/p][/quote]RollandSmoke I would firstly look at the job market very carefully and decide what I wanted to do, which would be the up and coming jobs or those which have little chance of disappearing (such as an undertaker, there arent many of them out of work). Personally, I would try a college course and try to obtain some work related qualifications and some skills. Possibly a degree course at night school. Certainly something to put on my CV. I would improve my written and spoken word. I would polish up my interview technique, buy a second hand suit and continue studying and learning. I would polish up my appearance. Believe it or not, but the decision to hire a person or not happens in the first 30 seconds of interview. Appearance matters. Wear a suit, and a tie. Give a good confident handshake. DONT drink alcohol the night before and definitely no weed. If you smoke, carry some polos to mask your breath smell (and use them). Prepare some questions to ask, and ask them. I have thousands of little tips such as this, and I come from both sides of the interviewer/intervie wee fence. Trust me when I say the interviewer is just as nervous as you, as their status may be affected by employing the right or wrong person. Dont "overanswer" questions. Be confident. Do your homework and research the company (it pays tenfold if you can quote their last years profit and loss for example). accept a drink if you want one. Be positive I would then apply to work on placement for say a month at a time in return for out of pocket expenses only. During this time, I would keep my head down and nose to the grindstone, and I would gain as much experience as possible (which would then go on the CV). After the placement, I would approach my manager and ask for full employment. If refused, I would ask why and act accordingly. Basically, I would work for next to nothing until such a time as I was proficient and there was sufficient experience on my CV to command at least an interview. Ignore the job centre coaches, go to one of the employment agencies and ask for help there. They might be salesmen and sharks, but they do know the market and its trends. Listen to what they say and act on it. And (heres the one that keeps me going).. If you get refused, simply regard it as their loss, forget it and move on.. (Difficult to do, but not impossible, and it does help you stay positive). However, having said all that, if I had my time again, I would train to be a plumber and go self employed. Hope that helps. WR[/p][/quote]All good advice Wayne but as an interviewer are there character types that for what ever reason you wouldn't touch with a barge pole? If you have that opinion of them would other employers share your viewpoint? You can put on a front for an interview but if that's all it is you arn't going to last long. The academic under achievers would traditionally have done jobs in factories or other labour intensive industries that are now a distant memory. The lower their academic achievement the less likely they are to expand on it. If they have a cannabis conviction does that count against them? My daughter is training to be a plumber.[/p][/quote]There are certain character types I MAY not employ, but I rely on my instincts more than anything. If someone goes to the trouble of being clean and smart, that goes well with me. If a person turns up in a torn T shirt, jeans, dirty trainers and a safety pin through their nose, they wont even get through the door. Funnily enough, I look at the fingernails, and how well they are kept and how clean they are. Pre interview, the application form must be completed (and devoid of text speak), the same with the CV. A personal preference I know, but I hate bad spelling and grammar (although I am no expert, I have a basic grasp), and nowadays spelling mistakes are needless and help is available for grammar. A covering letter supporting the CV helps. I am solely interested in a persons ability to do the job, not their personal feelings on race, religion, gender sexuality, political persuasion or anything else. If they are rude or offensive, they will be asked to leave (politely), They must be amiable and 'fit in'. They must be prepared to 'bend' a little to meet the demands of the job. They should be flexible in their outlook. I would, of course, have another member of staff present, to support each other and get a balanced view. A 'front' will last for as long as you wish to remain in employment.. I have been doing it for 40 years. As for underachievers. I disagree, people find their level and should accept it and go with it, BUT should always have an eye to bettering themselves. OK, not everyone can be a rocket scientists or Nuclear physicist, but most can do a little study in their spare time (we all got the hang of windows even those over 65, so we all have the capacity to learn). As for convictions, it would depend upon one factor only, if the conviction is spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act, then it is illegal to ask about it. If the job itself was outside the act, then the conviction must be declared. However, for me, a conviction for weed alone would not necessary count against them, UNLESS it impaired their ability to do the job (eg Driver), and the extent of the habit (if still a habit). Anything more serious than cannabis would probably end in a refusal. Dealing would always get a refusal. I have to admit that I despise illegal substances, but I do believe cannabis is in a grey area, and am prepared to take all circumstances into account. Being under the influence of weed at interview would definitely go against you,[/p][/quote]That's quite a list of criteria. How many of Bradfords current unemployed would fail to meet that criteria? If someone were using cannabis for medicinal use would you suggest they stop even if by doing so they would become less able to cope with their illness and may ultimately require time off because of it? Do you think David Camerons cannabis use at Eton or George Osbornes alleged coke use with a certain lady of the night has effected their ability to carry out their jobs? Short snappy replies work better in this forum.[/p][/quote]You asked, I answered. They are not criteria, they are what I like to see and use as guidelines. The job and its type generally drive the criteria. Each one is achievable, through a little application. I refer to current use of anything more serious than weed. The other offences, if convicted, would be spent and as such not declarable, so the question would not arise. Medicinal use of cannabis, if supported by prescription, would not go against a candidate. In these circumstances, I may ask for a waiver and request a doctors certificate. I would also take professional advice, as I am unsure as to where I would stand legally. Ask a prisoner what they did wrong, and they will answer "got caught". But you are talking specifics, and I am generalising. I assess each candidate on their own merit. I cannot answer specifics such as Cameron or Osbourne, no more than I can answer whether I would employ you or not. I do not know enough to make a decision. You asked what I would do, I answered. Short and snappy enough? WayneRouke

10:55pm Wed 5 Dec 12

RollandSmoke says...

I know this thread has nothing to do with drug use or peoples convictions or mental health problems or educational under achievement but these are the realities faced by many of the jobseekers. The employer will always select the best candidate and there are some who hard as they try will never appear to be the best candidate. They become long term unemployed and their attractiveness dwindles further. They become demoralised. They loose touch with their social sphere. Then when their support network has gone and feeling at their lowest ebb they are demonised as scroungers. They may have only had one of my list of problems at the begining but that soon becomes two or three. Most people want the oppertunity to better themselves, to have some social mobility and interaction but the motivation has to be the carrot not the stick. Build it and they will come.
I know this thread has nothing to do with drug use or peoples convictions or mental health problems or educational under achievement but these are the realities faced by many of the jobseekers. The employer will always select the best candidate and there are some who hard as they try will never appear to be the best candidate. They become long term unemployed and their attractiveness dwindles further. They become demoralised. They loose touch with their social sphere. Then when their support network has gone and feeling at their lowest ebb they are demonised as scroungers. They may have only had one of my list of problems at the begining but that soon becomes two or three. Most people want the oppertunity to better themselves, to have some social mobility and interaction but the motivation has to be the carrot not the stick. Build it and they will come. RollandSmoke

11:21pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Whitepiss says...

It's a great idea... Make the lazy scums from all the run down council estates pay something for a change ....they're spreading like cancer
It's a great idea... Make the lazy scums from all the run down council estates pay something for a change ....they're spreading like cancer Whitepiss

11:32pm Wed 5 Dec 12

RollandSmoke says...

Whitepiss wrote:
It's a great idea... Make the lazy scums from all the run down council estates pay something for a change ....they're spreading like cancer
No-one is prepaired to invest the money to create the jobs and the jobseekers certainly can't.
[quote][p][bold]Whitepiss[/bold] wrote: It's a great idea... Make the lazy scums from all the run down council estates pay something for a change ....they're spreading like cancer[/p][/quote]No-one is prepaired to invest the money to create the jobs and the jobseekers certainly can't. RollandSmoke

1:16am Thu 6 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

I do know how to clean my finger nails, it may surprise you to know, and how to fasten a tie, they even bought me a suit once, at YOUR EXPENSE, a long time ago, still got it, comes in for funerals, and I can even compile a C. V., often much better than the staff at these costly back-to-work places that the Jobcentre sends people to. I know all about it, believe me, I've had it drummed into me time and time again at Government/Council/P
rivate Company run sh1tholes, and made to waste my precious time on this planet listening to their inane and degrading nonsense, and jumping through all their silly hoops, forced to undergo the indignity of sitting a Basic Skills Maths and English Assessment time and time again, at YOUR EXPENSE, for no reason whatsoever, made to sweep up fag ends in a cold exercise yard surrounded by barbed-wire at some Jobseekers Boot Camp Stalag Keighley, I kid you not, and various other insane ventures in a variety of flea-pit institutions that are effectively daytime prisons for the unemployed, just in order to continue claiming such a paltry amount of so-called JSA (i.e. Dole = Unemployment Benefit) that overall only constitutes a minimal amount of the Welfare expenditure, around 2% yet attracts 100% of the focus of attention (Mmm...could that be a distraction?), and am demonized, marginalized, and am cast out as scapegoat for the privilege of living one step from starvation, be it for the help I receive from Above (and often, I suspect, 'beyond'). Alas, it makes no difference in my case for I assure you Albion, all I have to do is tell the truth on an application or C.V. and be guaranteed not to get the job!

And there are various barriers to work, that prevent people from gaining long-term employment, because people are not all the same, and they all have a range of different needs, they don't all fit into convenient boxes unfortunately, as much as governmental systems seem to want to try. No one seriously chooses to live in poverty, if they are living in poverty it's because of a range of outside factors and sometimes inner factors that combine to people falling through the net. The Universal 'one size fits all ' approach doesn't work. It fails to work, it costs you money, and it fails the people who's quality of lives are ruined through an orchestrated combination of poverty and continual harassment. And all when unemployment is in any case necessary in order for Capitalism to function.


RANT OVER

P.R.

Not to worry, I'm inviting myself round to Osborne's mum's for Christmas, after all, we're all in this together, right?
I do know how to clean my finger nails, it may surprise you to know, and how to fasten a tie, they even bought me a suit once, at YOUR EXPENSE, a long time ago, still got it, comes in for funerals, and I can even compile a C. V., often much better than the staff at these costly back-to-work places that the Jobcentre sends people to. I know all about it, believe me, I've had it drummed into me time and time again at Government/Council/P rivate Company run sh1tholes, and made to waste my precious time on this planet listening to their inane and degrading nonsense, and jumping through all their silly hoops, forced to undergo the indignity of sitting a Basic Skills Maths and English Assessment time and time again, at YOUR EXPENSE, for no reason whatsoever, made to sweep up fag ends in a cold exercise yard surrounded by barbed-wire at some Jobseekers Boot Camp Stalag Keighley, I kid you not, and various other insane ventures in a variety of flea-pit institutions that are effectively daytime prisons for the unemployed, just in order to continue claiming such a paltry amount of so-called JSA (i.e. Dole = Unemployment Benefit) that overall only constitutes a minimal amount of the Welfare expenditure, around 2% yet attracts 100% of the focus of attention (Mmm...could that be a distraction?), and am demonized, marginalized, and am cast out as scapegoat for the privilege of living one step from starvation, be it for the help I receive from Above (and often, I suspect, 'beyond'). Alas, it makes no difference in my case for I assure you Albion, all I have to do is tell the truth on an application or C.V. and be guaranteed not to get the job! And there are various barriers to work, that prevent people from gaining long-term employment, because people are not all the same, and they all have a range of different needs, they don't all fit into convenient boxes unfortunately, as much as governmental systems seem to want to try. No one seriously chooses to live in poverty, if they are living in poverty it's because of a range of outside factors and sometimes inner factors that combine to people falling through the net. The Universal 'one size fits all ' approach doesn't work. It fails to work, it costs you money, and it fails the people who's quality of lives are ruined through an orchestrated combination of poverty and continual harassment. And all when unemployment is in any case necessary in order for Capitalism to function. RANT OVER P.R. Not to worry, I'm inviting myself round to Osborne's mum's for Christmas, after all, we're all in this together, right? Another Landless Peasant

1:43am Thu 6 Dec 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

And another thing...

People aren't poor because thye waste it all on booze & fags, or fabulous televisions, and Armani suits, as some of you like to think, it's because:

a). Benefits are too low an amount to live on.

and,

b). 50% of people's JSA goes to the Power companies, not the drug dealers or the Bookies. Why has Osborne done nothing about solving the Energy problem? He should Nationalize the Power companies. We are all paying crazy amounts for Gas and Electricity. 15 yrs ago I used about £3 of Gas per week, now I use about £40+ per week. And still cold! Why are the Tories phasing-out the Social Tariff for people with a longterm illness on a very low income? How is that going to help anyone in my position? tell me that George Osborne, if you're such a whizz-kid. Am I to start ripping-up the floor-boards and breaking the furniture to burn in my old fireplace? What d'you reckon? Perhaps I could go walk a mile or two and gather cow dung for fuel? Actually...that's not a bad idea! Where's there's muck, ther's brass. I'll start a business, 'Sh1t To Burn', or 'Sh1teЯUs'. I shall write to my MP immediately, we need to found a national cow-dung based power grid to provide free power and much needed jobs. Contact your MP and ask for same ASAP. Ta.
And another thing... People aren't poor because thye waste it all on booze & fags, or fabulous televisions, and Armani suits, as some of you like to think, it's because: a). Benefits are too low an amount to live on. and, b). 50% of people's JSA goes to the Power companies, not the drug dealers or the Bookies. Why has Osborne done nothing about solving the Energy problem? He should Nationalize the Power companies. We are all paying crazy amounts for Gas and Electricity. 15 yrs ago I used about £3 of Gas per week, now I use about £40+ per week. And still cold! Why are the Tories phasing-out the Social Tariff for people with a longterm illness on a very low income? How is that going to help anyone in my position? tell me that George Osborne, if you're such a whizz-kid. Am I to start ripping-up the floor-boards and breaking the furniture to burn in my old fireplace? What d'you reckon? Perhaps I could go walk a mile or two and gather cow dung for fuel? Actually...that's not a bad idea! Where's there's muck, ther's brass. I'll start a business, 'Sh1t To Burn', or 'Sh1teЯUs'. I shall write to my MP immediately, we need to found a national cow-dung based power grid to provide free power and much needed jobs. Contact your MP and ask for same ASAP. Ta. Another Landless Peasant

3:18am Thu 6 Dec 12

dellorri says...

angry bradfordian wrote:
dellorri wrote:
Good lord, why is it that none of you, including rolly and ALP have pointed out an obvious fact about housing benefit, that I have tried to tell you about before. That it is NOT an out of work benefit, and that approximately 79% of claimants on full housing benefit are in FULL TIME employment on min imum wages, and because their wage is so low, they are entitled to claim this benefit due to LOW income, yet you ALL automatically jump on the "lets bash the scrounger" bandwagon. There are people out there working their guts out, so they don't have the stigma of being on the dole, and to survive they HAVE to claim housing benefit, and then they get this hurled at them, Boy I really hope you think about who you're tarring next time you chuck your accusations about, you see it.s a MEANS TESTED benefit, which even you should understand, it depends how much you have coming in that counts, not whether you're working or not, for goodness sake grow up will you, stop arguing and think about what you're saying for a change.
To put in in perspective, the lowest Council Tax band (the one I would assume the lowest paid workers would live in) is £851 a year. That's £212 on the discounted rate.

That's only £4.09 a week- half a packet of fags or a pint and a half. It's not a lot to pay for schools, roads, libraries, police, fire and all the other services that the council are supposed to supply.
The left wing scoff at the 'we're all in this together' statement, but they some people seem to think they should be exempt and the rich should pay it all.
Mr. Angry, please read my post again and note, nowhere did I say that benefit recipients shouldnt pay this small amount of council tax, because it is a small amount to some, but and it is a big but, to some on jsa, single people under 25 for instance it can mean a lot.
But that wasn't the point I was making, If you read the post again you will see that I was saying the MAJORITY of peoplle on housing benefit are in FULL TIME employment on minimum wage, but most of the posters on here as usual assume that only those who are unemployed "scroungers" get H/Benefit when this is far from the truth, it is yet another tabloid myth peddled to divide the nation. Would you be shocked to know that the highest proportion of DWP spending actually goes on old age pensions and pension credits, 52% to be precise, Income support stands at 5%, ESA accounts for a measly 4% and JSA 3%, DLA and carers allowance 7% of DWP spending the rest of the welfare budget goes on the NHS and education. With the real term cuts in spending on the NHS and BENEFITS the government have stripped the needy of nearly £18billion. if they had taxed the workers an extra amount the same in the same period, would you have stood for it?? I can't speak for those on JSA, or ESA, I get DLA and severe disability premium, which i depend on to enable me to get around, from april next year my severe disability premium ends, no appeal no question it ends. Then there are those on here who complain about people on here being able to get money for "free" furniture and decorating. Well not since April of this year they don't, that's when the social fund ended, there are now no community care grants, so if i need a new aid for mobility I have to find the money myself. Not an easy thing to do on benefits when a simple wheel chair can cost nearly £200. Then there's the ubiquitous bedroom tax, my partner and I have children, we live in a 4 bedroom house that was adapted for us enabling us to live here with our disabilities, we only have one child at home now, he's 15 and good lad that he is acts as an unpaid carer. But it leaves us with 2 rooms empty, so we have to pay £25 or downsize, we asked to downsize, but guess what, they said ok, but we wont do any adaptations for you, you'll have to pay for them yourself.
bearing in mind the adaptations are structural I dont think i'll be able to afford that somehow. so it seems were stuck with a rent bill and the council tax and no choice in the matter.
[quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: Good lord, why is it that none of you, including rolly and ALP have pointed out an obvious fact about housing benefit, that I have tried to tell you about before. That it is NOT an out of work benefit, and that approximately 79% of claimants on full housing benefit are in FULL TIME employment on min imum wages, and because their wage is so low, they are entitled to claim this benefit due to LOW income, yet you ALL automatically jump on the "lets bash the scrounger" bandwagon. There are people out there working their guts out, so they don't have the stigma of being on the dole, and to survive they HAVE to claim housing benefit, and then they get this hurled at them, Boy I really hope you think about who you're tarring next time you chuck your accusations about, you see it.s a MEANS TESTED benefit, which even you should understand, it depends how much you have coming in that counts, not whether you're working or not, for goodness sake grow up will you, stop arguing and think about what you're saying for a change.[/p][/quote]To put in in perspective, the lowest Council Tax band (the one I would assume the lowest paid workers would live in) is £851 a year. That's £212 on the discounted rate. That's only £4.09 a week- half a packet of fags or a pint and a half. It's not a lot to pay for schools, roads, libraries, police, fire and all the other services that the council are supposed to supply. The left wing scoff at the 'we're all in this together' statement, but they some people seem to think they should be exempt and the rich should pay it all.[/p][/quote]Mr. Angry, please read my post again and note, nowhere did I say that benefit recipients shouldnt pay this small amount of council tax, because it is a small amount to some, but and it is a big but, to some on jsa, single people under 25 for instance it can mean a lot. But that wasn't the point I was making, If you read the post again you will see that I was saying the MAJORITY of peoplle on housing benefit are in FULL TIME employment on minimum wage, but most of the posters on here as usual assume that only those who are unemployed "scroungers" get H/Benefit when this is far from the truth, it is yet another tabloid myth peddled to divide the nation. Would you be shocked to know that the highest proportion of DWP spending actually goes on old age pensions and pension credits, 52% to be precise, Income support stands at 5%, ESA accounts for a measly 4% and JSA 3%, DLA and carers allowance 7% of DWP spending the rest of the welfare budget goes on the NHS and education. With the real term cuts in spending on the NHS and BENEFITS the government have stripped the needy of nearly £18billion. if they had taxed the workers an extra amount the same in the same period, would you have stood for it?? I can't speak for those on JSA, or ESA, I get DLA and severe disability premium, which i depend on to enable me to get around, from april next year my severe disability premium ends, no appeal no question it ends. Then there are those on here who complain about people on here being able to get money for "free" furniture and decorating. Well not since April of this year they don't, that's when the social fund ended, there are now no community care grants, so if i need a new aid for mobility I have to find the money myself. Not an easy thing to do on benefits when a simple wheel chair can cost nearly £200. Then there's the ubiquitous bedroom tax, my partner and I have children, we live in a 4 bedroom house that was adapted for us enabling us to live here with our disabilities, we only have one child at home now, he's 15 and good lad that he is acts as an unpaid carer. But it leaves us with 2 rooms empty, so we have to pay £25 or downsize, we asked to downsize, but guess what, they said ok, but we wont do any adaptations for you, you'll have to pay for them yourself. bearing in mind the adaptations are structural I dont think i'll be able to afford that somehow. so it seems were stuck with a rent bill and the council tax and no choice in the matter. dellorri

9:36am Thu 6 Dec 12

Andy2010 says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
I do know how to clean my finger nails, it may surprise you to know, and how to fasten a tie, they even bought me a suit once, at YOUR EXPENSE, a long time ago, still got it, comes in for funerals, and I can even compile a C. V., often much better than the staff at these costly back-to-work places that the Jobcentre sends people to. I know all about it, believe me, I've had it drummed into me time and time again at Government/Council/P rivate Company run sh1tholes, and made to waste my precious time on this planet listening to their inane and degrading nonsense, and jumping through all their silly hoops, forced to undergo the indignity of sitting a Basic Skills Maths and English Assessment time and time again, at YOUR EXPENSE, for no reason whatsoever, made to sweep up fag ends in a cold exercise yard surrounded by barbed-wire at some Jobseekers Boot Camp Stalag Keighley, I kid you not, and various other insane ventures in a variety of flea-pit institutions that are effectively daytime prisons for the unemployed, just in order to continue claiming such a paltry amount of so-called JSA (i.e. Dole = Unemployment Benefit) that overall only constitutes a minimal amount of the Welfare expenditure, around 2% yet attracts 100% of the focus of attention (Mmm...could that be a distraction?), and am demonized, marginalized, and am cast out as scapegoat for the privilege of living one step from starvation, be it for the help I receive from Above (and often, I suspect, 'beyond'). Alas, it makes no difference in my case for I assure you Albion, all I have to do is tell the truth on an application or C.V. and be guaranteed not to get the job! And there are various barriers to work, that prevent people from gaining long-term employment, because people are not all the same, and they all have a range of different needs, they don't all fit into convenient boxes unfortunately, as much as governmental systems seem to want to try. No one seriously chooses to live in poverty, if they are living in poverty it's because of a range of outside factors and sometimes inner factors that combine to people falling through the net. The Universal 'one size fits all ' approach doesn't work. It fails to work, it costs you money, and it fails the people who's quality of lives are ruined through an orchestrated combination of poverty and continual harassment. And all when unemployment is in any case necessary in order for Capitalism to function. RANT OVER P.R. Not to worry, I'm inviting myself round to Osborne's mum's for Christmas, after all, we're all in this together, right?
Its a numbers game ALP..

Like someone posted earlier that would literally treat looking for a job as a job that is whats needed.

The law of averages dictates that the more you apply for the more chance their is of securing employment. No-one is saying its easy because it isnt but through determination and thinking outside the box when applying can get you a foot in the door. Like someone suggested follow up EVERY application with a call to confirm receipt then literally hound them for an interview. Despite what someone may think that this will just annoy an employer the majority and I kid you not will admire your enthusiasm. I employ quite a few people and I can honestly say the main thing I look for is drive and determination to suceed.

For example last month had a role and was narrowed down to 2 people. A 30 year old with bucketloads of experience or a 19 year old with little experience at all. Because the 19 year old showed more determination they got the job. As someone put earlier employers generally use gut instinct not whats on a bit of paper so its about being knowledgable about their company and selling yourself. You dont need to tell them about any health problems and by the sounds of it if I was you I wouldnt and take a chance it doesnt effect anything in the future. If it does deal with it then but if you have kept your head down and done a good job no doubt the employer will work with you on that. Everyone lies or streches the truth on CV's indeed you would be stupid not to but once you get in front of them its over to you to present yourself with confidence...not arrogance but bordering on that.

Not doubt the JC has told you all of this anyway
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: I do know how to clean my finger nails, it may surprise you to know, and how to fasten a tie, they even bought me a suit once, at YOUR EXPENSE, a long time ago, still got it, comes in for funerals, and I can even compile a C. V., often much better than the staff at these costly back-to-work places that the Jobcentre sends people to. I know all about it, believe me, I've had it drummed into me time and time again at Government/Council/P rivate Company run sh1tholes, and made to waste my precious time on this planet listening to their inane and degrading nonsense, and jumping through all their silly hoops, forced to undergo the indignity of sitting a Basic Skills Maths and English Assessment time and time again, at YOUR EXPENSE, for no reason whatsoever, made to sweep up fag ends in a cold exercise yard surrounded by barbed-wire at some Jobseekers Boot Camp Stalag Keighley, I kid you not, and various other insane ventures in a variety of flea-pit institutions that are effectively daytime prisons for the unemployed, just in order to continue claiming such a paltry amount of so-called JSA (i.e. Dole = Unemployment Benefit) that overall only constitutes a minimal amount of the Welfare expenditure, around 2% yet attracts 100% of the focus of attention (Mmm...could that be a distraction?), and am demonized, marginalized, and am cast out as scapegoat for the privilege of living one step from starvation, be it for the help I receive from Above (and often, I suspect, 'beyond'). Alas, it makes no difference in my case for I assure you Albion, all I have to do is tell the truth on an application or C.V. and be guaranteed not to get the job! And there are various barriers to work, that prevent people from gaining long-term employment, because people are not all the same, and they all have a range of different needs, they don't all fit into convenient boxes unfortunately, as much as governmental systems seem to want to try. No one seriously chooses to live in poverty, if they are living in poverty it's because of a range of outside factors and sometimes inner factors that combine to people falling through the net. The Universal 'one size fits all ' approach doesn't work. It fails to work, it costs you money, and it fails the people who's quality of lives are ruined through an orchestrated combination of poverty and continual harassment. And all when unemployment is in any case necessary in order for Capitalism to function. RANT OVER P.R. Not to worry, I'm inviting myself round to Osborne's mum's for Christmas, after all, we're all in this together, right?[/p][/quote]Its a numbers game ALP.. Like someone posted earlier that would literally treat looking for a job as a job that is whats needed. The law of averages dictates that the more you apply for the more chance their is of securing employment. No-one is saying its easy because it isnt but through determination and thinking outside the box when applying can get you a foot in the door. Like someone suggested follow up EVERY application with a call to confirm receipt then literally hound them for an interview. Despite what someone may think that this will just annoy an employer the majority and I kid you not will admire your enthusiasm. I employ quite a few people and I can honestly say the main thing I look for is drive and determination to suceed. For example last month had a role and was narrowed down to 2 people. A 30 year old with bucketloads of experience or a 19 year old with little experience at all. Because the 19 year old showed more determination they got the job. As someone put earlier employers generally use gut instinct not whats on a bit of paper so its about being knowledgable about their company and selling yourself. You dont need to tell them about any health problems and by the sounds of it if I was you I wouldnt and take a chance it doesnt effect anything in the future. If it does deal with it then but if you have kept your head down and done a good job no doubt the employer will work with you on that. Everyone lies or streches the truth on CV's indeed you would be stupid not to but once you get in front of them its over to you to present yourself with confidence...not arrogance but bordering on that. Not doubt the JC has told you all of this anyway Andy2010

12:13pm Thu 6 Dec 12

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

You miss his point, he doesn't want to work, has no interest in working and if ever forced into a situation whereby he would be forced to work he would pull out the 'illegal drug user' card and be cast aside as a danger to himself and colleagues. He classes himself as unemployable, I still don't really know why but if that his the level he chooses to live his life, let him say I and face the cuts and lack of sustenance/substance that lifestyle has.

It is the disabled and desperate to work who are suffering as much as people like ALP (you're own acronym pal) and they genuinely would love to be able to earn more for themselves and families.
You miss his point, he doesn't want to work, has no interest in working and if ever forced into a situation whereby he would be forced to work he would pull out the 'illegal drug user' card and be cast aside as a danger to himself and colleagues. He classes himself as unemployable, I still don't really know why but if that his the level he chooses to live his life, let him say I and face the cuts and lack of sustenance/substance that lifestyle has. It is the disabled and desperate to work who are suffering as much as people like ALP (you're own acronym pal) and they genuinely would love to be able to earn more for themselves and families. Prisoner Cell Block A

12:24pm Thu 6 Dec 12

aje2010 says...

I don't think people should EXPECT to have their food, bills and housing paid for by other people/companies (taxes). The fact that people are complaining that they may have to pay their way in life are worrying signs.
I don't think people should EXPECT to have their food, bills and housing paid for by other people/companies (taxes). The fact that people are complaining that they may have to pay their way in life are worrying signs. aje2010

1:54pm Thu 6 Dec 12

RollandSmoke says...

aje2010 wrote:
I don't think people should EXPECT to have their food, bills and housing paid for by other people/companies (taxes). The fact that people are complaining that they may have to pay their way in life are worrying signs.
you should have left it at "I don't think" although the rest of your comment does enforce the fact.
[quote][p][bold]aje2010[/bold] wrote: I don't think people should EXPECT to have their food, bills and housing paid for by other people/companies (taxes). The fact that people are complaining that they may have to pay their way in life are worrying signs.[/p][/quote]you should have left it at "I don't think" although the rest of your comment does enforce the fact. RollandSmoke

3:48pm Thu 6 Dec 12

Outraged English Subject says...

From April, when changes in council tax and other benefits are implemented, all shall be paying their bit. You may through the overwhelming since of pride of paying your own way in a little way; find a new spring in your step which directly springs you into a full time job! Before you all laugh, I’ve heard that stranger things happen at sea.
From April, when changes in council tax and other benefits are implemented, all shall be paying their bit. You may through the overwhelming since of pride of paying your own way in a little way; find a new spring in your step which directly springs you into a full time job! Before you all laugh, I’ve heard that stranger things happen at sea. Outraged English Subject

4:13pm Thu 6 Dec 12

thruth9211 says...

Lets change the topic for a while

Most of the money is wasted on prisons and criminals. If justice is to be implemented, all these people should be made to pay for their crime

They cost to much to stay in prison, they live better than you and I.


So why should we support the government to give these people free food, roof over their heads

I say make them work for their stay in prison, clean our streets, and labour work
Every one should be made to pay for council tax, this system is not fair

Oh yeah another thing, why do we support people on benefits, they waste their money on fags and booze and keep dogs like trophys

.
Lets change the topic for a while Most of the money is wasted on prisons and criminals. If justice is to be implemented, all these people should be made to pay for their crime They cost to much to stay in prison, they live better than you and I. So why should we support the government to give these people free food, roof over their heads I say make them work for their stay in prison, clean our streets, and labour work Every one should be made to pay for council tax, this system is not fair Oh yeah another thing, why do we support people on benefits, they waste their money on fags and booze and keep dogs like trophys . thruth9211

4:34pm Thu 6 Dec 12

ANY WHERE BUT HERE says...

Banning dogs from council owned cemeteries, where muslims are buried. The rate payers own them you ****.
They do really like to divide in BRADFORD. Ive got a problem with muslims marrying there cousins which in turn leads to health problems, which the NHS ratepayer needs to pay for ALL the recipetents LIFE. Is that a problem. You really couldn't make it up.
Banning dogs from council owned cemeteries, where muslims are buried. The rate payers own them you ****. They do really like to divide in BRADFORD. Ive got a problem with muslims marrying there cousins which in turn leads to health problems, which the NHS ratepayer needs to pay for ALL the recipetents LIFE. Is that a problem. You really couldn't make it up. ANY WHERE BUT HERE

5:38pm Thu 6 Dec 12

Shelfrhino says...

Over on another story about bedroom tax there is a feckless breeder who, although he and his fellow claimant partner had two kids and one on the way, chose to have another child when he lost his job, thereby slamming the taxpayer with a huge bill for bringing up this thick pair's four sprogs.
These are the kind of people who should be turned out on to the streets or into some of the disused warehouse's in dorm style accommodation, and the social housing these leeches occupy could be given to hard working families.
Over on another story about bedroom tax there is a feckless breeder who, although he and his fellow claimant partner had two kids and one on the way, chose to have another child when he lost his job, thereby slamming the taxpayer with a huge bill for bringing up this thick pair's four sprogs. These are the kind of people who should be turned out on to the streets or into some of the disused warehouse's in dorm style accommodation, and the social housing these leeches occupy could be given to hard working families. Shelfrhino

8:30pm Thu 6 Dec 12

Bellamaie1 says...

Shelfrino - i am actually that feckless breeders partner and yes we had two children one on the way when he was made redundant. Truthfully i was actually had a contraceptive implant in when i fell preg with the fourth the chance yes is 99.9 percent chance and it happened to be so very easy to judge when people dont no the full story!! My partner has being applying for jobs left right and centre. You can tell how much of a joke it is even when the job centre tell you there is nothing unless you are qualified in that profession or have experience in basically every thing these days. People presume every body who is on benefits are lazy worthless scum and love every minute being on benefits yes there is a percentage. But quite alot of people claim benefits due to being made redundant etc. put yourself in some one elses position what if you became redundant or some happened where you could no longer work you would be tied with the same brush !
Shelfrino - i am actually that feckless breeders partner and yes we had two children one on the way when he was made redundant. Truthfully i was actually had a contraceptive implant in when i fell preg with the fourth the chance yes is 99.9 percent chance and it happened to be so very easy to judge when people dont no the full story!! My partner has being applying for jobs left right and centre. You can tell how much of a joke it is even when the job centre tell you there is nothing unless you are qualified in that profession or have experience in basically every thing these days. People presume every body who is on benefits are lazy worthless scum and love every minute being on benefits yes there is a percentage. But quite alot of people claim benefits due to being made redundant etc. put yourself in some one elses position what if you became redundant or some happened where you could no longer work you would be tied with the same brush ! Bellamaie1

9:22pm Thu 6 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

Shelfrhino wrote:
Over on another story about bedroom tax there is a feckless breeder who, although he and his fellow claimant partner had two kids and one on the way, chose to have another child when he lost his job, thereby slamming the taxpayer with a huge bill for bringing up this thick pair's four sprogs.
These are the kind of people who should be turned out on to the streets or into some of the disused warehouse's in dorm style accommodation, and the social housing these leeches occupy could be given to hard working families.
Hmmm, very tongue in cheek.. BUT....

Food for thought... ONLY for those lazy, useless reprobates who have absolutely NO intention of working whatsoever..

(The jury is still out on ALP, due to him refusing to answer my question about whether he applied for potential jobs I put his way. He has yet to declare which side of the fence he is on, seriously looking for a job or cant be bothered..... As time goes by he leans more toward the latter).

Heres the idea (I do not necessarily support it, just allowing my mind to wander a bit after a hard day at work).

Cut their housing benefit by putting them into military/boarding school style dormitories, about 30 to a room should be about right. Rent is about £5.00 per week (paid by the state anyway), per bed space.


Supplied with :

Bed (Might be bunk style), mattress, sheets, pillows and blankets (sheets and pillowcases laundered weekly, as part of rent).

Small mat to put your feet on on cold mornings (when the BIG alarm is blasted out).

Locker to put personal belongings into and to hold your "interview suit"(would probably never come out) and clothes etc..

Heating via a tokened meter system, where an amount of tokens are issued to a dormitory or person each week. When the tokens run out, its gonna get cold..

Communal baths and showers.

Communal Television - 5 TV rooms, each one fixed to BBC1,2, Itv1,Ch4 and 5-- Want more? buy your own TV and Licence.

Cafeteria style system to buy prepared food from, via issued vouchers (cashless system, reduces crime).

You would be responsible for the cleanliness of your own bed space daily, and the overall accommodation on a rota basis.

Free to come and go anytime, but rent is paid and bed is reserved while the rent is paid (but a 30 day absence cancels this).

Wardens ensure safety and security of people, but do not police it (its NOT prison)

On site job/advice centre, with internet connection and phoneline to the staff (or manned by part time staff and advisors-- it wouldnt get used much anyway).

Rewards would be earned by looking for work and attending interviews, via a points system.. Earn enough points and you can have your own room (but you can lose it just by not keeping it up or somebody doing better than you). Or you can earn credit for your SIM to use the shared mobile phone.
OR you can earn credit to allow you some personal internet surfing,

Or, try really hard and you could even earn CASH, to buy cigarettes (smoking only permitted in designated areas, in a one sided bus shelter 300 yards from any other building - thats what workers get, at best). Alcohol by prior arrangement.

Take it or leave it, the alternative is the street..

Benefits: Social benefits for skivers and scroungers are cut drastically, this could be reinvested into providing JOBS at these places such as catering , staff, administration etc. (just think, one of the scroungers could actually get a job where they live). Bedroom tax would not be an issue for the occupants.

For the claimant: No council tax to pay, no TV licence, fuel bills by token, food by vouchers. No hunger, No cold. No bedroom tax. In fact, apart from clothing and the odd trip out to an interview, there is no need for cash, or very little. So the benefits can be slashed, saving billions.

(might actually reduce my own tax, in time)

Disadvantages::, Over to you folks.......


Hmm, where is it already done?

Some of it is done in our armed forces... (or was, dunno about nowadays).

What about boarding schools (St Trinians comes to mind when I think of the potential occupants of this idea).

Its also (supposed to be) done for illegal immigrants, but they are not allowed to come and go (so its prison).

I used to own an old nissan hut too.. I could have let it out to the state for up to £150 a week...

I reiterate, ONLY for those who are not worthy of my (worked for and earned) financial support.

Hows that for extremist? ALP would approve.. I did not say I support or agree to the above, just a thought that crossed my mind.

To balance my attitude. I have put money in collections to help those who are less fortunate than me, and I donate regularly to charities I choose to support, and several other charitable actions, to help those not as privileged as me. And I am NOT Starbucks Managing Director.
[quote][p][bold]Shelfrhino[/bold] wrote: Over on another story about bedroom tax there is a feckless breeder who, although he and his fellow claimant partner had two kids and one on the way, chose to have another child when he lost his job, thereby slamming the taxpayer with a huge bill for bringing up this thick pair's four sprogs. These are the kind of people who should be turned out on to the streets or into some of the disused warehouse's in dorm style accommodation, and the social housing these leeches occupy could be given to hard working families.[/p][/quote]Hmmm, very tongue in cheek.. BUT.... Food for thought... ONLY for those lazy, useless reprobates who have absolutely NO intention of working whatsoever.. (The jury is still out on ALP, due to him refusing to answer my question about whether he applied for potential jobs I put his way. He has yet to declare which side of the fence he is on, seriously looking for a job or cant be bothered..... As time goes by he leans more toward the latter). Heres the idea (I do not necessarily support it, just allowing my mind to wander a bit after a hard day at work). Cut their housing benefit by putting them into military/boarding school style dormitories, about 30 to a room should be about right. Rent is about £5.00 per week (paid by the state anyway), per bed space. Supplied with : Bed (Might be bunk style), mattress, sheets, pillows and blankets (sheets and pillowcases laundered weekly, as part of rent). Small mat to put your feet on on cold mornings (when the BIG alarm is blasted out). Locker to put personal belongings into and to hold your "interview suit"(would probably never come out) and clothes etc.. Heating via a tokened meter system, where an amount of tokens are issued to a dormitory or person each week. When the tokens run out, its gonna get cold.. Communal baths and showers. Communal Television - 5 TV rooms, each one fixed to BBC1,2, Itv1,Ch4 and 5-- Want more? buy your own TV and Licence. Cafeteria style system to buy prepared food from, via issued vouchers (cashless system, reduces crime). You would be responsible for the cleanliness of your own bed space daily, and the overall accommodation on a rota basis. Free to come and go anytime, but rent is paid and bed is reserved while the rent is paid (but a 30 day absence cancels this). Wardens ensure safety and security of people, but do not police it (its NOT prison) On site job/advice centre, with internet connection and phoneline to the staff (or manned by part time staff and advisors-- it wouldnt get used much anyway). Rewards would be earned by looking for work and attending interviews, via a points system.. Earn enough points and you can have your own room (but you can lose it just by not keeping it up or somebody doing better than you). Or you can earn credit for your SIM to use the shared mobile phone. OR you can earn credit to allow you some personal internet surfing, Or, try really hard and you could even earn CASH, to buy cigarettes (smoking only permitted in designated areas, in a one sided bus shelter 300 yards from any other building - thats what workers get, at best). Alcohol by prior arrangement. Take it or leave it, the alternative is the street.. Benefits: Social benefits for skivers and scroungers are cut drastically, this could be reinvested into providing JOBS at these places such as catering , staff, administration etc. (just think, one of the scroungers could actually get a job where they live). Bedroom tax would not be an issue for the occupants. For the claimant: No council tax to pay, no TV licence, fuel bills by token, food by vouchers. No hunger, No cold. No bedroom tax. In fact, apart from clothing and the odd trip out to an interview, there is no need for cash, or very little. So the benefits can be slashed, saving billions. (might actually reduce my own tax, in time) Disadvantages::, Over to you folks....... Hmm, where is it already done? Some of it is done in our armed forces... (or was, dunno about nowadays). What about boarding schools (St Trinians comes to mind when I think of the potential occupants of this idea). Its also (supposed to be) done for illegal immigrants, but they are not allowed to come and go (so its prison). I used to own an old nissan hut too.. I could have let it out to the state for up to £150 a week... I reiterate, ONLY for those who are not worthy of my (worked for and earned) financial support. Hows that for extremist? ALP would approve.. I did not say I support or agree to the above, just a thought that crossed my mind. To balance my attitude. I have put money in collections to help those who are less fortunate than me, and I donate regularly to charities I choose to support, and several other charitable actions, to help those not as privileged as me. And I am NOT Starbucks Managing Director. WayneRouke

10:21pm Thu 6 Dec 12

Bellamaie1 says...

Yeah that sounds great hahaha yeah what ever. And how is all this going to be payed for. Would have to pay for the building, etc. and oh my god because you have a job you think you are above everybody else such a joke. Genuine people out there unemployed through redundancy and other things through no fault of their own. And what the hell a shared mobile phone because peope are on benefits they aint entitled to a mobile well yeah most people have a phone in these days for simple things such as emergancies. I love how people are penalised for being made redundant but alcoholics and smack heads never ever come in to it. Maybe if alcoholics didnt get extra money while been on benefits ( actually £5 more a week than any body else) that would cut some money . All the immigrants that come over take up work and then send it all back to their own country for their own families. Why not think about murderers or rapists that are in prison they got it better than any body free food , televisions etc should bring back hanging and solve that one. and yes david cameron does not have a clue he was brought up going to heaton blah blah he doesnt have a clue what its like in a real world .Doesnt he get a wage and living expenses on top of that and gets driven around in a flash car with a shauffer thats all tax payers money !
Yeah that sounds great hahaha yeah what ever. And how is all this going to be payed for. Would have to pay for the building, etc. and oh my god because you have a job you think you are above everybody else such a joke. Genuine people out there unemployed through redundancy and other things through no fault of their own. And what the hell a shared mobile phone because peope are on benefits they aint entitled to a mobile well yeah most people have a phone in these days for simple things such as emergancies. I love how people are penalised for being made redundant but alcoholics and smack heads never ever come in to it. Maybe if alcoholics didnt get extra money while been on benefits ( actually £5 more a week than any body else) that would cut some money . All the immigrants that come over take up work and then send it all back to their own country for their own families. Why not think about murderers or rapists that are in prison they got it better than any body free food , televisions etc should bring back hanging and solve that one. and yes david cameron does not have a clue he was brought up going to heaton blah blah he doesnt have a clue what its like in a real world .Doesnt he get a wage and living expenses on top of that and gets driven around in a flash car with a shauffer thats all tax payers money ! Bellamaie1

10:29pm Thu 6 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

Bellamaie1 wrote:
Yeah that sounds great hahaha yeah what ever. And how is all this going to be payed for. Would have to pay for the building, etc. and oh my god because you have a job you think you are above everybody else such a joke. Genuine people out there unemployed through redundancy and other things through no fault of their own. And what the hell a shared mobile phone because peope are on benefits they aint entitled to a mobile well yeah most people have a phone in these days for simple things such as emergancies. I love how people are penalised for being made redundant but alcoholics and smack heads never ever come in to it. Maybe if alcoholics didnt get extra money while been on benefits ( actually £5 more a week than any body else) that would cut some money . All the immigrants that come over take up work and then send it all back to their own country for their own families. Why not think about murderers or rapists that are in prison they got it better than any body free food , televisions etc should bring back hanging and solve that one. and yes david cameron does not have a clue he was brought up going to heaton blah blah he doesnt have a clue what its like in a real world .Doesnt he get a wage and living expenses on top of that and gets driven around in a flash car with a shauffer thats all tax payers money !
Erm.. Please re read and get off your high horse.. I said tongue in cheek (that means its a bit of fun, a tease aimed exactly at people like you, who take the bait every time.. Bang, gotcha hook line and sinker)..

HOWEVER..

I DID say for those that DO NOT DESERVE support..

(In your language -- The lazy Sh1ts who dont WANT to WORK, make no Effort to find it and suck and leech everything they can from the system without giving anything, and intent on not giving anything back).

I DID NOT say that the scheme was for people who DESERVE support.. IE Those actively seeking work or those phsyically UNABLE to work (I appreciate currently a grey area and open for debate) but those defined as unable to work need and deserve help.

SO, B4 U Go Off on 1 Pls Rd All the thrd tks and stfu...
[quote][p][bold]Bellamaie1[/bold] wrote: Yeah that sounds great hahaha yeah what ever. And how is all this going to be payed for. Would have to pay for the building, etc. and oh my god because you have a job you think you are above everybody else such a joke. Genuine people out there unemployed through redundancy and other things through no fault of their own. And what the hell a shared mobile phone because peope are on benefits they aint entitled to a mobile well yeah most people have a phone in these days for simple things such as emergancies. I love how people are penalised for being made redundant but alcoholics and smack heads never ever come in to it. Maybe if alcoholics didnt get extra money while been on benefits ( actually £5 more a week than any body else) that would cut some money . All the immigrants that come over take up work and then send it all back to their own country for their own families. Why not think about murderers or rapists that are in prison they got it better than any body free food , televisions etc should bring back hanging and solve that one. and yes david cameron does not have a clue he was brought up going to heaton blah blah he doesnt have a clue what its like in a real world .Doesnt he get a wage and living expenses on top of that and gets driven around in a flash car with a shauffer thats all tax payers money ![/p][/quote]Erm.. Please re read and get off your high horse.. I said tongue in cheek (that means its a bit of fun, a tease aimed exactly at people like you, who take the bait every time.. Bang, gotcha hook line and sinker).. HOWEVER.. I DID say for those that DO NOT DESERVE support.. (In your language -- The lazy Sh1ts who dont WANT to WORK, make no Effort to find it and suck and leech everything they can from the system without giving anything, and intent on not giving anything back). I DID NOT say that the scheme was for people who DESERVE support.. IE Those actively seeking work or those phsyically UNABLE to work (I appreciate currently a grey area and open for debate) but those defined as unable to work need and deserve help. SO, B4 U Go Off on 1 Pls Rd All the thrd tks and stfu... WayneRouke

10:35pm Thu 6 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

Bellamaie1 wrote:
Yeah that sounds great hahaha yeah what ever. And how is all this going to be payed for. Would have to pay for the building, etc. and oh my god because you have a job you think you are above everybody else such a joke. Genuine people out there unemployed through redundancy and other things through no fault of their own. And what the hell a shared mobile phone because peope are on benefits they aint entitled to a mobile well yeah most people have a phone in these days for simple things such as emergancies. I love how people are penalised for being made redundant but alcoholics and smack heads never ever come in to it. Maybe if alcoholics didnt get extra money while been on benefits ( actually £5 more a week than any body else) that would cut some money . All the immigrants that come over take up work and then send it all back to their own country for their own families. Why not think about murderers or rapists that are in prison they got it better than any body free food , televisions etc should bring back hanging and solve that one. and yes david cameron does not have a clue he was brought up going to heaton blah blah he doesnt have a clue what its like in a real world .Doesnt he get a wage and living expenses on top of that and gets driven around in a flash car with a shauffer thats all tax payers money !
My goodness.. If your spelling and grammar on application forms is as bad as those in your posts, I am very much afraid your application form would end up in file 13.

And please read my posts on other threads regarding my opinions regarding prison, immigrants, drug dealers and alcohol abusers.

I have a job yes. I am privileged and lucky in that my skills are 'sellable'. But I do not put myself above or below my fellow human being, with the exception of those people (I will say it in caps so yo notice) THOSE WHO HAVE NO INTENTION OF WORKING AND SPONGE OFF SOCIETY. (now, have you got it yet)....
[quote][p][bold]Bellamaie1[/bold] wrote: Yeah that sounds great hahaha yeah what ever. And how is all this going to be payed for. Would have to pay for the building, etc. and oh my god because you have a job you think you are above everybody else such a joke. Genuine people out there unemployed through redundancy and other things through no fault of their own. And what the hell a shared mobile phone because peope are on benefits they aint entitled to a mobile well yeah most people have a phone in these days for simple things such as emergancies. I love how people are penalised for being made redundant but alcoholics and smack heads never ever come in to it. Maybe if alcoholics didnt get extra money while been on benefits ( actually £5 more a week than any body else) that would cut some money . All the immigrants that come over take up work and then send it all back to their own country for their own families. Why not think about murderers or rapists that are in prison they got it better than any body free food , televisions etc should bring back hanging and solve that one. and yes david cameron does not have a clue he was brought up going to heaton blah blah he doesnt have a clue what its like in a real world .Doesnt he get a wage and living expenses on top of that and gets driven around in a flash car with a shauffer thats all tax payers money ![/p][/quote]My goodness.. If your spelling and grammar on application forms is as bad as those in your posts, I am very much afraid your application form would end up in file 13. And please read my posts on other threads regarding my opinions regarding prison, immigrants, drug dealers and alcohol abusers. I have a job yes. I am privileged and lucky in that my skills are 'sellable'. But I do not put myself above or below my fellow human being, with the exception of those people (I will say it in caps so yo notice) THOSE WHO HAVE NO INTENTION OF WORKING AND SPONGE OFF SOCIETY. (now, have you got it yet).... WayneRouke

10:50pm Thu 6 Dec 12

Bellamaie1 says...

So sorry to upset you with my grammer etc. to be honest with you im bigger than every body else i have a right to employ who ever i want. I am going to university soon to study to become a neonatal nurse so must not be that bad. And one great thing i missed out which infuriates me is all these peope who live in england who are now uk citizens who cant even speak the english language cost the nhs £28 million pound every year that is not even including the police stations or the courts. Or what about the mosque that what was built in kensington that was all tax payer money well why should people have to pay for things like that this is an english country
So sorry to upset you with my grammer etc. to be honest with you im bigger than every body else i have a right to employ who ever i want. I am going to university soon to study to become a neonatal nurse so must not be that bad. And one great thing i missed out which infuriates me is all these peope who live in england who are now uk citizens who cant even speak the english language cost the nhs £28 million pound every year that is not even including the police stations or the courts. Or what about the mosque that what was built in kensington that was all tax payer money well why should people have to pay for things like that this is an english country Bellamaie1

10:52pm Thu 6 Dec 12

Bellamaie1 says...

Didnt mean myself in that comment of being mr big and can employ who ever i want i meant you
Didnt mean myself in that comment of being mr big and can employ who ever i want i meant you Bellamaie1

11:01pm Thu 6 Dec 12

Shelfrhino says...

Bellamaie1 wrote:
Yeah that sounds great hahaha yeah what ever. And how is all this going to be payed for. Would have to pay for the building, etc. and oh my god because you have a job you think you are above everybody else such a joke. Genuine people out there unemployed through redundancy and other things through no fault of their own. And what the hell a shared mobile phone because peope are on benefits they aint entitled to a mobile well yeah most people have a phone in these days for simple things such as emergancies. I love how people are penalised for being made redundant but alcoholics and smack heads never ever come in to it. Maybe if alcoholics didnt get extra money while been on benefits ( actually £5 more a week than any body else) that would cut some money . All the immigrants that come over take up work and then send it all back to their own country for their own families. Why not think about murderers or rapists that are in prison they got it better than any body free food , televisions etc should bring back hanging and solve that one. and yes david cameron does not have a clue he was brought up going to heaton blah blah he doesnt have a clue what its like in a real world .Doesnt he get a wage and living expenses on top of that and gets driven around in a flash car with a shauffer thats all tax payers money !
You forgot to mention what YOU did for a living before you started banging out kids once year.
[quote][p][bold]Bellamaie1[/bold] wrote: Yeah that sounds great hahaha yeah what ever. And how is all this going to be payed for. Would have to pay for the building, etc. and oh my god because you have a job you think you are above everybody else such a joke. Genuine people out there unemployed through redundancy and other things through no fault of their own. And what the hell a shared mobile phone because peope are on benefits they aint entitled to a mobile well yeah most people have a phone in these days for simple things such as emergancies. I love how people are penalised for being made redundant but alcoholics and smack heads never ever come in to it. Maybe if alcoholics didnt get extra money while been on benefits ( actually £5 more a week than any body else) that would cut some money . All the immigrants that come over take up work and then send it all back to their own country for their own families. Why not think about murderers or rapists that are in prison they got it better than any body free food , televisions etc should bring back hanging and solve that one. and yes david cameron does not have a clue he was brought up going to heaton blah blah he doesnt have a clue what its like in a real world .Doesnt he get a wage and living expenses on top of that and gets driven around in a flash car with a shauffer thats all tax payers money ![/p][/quote]You forgot to mention what YOU did for a living before you started banging out kids once year. Shelfrhino

11:10pm Thu 6 Dec 12

Bellamaie1 says...

Haha you definatly think your above everbody else. I actually did my A levels and worked part time yes at morrisons you will find that funny as your better than every body else.
Haha you definatly think your above everbody else. I actually did my A levels and worked part time yes at morrisons you will find that funny as your better than every body else. Bellamaie1

11:24pm Thu 6 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

Bellamaie1 wrote:
Haha you definatly think your above everbody else. I actually did my A levels and worked part time yes at morrisons you will find that funny as your better than every body else.
Terrible Grammar and spelling for someone who has (apparently), achieved 'A' level qualifications.

I will correct it for you:
" HA HA! You definately think you are above everybody else. I actually did 'A' levels and worked part-time, yes, at Morrisons. You will find that funny, as you're better then everybody else."

Now,go away and write it out,accurately, 100 times. Then type it correctly. Don'f come back until you have done so.

LOL
[quote][p][bold]Bellamaie1[/bold] wrote: Haha you definatly think your above everbody else. I actually did my A levels and worked part time yes at morrisons you will find that funny as your better than every body else.[/p][/quote]Terrible Grammar and spelling for someone who has (apparently), achieved 'A' level qualifications. I will correct it for you: " HA HA! You definately think you are above everybody else. I actually did 'A' levels and worked part-time, yes, at Morrisons. You will find that funny, as you're better then everybody else." Now,go away and write it out,accurately, 100 times. Then type it correctly. Don'f come back until you have done so. LOL WayneRouke

11:34pm Thu 6 Dec 12

Bellamaie1 says...

Yes ok then. I didnt no this was a english test. Actually very sad having to check people do correct grammar and spelling who are you the spelling and grammar police ?
Yes ok then. I didnt no this was a english test. Actually very sad having to check people do correct grammar and spelling who are you the spelling and grammar police ? Bellamaie1

12:17am Fri 7 Dec 12

i hate bradford says...

WayneRouke wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote:
"There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them."

Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?
I do have to say that, if ALP is telling the truth and applying for jobs then he is worthy of support and help, in spite of his extremist views.

Its not like he is some degenerate who only see the jobcentre on signing on day.

But, as said, there are ways of applying and not getting the job.

If he genuinely wants to work, and not getting past base, then he needs to look at the process and at himself.

A revamp of the CV, a positive attitude (even when completing the application form helps), a well written covering letter, a polite phone call chasing up.

Even after interview or rejection, you can ring the employer and ask for feedback as to why you werent selected.

When I was last out of work, I scoured the jobsites and applied for those I could do. I fired off via email the application forms, gave it ten minutes then rang to see if it had been received. This was my opening gambit. After three days of hearing nothing, I followed up with a phone call to ascertain the reason why I had been rejected.

I did this 8 hours per day, between 9am and 6pm.

And I reacted accordingly to the feedback.. It took me thirteen days.
I'm sure that your ability to articulate well impressed the prospective employer as would your relevant skill set and recent employment status. It can be hard to remain positive after sustained rejection. What would you suggest someone who hasn't worked since leaving school with little if any qualifications put on their CV?
RollandSmoke

I would firstly look at the job market very carefully and decide what I wanted to do, which would be the up and coming jobs or those which have little chance of disappearing (such as an undertaker, there arent many of them out of work).

Personally, I would try a college course and try to obtain some work related qualifications and some skills. Possibly a degree course at night school. Certainly something to put on my CV. I would improve my written and spoken word.

I would polish up my interview technique, buy a second hand suit and continue studying and learning.

I would polish up my appearance. Believe it or not, but the decision to hire a person or not happens in the first 30 seconds of interview. Appearance matters. Wear a suit, and a tie. Give a good confident handshake. DONT drink alcohol the night before and definitely no weed. If you smoke, carry some polos to mask your breath smell (and use them).

Prepare some questions to ask, and ask them.

I have thousands of little tips such as this, and I come from both sides of the interviewer/intervie



wee fence. Trust me when I say the interviewer is just as nervous as you, as their status may be affected by employing the right or wrong person.

Dont "overanswer" questions. Be confident. Do your homework and research the company (it pays tenfold if you can quote their last years profit and loss for example).

accept a drink if you want one. Be positive

I would then apply to work on placement for say a month at a time in return for out of pocket expenses only.

During this time, I would keep my head down and nose to the grindstone, and I would gain as much experience as possible (which would then go on the CV). After the placement, I would approach my manager and ask for full employment. If refused, I would ask why and act accordingly.

Basically, I would work for next to nothing until such a time as I was proficient and there was sufficient experience on my CV to command at least an interview.

Ignore the job centre coaches, go to one of the employment agencies and ask for help there. They might be salesmen and sharks, but they do know the market and its trends. Listen to what they say and act on it.

And (heres the one that keeps me going).. If you get refused, simply regard it as their loss, forget it and move on.. (Difficult to do, but not impossible, and it does help you stay positive).

However, having said all that, if I had my time again, I would train to be a plumber and go self employed.

Hope that helps.

WR
All good advice Wayne but as an interviewer are there character types that for what ever reason you wouldn't touch with a barge pole? If you have that opinion of them would other employers share your viewpoint? You can put on a front for an interview but if that's all it is you arn't going to last long. The academic under achievers would traditionally have done jobs in factories or other labour intensive industries that are now a distant memory. The lower their academic achievement the less likely they are to expand on it. If they have a cannabis conviction does that count against them?
My daughter is training to be a plumber.
There are certain character types I MAY not employ, but I rely on my instincts more than anything. If someone goes to the trouble of being clean and smart, that goes well with me. If a person turns up in a torn T shirt, jeans, dirty trainers and a safety pin through their nose, they wont even get through the door.

Funnily enough, I look at the fingernails, and how well they are kept and how clean they are.

Pre interview, the application form must be completed (and devoid of text speak), the same with the CV. A personal preference I know, but I hate bad spelling and grammar (although I am no expert, I have a basic grasp), and nowadays spelling mistakes are needless and help is available for grammar. A covering letter supporting the CV helps.

I am solely interested in a persons ability to do the job, not their personal feelings on race, religion, gender sexuality, political persuasion or anything else. If they are rude or offensive, they will be asked to leave (politely),

They must be amiable and 'fit in'. They must be prepared to 'bend' a little to meet the demands of the job. They should be flexible in their outlook.

I would, of course, have another member of staff present, to support each other and get a balanced view.

A 'front' will last for as long as you wish to remain in employment.. I have been doing it for 40 years.

As for underachievers. I disagree, people find their level and should accept it and go with it, BUT should always have an eye to bettering themselves. OK, not everyone can be a rocket scientists or Nuclear physicist, but most can do a little study in their spare time (we all got the hang of windows even those over 65, so we all have the capacity to learn).

As for convictions, it would depend upon one factor only, if the conviction is spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act, then it is illegal to ask about it.

If the job itself was outside the act, then the conviction must be declared. However, for me, a conviction for weed alone would not necessary count against them, UNLESS it impaired their ability to do the job (eg Driver), and the extent of the habit (if still a habit).

Anything more serious than cannabis would probably end in a refusal. Dealing would always get a refusal. I have to admit that I despise illegal substances, but I do believe cannabis is in a grey area, and am prepared to take all circumstances into account.

Being under the influence of weed at interview would definitely go against you,
If you are going to pick up on another persons spelling or grammar you should always make sure yours is perfect otherwise you open yourself up to ridicule.

In this on comment there are many mistakes. Someone who cannot get even the basic English correct should not even attempt to teach others.

Why not follow your own advice and get a little English help at college?

Meantime you ought to think about not giving others anymore of these patronizing lectures in the disguise of giving friendly advice.

I find you extremely rude and presumptuous especially talking about people on benefits having dirty nails. How bigoted can a person be.

You do seem to be a very reasonable man so I am sure you will understand my advice is merely to help you improve your own future.
[quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: "There are ways of applying for jobs which will guarantee that you don't get them." Job applications are checked by both Jobcentre staff and Work Programme staff. Job search evidence has to be provided at each signing day. When will you accept that a). there are more workers than jobs, so someone must be unemployed, and b). most of the longterm unemployed are unemployable ?[/p][/quote]I do have to say that, if ALP is telling the truth and applying for jobs then he is worthy of support and help, in spite of his extremist views. Its not like he is some degenerate who only see the jobcentre on signing on day. But, as said, there are ways of applying and not getting the job. If he genuinely wants to work, and not getting past base, then he needs to look at the process and at himself. A revamp of the CV, a positive attitude (even when completing the application form helps), a well written covering letter, a polite phone call chasing up. Even after interview or rejection, you can ring the employer and ask for feedback as to why you werent selected. When I was last out of work, I scoured the jobsites and applied for those I could do. I fired off via email the application forms, gave it ten minutes then rang to see if it had been received. This was my opening gambit. After three days of hearing nothing, I followed up with a phone call to ascertain the reason why I had been rejected. I did this 8 hours per day, between 9am and 6pm. And I reacted accordingly to the feedback.. It took me thirteen days.[/p][/quote]I'm sure that your ability to articulate well impressed the prospective employer as would your relevant skill set and recent employment status. It can be hard to remain positive after sustained rejection. What would you suggest someone who hasn't worked since leaving school with little if any qualifications put on their CV?[/p][/quote]RollandSmoke I would firstly look at the job market very carefully and decide what I wanted to do, which would be the up and coming jobs or those which have little chance of disappearing (such as an undertaker, there arent many of them out of work). Personally, I would try a college course and try to obtain some work related qualifications and some skills. Possibly a degree course at night school. Certainly something to put on my CV. I would improve my written and spoken word. I would polish up my interview technique, buy a second hand suit and continue studying and learning. I would polish up my appearance. Believe it or not, but the decision to hire a person or not happens in the first 30 seconds of interview. Appearance matters. Wear a suit, and a tie. Give a good confident handshake. DONT drink alcohol the night before and definitely no weed. If you smoke, carry some polos to mask your breath smell (and use them). Prepare some questions to ask, and ask them. I have thousands of little tips such as this, and I come from both sides of the interviewer/intervie wee fence. Trust me when I say the interviewer is just as nervous as you, as their status may be affected by employing the right or wrong person. Dont "overanswer" questions. Be confident. Do your homework and research the company (it pays tenfold if you can quote their last years profit and loss for example). accept a drink if you want one. Be positive I would then apply to work on placement for say a month at a time in return for out of pocket expenses only. During this time, I would keep my head down and nose to the grindstone, and I would gain as much experience as possible (which would then go on the CV). After the placement, I would approach my manager and ask for full employment. If refused, I would ask why and act accordingly. Basically, I would work for next to nothing until such a time as I was proficient and there was sufficient experience on my CV to command at least an interview. Ignore the job centre coaches, go to one of the employment agencies and ask for help there. They might be salesmen and sharks, but they do know the market and its trends. Listen to what they say and act on it. And (heres the one that keeps me going).. If you get refused, simply regard it as their loss, forget it and move on.. (Difficult to do, but not impossible, and it does help you stay positive). However, having said all that, if I had my time again, I would train to be a plumber and go self employed. Hope that helps. WR[/p][/quote]All good advice Wayne but as an interviewer are there character types that for what ever reason you wouldn't touch with a barge pole? If you have that opinion of them would other employers share your viewpoint? You can put on a front for an interview but if that's all it is you arn't going to last long. The academic under achievers would traditionally have done jobs in factories or other labour intensive industries that are now a distant memory. The lower their academic achievement the less likely they are to expand on it. If they have a cannabis conviction does that count against them? My daughter is training to be a plumber.[/p][/quote]There are certain character types I MAY not employ, but I rely on my instincts more than anything. If someone goes to the trouble of being clean and smart, that goes well with me. If a person turns up in a torn T shirt, jeans, dirty trainers and a safety pin through their nose, they wont even get through the door. Funnily enough, I look at the fingernails, and how well they are kept and how clean they are. Pre interview, the application form must be completed (and devoid of text speak), the same with the CV. A personal preference I know, but I hate bad spelling and grammar (although I am no expert, I have a basic grasp), and nowadays spelling mistakes are needless and help is available for grammar. A covering letter supporting the CV helps. I am solely interested in a persons ability to do the job, not their personal feelings on race, religion, gender sexuality, political persuasion or anything else. If they are rude or offensive, they will be asked to leave (politely), They must be amiable and 'fit in'. They must be prepared to 'bend' a little to meet the demands of the job. They should be flexible in their outlook. I would, of course, have another member of staff present, to support each other and get a balanced view. A 'front' will last for as long as you wish to remain in employment.. I have been doing it for 40 years. As for underachievers. I disagree, people find their level and should accept it and go with it, BUT should always have an eye to bettering themselves. OK, not everyone can be a rocket scientists or Nuclear physicist, but most can do a little study in their spare time (we all got the hang of windows even those over 65, so we all have the capacity to learn). As for convictions, it would depend upon one factor only, if the conviction is spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act, then it is illegal to ask about it. If the job itself was outside the act, then the conviction must be declared. However, for me, a conviction for weed alone would not necessary count against them, UNLESS it impaired their ability to do the job (eg Driver), and the extent of the habit (if still a habit). Anything more serious than cannabis would probably end in a refusal. Dealing would always get a refusal. I have to admit that I despise illegal substances, but I do believe cannabis is in a grey area, and am prepared to take all circumstances into account. Being under the influence of weed at interview would definitely go against you,[/p][/quote]If you are going to pick up on another persons spelling or grammar you should always make sure yours is perfect otherwise you open yourself up to ridicule. In this on comment there are many mistakes. Someone who cannot get even the basic English correct should not even attempt to teach others. Why not follow your own advice and get a little English help at college? Meantime you ought to think about not giving others anymore of these patronizing lectures in the disguise of giving friendly advice. I find you extremely rude and presumptuous especially talking about people on benefits having dirty nails. How bigoted can a person be. You do seem to be a very reasonable man so I am sure you will understand my advice is merely to help you improve your own future. i hate bradford

12:32am Fri 7 Dec 12

i hate bradford says...

WayneRouke wrote:
Bellamaie1 wrote:
Haha you definatly think your above everbody else. I actually did my A levels and worked part time yes at morrisons you will find that funny as your better than every body else.
Terrible Grammar and spelling for someone who has (apparently), achieved 'A' level qualifications.

I will correct it for you:
" HA HA! You definately think you are above everybody else. I actually did 'A' levels and worked part-time, yes, at Morrisons. You will find that funny, as you're better then everybody else."

Now,go away and write it out,accurately, 100 times. Then type it correctly. Don'f come back until you have done so.

LOL
Now,go away and write it out,accurately, 100 times. Then type it correctly. Don'f come back until you have done so.


Again I will use the same comment to you but also I will point out in this last part you make at least half a dozen mistakes.

Now I will correct you.

Now go away and write it out accurately one hundred times then type it correctly. Do not come back until you have done so.

If you are going to pick up on another persons spelling or grammar you should always make sure yours is perfect otherwise you open yourself up to ridicule.

In this on comment there are many mistakes. Someone who cannot get even the basic English correct should not even attempt to teach others.

Why not follow your own advice and get a little English help at college as you obviously need it?

Meantime you ought to think about not giving others anymore of these patronizing condescending lectures in the disguise of giving friendly advice.

I find you extremely rude and presumptuous especially talking about people on benefits having dirty nails. How bigoted can a person be.

You do seem to be a very reasonable chap so I am sure you will understand my advice is merely to help you improve your own future.
[quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bellamaie1[/bold] wrote: Haha you definatly think your above everbody else. I actually did my A levels and worked part time yes at morrisons you will find that funny as your better than every body else.[/p][/quote]Terrible Grammar and spelling for someone who has (apparently), achieved 'A' level qualifications. I will correct it for you: " HA HA! You definately think you are above everybody else. I actually did 'A' levels and worked part-time, yes, at Morrisons. You will find that funny, as you're better then everybody else." Now,go away and write it out,accurately, 100 times. Then type it correctly. Don'f come back until you have done so. LOL[/p][/quote]Now,go away and write it out,accurately, 100 times. Then type it correctly. Don'f come back until you have done so. Again I will use the same comment to you but also I will point out in this last part you make at least half a dozen mistakes. Now I will correct you. Now go away and write it out accurately one hundred times then type it correctly. Do not come back until you have done so. If you are going to pick up on another persons spelling or grammar you should always make sure yours is perfect otherwise you open yourself up to ridicule. In this on comment there are many mistakes. Someone who cannot get even the basic English correct should not even attempt to teach others. Why not follow your own advice and get a little English help at college as you obviously need it? Meantime you ought to think about not giving others anymore of these patronizing condescending lectures in the disguise of giving friendly advice. I find you extremely rude and presumptuous especially talking about people on benefits having dirty nails. How bigoted can a person be. You do seem to be a very reasonable chap so I am sure you will understand my advice is merely to help you improve your own future. i hate bradford

12:43am Fri 7 Dec 12

i hate bradford says...

Bellamaie1 wrote:
Yes ok then. I didnt no this was a english test. Actually very sad having to check people do correct grammar and spelling who are you the spelling and grammar police ?
Ignore this person his spellings and grammar are crap in fact far worse than your couple of spelling mistakes are! Anyway this isn't a god **** CV its a comment on a news report in a crappy little town in the north of England. At least you know where to put commas and full stops and capital letters. This unreasonable chap doesn't!!

LOL
[quote][p][bold]Bellamaie1[/bold] wrote: Yes ok then. I didnt no this was a english test. Actually very sad having to check people do correct grammar and spelling who are you the spelling and grammar police ?[/p][/quote]Ignore this person his spellings and grammar are crap in fact far worse than your couple of spelling mistakes are! Anyway this isn't a god **** CV its a comment on a news report in a crappy little town in the north of England. At least you know where to put commas and full stops and capital letters. This unreasonable chap doesn't!! LOL i hate bradford

12:59am Fri 7 Dec 12

Shelfrhino says...

Bellamaie1 wrote:
Haha you definatly think your above everbody else. I actually did my A levels and worked part time yes at morrisons you will find that funny as your better than every body else.
I don't think I'm better than everyone else at all.
What I am though is someone who works hard to provide for his family, and to make sure that I need no hand outs from the tax payer to be able to put a roof over their heads.
It's not me pictured in the paper with my brood bemoaning the fact that I may have to pay a small amount towards my rent, it's you, and if you and your partner had actually thought about how you were going to provide for your children before you started popping them out at the age 18 then maybe you wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.
What exactly did you hope to achieve by doing your A levels if your only ambition was to have four children in quick succession, live in social housing and have a supplemented life on the taxpayer.
[quote][p][bold]Bellamaie1[/bold] wrote: Haha you definatly think your above everbody else. I actually did my A levels and worked part time yes at morrisons you will find that funny as your better than every body else.[/p][/quote]I don't think I'm better than everyone else at all. What I am though is someone who works hard to provide for his family, and to make sure that I need no hand outs from the tax payer to be able to put a roof over their heads. It's not me pictured in the paper with my brood bemoaning the fact that I may have to pay a small amount towards my rent, it's you, and if you and your partner had actually thought about how you were going to provide for your children before you started popping them out at the age 18 then maybe you wouldn't be in this situation to begin with. What exactly did you hope to achieve by doing your A levels if your only ambition was to have four children in quick succession, live in social housing and have a supplemented life on the taxpayer. Shelfrhino

7:17am Fri 7 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

i hate bradford wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
Bellamaie1 wrote:
Haha you definatly think your above everbody else. I actually did my A levels and worked part time yes at morrisons you will find that funny as your better than every body else.
Terrible Grammar and spelling for someone who has (apparently), achieved 'A' level qualifications.

I will correct it for you:
" HA HA! You definately think you are above everybody else. I actually did 'A' levels and worked part-time, yes, at Morrisons. You will find that funny, as you're better then everybody else."

Now,go away and write it out,accurately, 100 times. Then type it correctly. Don'f come back until you have done so.

LOL
Now,go away and write it out,accurately, 100 times. Then type it correctly. Don'f come back until you have done so.


Again I will use the same comment to you but also I will point out in this last part you make at least half a dozen mistakes.

Now I will correct you.

Now go away and write it out accurately one hundred times then type it correctly. Do not come back until you have done so.

If you are going to pick up on another persons spelling or grammar you should always make sure yours is perfect otherwise you open yourself up to ridicule.

In this on comment there are many mistakes. Someone who cannot get even the basic English correct should not even attempt to teach others.

Why not follow your own advice and get a little English help at college as you obviously need it?

Meantime you ought to think about not giving others anymore of these patronizing condescending lectures in the disguise of giving friendly advice.

I find you extremely rude and presumptuous especially talking about people on benefits having dirty nails. How bigoted can a person be.

You do seem to be a very reasonable chap so I am sure you will understand my advice is merely to help you improve your own future.
Oh dear, this is interesting...

I pasted mine into Word, corrected the Typing errors and guess what "The spelling and grammar check is complete"

I pasted yours into Word, corrected the Typing errors and guess what "The spelling and grammar check is complete".

Neither is incorrect. I made typing errors, not spelling and grammar mistakes. Mine has pauses in it, via the commas.

But my post was tongue in cheek and designed to illicit exactly the response it received, only I was expecting it from someone other than you.

For your information, I did 'O; Level English Language grade B. So I have a basic grasp of my mother language. Grammar is no longer taught, I believe, and I think it should be.

And, to correct you.. I do not think unemployed peoples fingernails are dirty. How presumptuous of you to say so. I said "Strangely enough, I look at the fingernails". I did NOT say it affected my decision in any way shape and form,. It is something I have noticed I subconsciously do.

However, I do believe you asked me for my opinion on a given situation, and I responded in kind. But I spotted you trying to direct me down a specific path when you asked about Cameron and Osbourne, and curtailed the post.

Your comment "patronizing condescending lectures in the disguise of giving friendly advice" (you need a comma in there, after patronizing). is completely incorrect, and you have formed an incorrect opinion. Perhaps this is deliberate, I do not know.

As for YOUR help to improve my own future.. Thank you for that, I will graciously decline your offer, as I do not consider myself bigoted at all,

Now, I have to get in the shower, clean my nails and prepare myself for a day at the office. Good day to you.
[quote][p][bold]i hate bradford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bellamaie1[/bold] wrote: Haha you definatly think your above everbody else. I actually did my A levels and worked part time yes at morrisons you will find that funny as your better than every body else.[/p][/quote]Terrible Grammar and spelling for someone who has (apparently), achieved 'A' level qualifications. I will correct it for you: " HA HA! You definately think you are above everybody else. I actually did 'A' levels and worked part-time, yes, at Morrisons. You will find that funny, as you're better then everybody else." Now,go away and write it out,accurately, 100 times. Then type it correctly. Don'f come back until you have done so. LOL[/p][/quote]Now,go away and write it out,accurately, 100 times. Then type it correctly. Don'f come back until you have done so. Again I will use the same comment to you but also I will point out in this last part you make at least half a dozen mistakes. Now I will correct you. Now go away and write it out accurately one hundred times then type it correctly. Do not come back until you have done so. If you are going to pick up on another persons spelling or grammar you should always make sure yours is perfect otherwise you open yourself up to ridicule. In this on comment there are many mistakes. Someone who cannot get even the basic English correct should not even attempt to teach others. Why not follow your own advice and get a little English help at college as you obviously need it? Meantime you ought to think about not giving others anymore of these patronizing condescending lectures in the disguise of giving friendly advice. I find you extremely rude and presumptuous especially talking about people on benefits having dirty nails. How bigoted can a person be. You do seem to be a very reasonable chap so I am sure you will understand my advice is merely to help you improve your own future.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, this is interesting... I pasted mine into Word, corrected the Typing errors and guess what "The spelling and grammar check is complete" I pasted yours into Word, corrected the Typing errors and guess what "The spelling and grammar check is complete". Neither is incorrect. I made typing errors, not spelling and grammar mistakes. Mine has pauses in it, via the commas. But my post was tongue in cheek and designed to illicit exactly the response it received, only I was expecting it from someone other than you. For your information, I did 'O; Level English Language grade B. So I have a basic grasp of my mother language. Grammar is no longer taught, I believe, and I think it should be. And, to correct you.. I do not think unemployed peoples fingernails are dirty. How presumptuous of you to say so. I said "Strangely enough, I look at the fingernails". I did NOT say it affected my decision in any way shape and form,. It is something I have noticed I subconsciously do. However, I do believe you asked me for my opinion on a given situation, and I responded in kind. But I spotted you trying to direct me down a specific path when you asked about Cameron and Osbourne, and curtailed the post. Your comment "patronizing condescending lectures in the disguise of giving friendly advice" (you need a comma in there, after patronizing). is completely incorrect, and you have formed an incorrect opinion. Perhaps this is deliberate, I do not know. As for YOUR help to improve my own future.. Thank you for that, I will graciously decline your offer, as I do not consider myself bigoted at all, Now, I have to get in the shower, clean my nails and prepare myself for a day at the office. Good day to you. WayneRouke

7:26am Fri 7 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

Bellamaie1 wrote:
Yes ok then. I didnt no this was a english test. Actually very sad having to check people do correct grammar and spelling who are you the spelling and grammar police ?
No, not the grammar police.

Remove one word. And no, not an English test either. It was a tongue in cheek attempt at a tiny bit of humour, at your expense.

In your case, I don;t have to look too hard, in fact, they stare at me (its "know", not "no" and "an £nglish test", not "a english test".).

Now I have to start singing the seven dwarf's song.

TTFN
[quote][p][bold]Bellamaie1[/bold] wrote: Yes ok then. I didnt no this was a english test. Actually very sad having to check people do correct grammar and spelling who are you the spelling and grammar police ?[/p][/quote]No, not the grammar police. Remove one word. And no, not an English test either. It was a tongue in cheek attempt at a tiny bit of humour, at your expense. In your case, I don;t have to look too hard, in fact, they stare at me (its "know", not "no" and "an £nglish test", not "a english test".). Now I have to start singing the seven dwarf's song. TTFN WayneRouke

8:59am Fri 7 Dec 12

Bellamaie1 says...

Selfrhino- yes my big ambition was to have four children and sponge of every tax payer in the country infact that was my dream as a little girl. No i dont think so. Yes i have four children three of them were all conceived when i was on a form of contraception so dont judge others believe it or not even tho i have four i am actually not allowed to be sterilised which yeah i would love so now at the moment i am on two forms of contraception in the hope i dont produce any more sproggs as you like to call them! And no the reason i did A levels was to better myself and to do a good job in life fair enough i had my first child at 18 through being stupid not the first and will certainly not be the last and at that time i was working so was my partner and was renting privately not claiming any thing. So let me guess your opion is i thought i would just have a load of kids claim benefits and never work again. Get real not out fault my partners business went bust and was made redundant and i had to leave work as i didnt qualify for maternity leave as i had not worked there for so long. I am not smug and happy about being on benefits and to be honest its quite embarresing when you cant provide for your own family. God forbid you ever lose your job and have to rely on the benefit system wouldnt be so smug then
Selfrhino- yes my big ambition was to have four children and sponge of every tax payer in the country infact that was my dream as a little girl. No i dont think so. Yes i have four children three of them were all conceived when i was on a form of contraception so dont judge others believe it or not even tho i have four i am actually not allowed to be sterilised which yeah i would love so now at the moment i am on two forms of contraception in the hope i dont produce any more sproggs as you like to call them! And no the reason i did A levels was to better myself and to do a good job in life fair enough i had my first child at 18 through being stupid not the first and will certainly not be the last and at that time i was working so was my partner and was renting privately not claiming any thing. So let me guess your opion is i thought i would just have a load of kids claim benefits and never work again. Get real not out fault my partners business went bust and was made redundant and i had to leave work as i didnt qualify for maternity leave as i had not worked there for so long. I am not smug and happy about being on benefits and to be honest its quite embarresing when you cant provide for your own family. God forbid you ever lose your job and have to rely on the benefit system wouldnt be so smug then Bellamaie1

10:31am Fri 7 Dec 12

Andy2010 says...

Bellamaie1 wrote:
Selfrhino- yes my big ambition was to have four children and sponge of every tax payer in the country infact that was my dream as a little girl. No i dont think so. Yes i have four children three of them were all conceived when i was on a form of contraception so dont judge others believe it or not even tho i have four i am actually not allowed to be sterilised which yeah i would love so now at the moment i am on two forms of contraception in the hope i dont produce any more sproggs as you like to call them! And no the reason i did A levels was to better myself and to do a good job in life fair enough i had my first child at 18 through being stupid not the first and will certainly not be the last and at that time i was working so was my partner and was renting privately not claiming any thing. So let me guess your opion is i thought i would just have a load of kids claim benefits and never work again. Get real not out fault my partners business went bust and was made redundant and i had to leave work as i didnt qualify for maternity leave as i had not worked there for so long. I am not smug and happy about being on benefits and to be honest its quite embarresing when you cant provide for your own family. God forbid you ever lose your job and have to rely on the benefit system wouldnt be so smug then
I would suggest keeping your legs crossed as clearly contraception doesnt work for yourself. Or maybe get your partner in for the snip

Maybe when you both then are working uncross your legs
[quote][p][bold]Bellamaie1[/bold] wrote: Selfrhino- yes my big ambition was to have four children and sponge of every tax payer in the country infact that was my dream as a little girl. No i dont think so. Yes i have four children three of them were all conceived when i was on a form of contraception so dont judge others believe it or not even tho i have four i am actually not allowed to be sterilised which yeah i would love so now at the moment i am on two forms of contraception in the hope i dont produce any more sproggs as you like to call them! And no the reason i did A levels was to better myself and to do a good job in life fair enough i had my first child at 18 through being stupid not the first and will certainly not be the last and at that time i was working so was my partner and was renting privately not claiming any thing. So let me guess your opion is i thought i would just have a load of kids claim benefits and never work again. Get real not out fault my partners business went bust and was made redundant and i had to leave work as i didnt qualify for maternity leave as i had not worked there for so long. I am not smug and happy about being on benefits and to be honest its quite embarresing when you cant provide for your own family. God forbid you ever lose your job and have to rely on the benefit system wouldnt be so smug then[/p][/quote]I would suggest keeping your legs crossed as clearly contraception doesnt work for yourself. Or maybe get your partner in for the snip Maybe when you both then are working uncross your legs Andy2010

10:41am Fri 7 Dec 12

Bellamaie1 says...

Would you really suggest that thank you for your very clever advice. He can not get the snip due to age either so tryed that one. Why dont people who have to claim benefits through no fault of their own all be put in a field and be given the lethal injection that would solve every thing and then you can live in your magical disney little world where every thing is so sweet and not full of hopless worthless scum that sit on their fat arses with their tracksuit bottoms tucked in to their socks drinking cans of special brew with a fag in the other hand as that is your perception on people claiming benefits.
Would you really suggest that thank you for your very clever advice. He can not get the snip due to age either so tryed that one. Why dont people who have to claim benefits through no fault of their own all be put in a field and be given the lethal injection that would solve every thing and then you can live in your magical disney little world where every thing is so sweet and not full of hopless worthless scum that sit on their fat arses with their tracksuit bottoms tucked in to their socks drinking cans of special brew with a fag in the other hand as that is your perception on people claiming benefits. Bellamaie1

10:54am Fri 7 Dec 12

i hate bradford says...

WayneRouke wrote:
i hate bradford wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
Bellamaie1 wrote:
Haha you definatly think your above everbody else. I actually did my A levels and worked part time yes at morrisons you will find that funny as your better than every body else.
Terrible Grammar and spelling for someone who has (apparently), achieved 'A' level qualifications.

I will correct it for you:
" HA HA! You definately think you are above everybody else. I actually did 'A' levels and worked part-time, yes, at Morrisons. You will find that funny, as you're better then everybody else."

Now,go away and write it out,accurately, 100 times. Then type it correctly. Don'f come back until you have done so.

LOL
Now,go away and write it out,accurately, 100 times. Then type it correctly. Don'f come back until you have done so.


Again I will use the same comment to you but also I will point out in this last part you make at least half a dozen mistakes.

Now I will correct you.

Now go away and write it out accurately one hundred times then type it correctly. Do not come back until you have done so.

If you are going to pick up on another persons spelling or grammar you should always make sure yours is perfect otherwise you open yourself up to ridicule.

In this on comment there are many mistakes. Someone who cannot get even the basic English correct should not even attempt to teach others.

Why not follow your own advice and get a little English help at college as you obviously need it?

Meantime you ought to think about not giving others anymore of these patronizing condescending lectures in the disguise of giving friendly advice.

I find you extremely rude and presumptuous especially talking about people on benefits having dirty nails. How bigoted can a person be.

You do seem to be a very reasonable chap so I am sure you will understand my advice is merely to help you improve your own future.
Oh dear, this is interesting...

I pasted mine into Word, corrected the Typing errors and guess what "The spelling and grammar check is complete"

I pasted yours into Word, corrected the Typing errors and guess what "The spelling and grammar check is complete".

Neither is incorrect. I made typing errors, not spelling and grammar mistakes. Mine has pauses in it, via the commas.

But my post was tongue in cheek and designed to illicit exactly the response it received, only I was expecting it from someone other than you.

For your information, I did 'O; Level English Language grade B. So I have a basic grasp of my mother language. Grammar is no longer taught, I believe, and I think it should be.

And, to correct you.. I do not think unemployed peoples fingernails are dirty. How presumptuous of you to say so. I said "Strangely enough, I look at the fingernails". I did NOT say it affected my decision in any way shape and form,. It is something I have noticed I subconsciously do.

However, I do believe you asked me for my opinion on a given situation, and I responded in kind. But I spotted you trying to direct me down a specific path when you asked about Cameron and Osbourne, and curtailed the post.

Your comment "patronizing condescending lectures in the disguise of giving friendly advice" (you need a comma in there, after patronizing). is completely incorrect, and you have formed an incorrect opinion. Perhaps this is deliberate, I do not know.

As for YOUR help to improve my own future.. Thank you for that, I will graciously decline your offer, as I do not consider myself bigoted at all,

Now, I have to get in the shower, clean my nails and prepare myself for a day at the office. Good day to you.
Your posts are all riddled with many mistakes. Spellings maybe correct as you say but your grammar, use of commas, full stops and spaces etc. are appalling and far worse than the one you insult. My grandchildren could do a better job. As for my post I was not the one commenting on someone else terrible grammar and insulting them was I?

I may have mistakes but that is laziness not ignorance as yours obviously is. You admit using a spell checker, my advice is use a grammar checker too and also ask your children for help to learn basic things like full stops. I am sure they could advise you. Your comas, capitals and spaces are are regularly incorrect.

My point is that your English is at primary school level so you are not in a position to comment about other peoples bad English especially when you admit to using a spell checker and still get it wrong. You need to learn how to use a spell checker properly as the fact you use one and still make this many mistakes is actually pretty laughable.

Be off with you and go get signed up for evening class for basic English lessons because if you became unemployed I would not hire you with your attitude and lack of English skills.

As for you inferring you are a copper that sounds about right with your smug condescending attitude. They often think they have achieved something wonderful when they are actually nothing but glorified pen pushers. No wonder Bradford is in the state it is in if your an example of our police!
[quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i hate bradford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bellamaie1[/bold] wrote: Haha you definatly think your above everbody else. I actually did my A levels and worked part time yes at morrisons you will find that funny as your better than every body else.[/p][/quote]Terrible Grammar and spelling for someone who has (apparently), achieved 'A' level qualifications. I will correct it for you: " HA HA! You definately think you are above everybody else. I actually did 'A' levels and worked part-time, yes, at Morrisons. You will find that funny, as you're better then everybody else." Now,go away and write it out,accurately, 100 times. Then type it correctly. Don'f come back until you have done so. LOL[/p][/quote]Now,go away and write it out,accurately, 100 times. Then type it correctly. Don'f come back until you have done so. Again I will use the same comment to you but also I will point out in this last part you make at least half a dozen mistakes. Now I will correct you. Now go away and write it out accurately one hundred times then type it correctly. Do not come back until you have done so. If you are going to pick up on another persons spelling or grammar you should always make sure yours is perfect otherwise you open yourself up to ridicule. In this on comment there are many mistakes. Someone who cannot get even the basic English correct should not even attempt to teach others. Why not follow your own advice and get a little English help at college as you obviously need it? Meantime you ought to think about not giving others anymore of these patronizing condescending lectures in the disguise of giving friendly advice. I find you extremely rude and presumptuous especially talking about people on benefits having dirty nails. How bigoted can a person be. You do seem to be a very reasonable chap so I am sure you will understand my advice is merely to help you improve your own future.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, this is interesting... I pasted mine into Word, corrected the Typing errors and guess what "The spelling and grammar check is complete" I pasted yours into Word, corrected the Typing errors and guess what "The spelling and grammar check is complete". Neither is incorrect. I made typing errors, not spelling and grammar mistakes. Mine has pauses in it, via the commas. But my post was tongue in cheek and designed to illicit exactly the response it received, only I was expecting it from someone other than you. For your information, I did 'O; Level English Language grade B. So I have a basic grasp of my mother language. Grammar is no longer taught, I believe, and I think it should be. And, to correct you.. I do not think unemployed peoples fingernails are dirty. How presumptuous of you to say so. I said "Strangely enough, I look at the fingernails". I did NOT say it affected my decision in any way shape and form,. It is something I have noticed I subconsciously do. However, I do believe you asked me for my opinion on a given situation, and I responded in kind. But I spotted you trying to direct me down a specific path when you asked about Cameron and Osbourne, and curtailed the post. Your comment "patronizing condescending lectures in the disguise of giving friendly advice" (you need a comma in there, after patronizing). is completely incorrect, and you have formed an incorrect opinion. Perhaps this is deliberate, I do not know. As for YOUR help to improve my own future.. Thank you for that, I will graciously decline your offer, as I do not consider myself bigoted at all, Now, I have to get in the shower, clean my nails and prepare myself for a day at the office. Good day to you.[/p][/quote]Your posts are all riddled with many mistakes. Spellings maybe correct as you say but your grammar, use of commas, full stops and spaces etc. are appalling and far worse than the one you insult. My grandchildren could do a better job. As for my post I was not the one commenting on someone else terrible grammar and insulting them was I? I may have mistakes but that is laziness not ignorance as yours obviously is. You admit using a spell checker, my advice is use a grammar checker too and also ask your children for help to learn basic things like full stops. I am sure they could advise you. Your comas, capitals and spaces are are regularly incorrect. My point is that your English is at primary school level so you are not in a position to comment about other peoples bad English especially when you admit to using a spell checker and still get it wrong. You need to learn how to use a spell checker properly as the fact you use one and still make this many mistakes is actually pretty laughable. Be off with you and go get signed up for evening class for basic English lessons because if you became unemployed I would not hire you with your attitude and lack of English skills. As for you inferring you are a copper that sounds about right with your smug condescending attitude. They often think they have achieved something wonderful when they are actually nothing but glorified pen pushers. No wonder Bradford is in the state it is in if your an example of our police! i hate bradford

11:01am Fri 7 Dec 12

Andy2010 says...

Bellamaie1 wrote:
Would you really suggest that thank you for your very clever advice. He can not get the snip due to age either so tryed that one. Why dont people who have to claim benefits through no fault of their own all be put in a field and be given the lethal injection that would solve every thing and then you can live in your magical disney little world where every thing is so sweet and not full of hopless worthless scum that sit on their fat arses with their tracksuit bottoms tucked in to their socks drinking cans of special brew with a fag in the other hand as that is your perception on people claiming benefits.
Due to age? How old is he 16 ? If he has four children already no doctor will turn that request down and if they do he simply needs to state he WANTS it doing and they will do it. May I ask did you have your four children whilst you were both working and able to pay for them ? If so fair enough....if not refer to earlier advice....The sooner they stop child benefit at 2 children the better....and FYI I have 5 kids

I take it your partner works ? if he does and you are in receipt of benefits which you stated earlier whats your beef? Are they his kids? If not why is the father not paying ?
[quote][p][bold]Bellamaie1[/bold] wrote: Would you really suggest that thank you for your very clever advice. He can not get the snip due to age either so tryed that one. Why dont people who have to claim benefits through no fault of their own all be put in a field and be given the lethal injection that would solve every thing and then you can live in your magical disney little world where every thing is so sweet and not full of hopless worthless scum that sit on their fat arses with their tracksuit bottoms tucked in to their socks drinking cans of special brew with a fag in the other hand as that is your perception on people claiming benefits.[/p][/quote]Due to age? How old is he 16 ? If he has four children already no doctor will turn that request down and if they do he simply needs to state he WANTS it doing and they will do it. May I ask did you have your four children whilst you were both working and able to pay for them ? If so fair enough....if not refer to earlier advice....The sooner they stop child benefit at 2 children the better....and FYI I have 5 kids I take it your partner works ? if he does and you are in receipt of benefits which you stated earlier whats your beef? Are they his kids? If not why is the father not paying ? Andy2010

11:17am Fri 7 Dec 12

Bellamaie1 says...

Yes his children and we both have clearly stated we wanted to be clearly sterilised and they said no due to our age and no not 16 they said we dont no what will happen in the future aswell as other things so very sorry not througg my own personal choice through as proffesions choice as appatently no best which myself think is wrong!! We had 3 children when he was working yes and the last baby was conceived was i had a contraceptive implant in which apparantly is meant to be more effective than sterilisation as i was told so did not really plan on having any more but let me guess you think because at that time i fell pregnant my partner was unemployed i should of had an abortion due to being on benefits but god if i had of done that that would of cost tax payers no win situation. And i have actually just applied to the university of bradford to do a nursing degree which yes will be goverment funded but as soon as i am working it will be payed back. I have applied for any job going god i would wipe a dogs arse all day to provide for my children but dont get any where did you no you can be to over qualified to get a job at mcdonalds? So yes i am going to better myself for me and my children may take 5 years but at least in the end i wont be branded scum like every body seems to think peole on benefits are
Yes his children and we both have clearly stated we wanted to be clearly sterilised and they said no due to our age and no not 16 they said we dont no what will happen in the future aswell as other things so very sorry not througg my own personal choice through as proffesions choice as appatently no best which myself think is wrong!! We had 3 children when he was working yes and the last baby was conceived was i had a contraceptive implant in which apparantly is meant to be more effective than sterilisation as i was told so did not really plan on having any more but let me guess you think because at that time i fell pregnant my partner was unemployed i should of had an abortion due to being on benefits but god if i had of done that that would of cost tax payers no win situation. And i have actually just applied to the university of bradford to do a nursing degree which yes will be goverment funded but as soon as i am working it will be payed back. I have applied for any job going god i would wipe a dogs arse all day to provide for my children but dont get any where did you no you can be to over qualified to get a job at mcdonalds? So yes i am going to better myself for me and my children may take 5 years but at least in the end i wont be branded scum like every body seems to think peole on benefits are Bellamaie1

11:48am Fri 7 Dec 12

Andy2010 says...

Bellamaie1 wrote:
Yes his children and we both have clearly stated we wanted to be clearly sterilised and they said no due to our age and no not 16 they said we dont no what will happen in the future aswell as other things so very sorry not througg my own personal choice through as proffesions choice as appatently no best which myself think is wrong!! We had 3 children when he was working yes and the last baby was conceived was i had a contraceptive implant in which apparantly is meant to be more effective than sterilisation as i was told so did not really plan on having any more but let me guess you think because at that time i fell pregnant my partner was unemployed i should of had an abortion due to being on benefits but god if i had of done that that would of cost tax payers no win situation. And i have actually just applied to the university of bradford to do a nursing degree which yes will be goverment funded but as soon as i am working it will be payed back. I have applied for any job going god i would wipe a dogs arse all day to provide for my children but dont get any where did you no you can be to over qualified to get a job at mcdonalds? So yes i am going to better myself for me and my children may take 5 years but at least in the end i wont be branded scum like every body seems to think peole on benefits are
Well good for you....isnt your partner working though?

I dont think anyone hear has a problem with anyone claiming benefits when they are actively looking for work. Its the ones that have no intention and breed to benefit purposes (see Jeremy Kyle show)
[quote][p][bold]Bellamaie1[/bold] wrote: Yes his children and we both have clearly stated we wanted to be clearly sterilised and they said no due to our age and no not 16 they said we dont no what will happen in the future aswell as other things so very sorry not througg my own personal choice through as proffesions choice as appatently no best which myself think is wrong!! We had 3 children when he was working yes and the last baby was conceived was i had a contraceptive implant in which apparantly is meant to be more effective than sterilisation as i was told so did not really plan on having any more but let me guess you think because at that time i fell pregnant my partner was unemployed i should of had an abortion due to being on benefits but god if i had of done that that would of cost tax payers no win situation. And i have actually just applied to the university of bradford to do a nursing degree which yes will be goverment funded but as soon as i am working it will be payed back. I have applied for any job going god i would wipe a dogs arse all day to provide for my children but dont get any where did you no you can be to over qualified to get a job at mcdonalds? So yes i am going to better myself for me and my children may take 5 years but at least in the end i wont be branded scum like every body seems to think peole on benefits are[/p][/quote]Well good for you....isnt your partner working though? I dont think anyone hear has a problem with anyone claiming benefits when they are actively looking for work. Its the ones that have no intention and breed to benefit purposes (see Jeremy Kyle show) Andy2010

12:15pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Bellamaie1 says...

He is currently not working though in all honestu he has tried and tried his hardest he looks in the news papers , through the job centre through agencies and goes through the phone books and rings and just asks if people need any body for work. Ino if he had a car he could start work tomorrow working self employed doing deliveries but obviously have no car he can drive tho. It is really tough times for every body out there no matter what your situation. I agree with what every body says but i just feel sorry for people who are genuie and are seeking work. And i hate people who dont try or even bother and think they can have it all handed to them on a plate and that every body owes them something in life
He is currently not working though in all honestu he has tried and tried his hardest he looks in the news papers , through the job centre through agencies and goes through the phone books and rings and just asks if people need any body for work. Ino if he had a car he could start work tomorrow working self employed doing deliveries but obviously have no car he can drive tho. It is really tough times for every body out there no matter what your situation. I agree with what every body says but i just feel sorry for people who are genuie and are seeking work. And i hate people who dont try or even bother and think they can have it all handed to them on a plate and that every body owes them something in life Bellamaie1

12:42pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Andy2010 says...

Bellamaie1 wrote:
He is currently not working though in all honestu he has tried and tried his hardest he looks in the news papers , through the job centre through agencies and goes through the phone books and rings and just asks if people need any body for work. Ino if he had a car he could start work tomorrow working self employed doing deliveries but obviously have no car he can drive tho. It is really tough times for every body out there no matter what your situation. I agree with what every body says but i just feel sorry for people who are genuie and are seeking work. And i hate people who dont try or even bother and think they can have it all handed to them on a plate and that every body owes them something in life
Dont want to sound like Im telling you to suck eggs but DPD, La Poste are recruiting delivery drivers at the minute as their is a massive shortage with xmas deliveries. You are provided with the van etc. I only know because they lease their vans from my business but if you go on their site there shoudl be details. I thinks its only a 3 month contract but may help
[quote][p][bold]Bellamaie1[/bold] wrote: He is currently not working though in all honestu he has tried and tried his hardest he looks in the news papers , through the job centre through agencies and goes through the phone books and rings and just asks if people need any body for work. Ino if he had a car he could start work tomorrow working self employed doing deliveries but obviously have no car he can drive tho. It is really tough times for every body out there no matter what your situation. I agree with what every body says but i just feel sorry for people who are genuie and are seeking work. And i hate people who dont try or even bother and think they can have it all handed to them on a plate and that every body owes them something in life[/p][/quote]Dont want to sound like Im telling you to suck eggs but DPD, La Poste are recruiting delivery drivers at the minute as their is a massive shortage with xmas deliveries. You are provided with the van etc. I only know because they lease their vans from my business but if you go on their site there shoudl be details. I thinks its only a 3 month contract but may help Andy2010

12:46pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Bellamaie1 says...

Aww thats fab thank you will get him to look it up !
Aww thats fab thank you will get him to look it up ! Bellamaie1

1:53pm Fri 7 Dec 12

thruth9211 says...

i hate bradford wrote:
It is the discrimination against non muslims that disgusts me in this report!

Who pays for extra security and staff to police this graveyard farce?

The muslims in Bradford are hypocrites concerning dogs because many have dogs of their own. You only have to walk around an area where there are mostly muslims to see this.

This is pandering to the muslims and if they didn't waste money on policing and bringing in the silly laws about graveyards maybe they wouldn't have to penalise the disabled. This is a christian country regardless what these bullies think.

Not the paying of council tax by the vulnerable is disgusting also.

We don't have Muslim areas in the UK we are all equal in law, obviously some are more equal than others!

Why are our council listening to Muslim council they were not voted for by anyone.
Its only dirty christian scums from dirty estates that break and **** on grave stones, Hence you have to treat them as dogs

Hence the security
[quote][p][bold]i hate bradford[/bold] wrote: It is the discrimination against non muslims that disgusts me in this report! Who pays for extra security and staff to police this graveyard farce? The muslims in Bradford are hypocrites concerning dogs because many have dogs of their own. You only have to walk around an area where there are mostly muslims to see this. This is pandering to the muslims and if they didn't waste money on policing and bringing in the silly laws about graveyards maybe they wouldn't have to penalise the disabled. This is a christian country regardless what these bullies think. Not the paying of council tax by the vulnerable is disgusting also. We don't have Muslim areas in the UK we are all equal in law, obviously some are more equal than others! Why are our council listening to Muslim council they were not voted for by anyone.[/p][/quote]Its only dirty christian scums from dirty estates that break and **** on grave stones, Hence you have to treat them as dogs Hence the security thruth9211

1:55pm Fri 7 Dec 12

thruth9211 says...

opps and then they say they cant find work

Nonsense, Easten europians are finding work, so stop fcuking about and work you idel individuals
opps and then they say they cant find work Nonsense, Easten europians are finding work, so stop fcuking about and work you idel individuals thruth9211

2:05pm Fri 7 Dec 12

thruth9211 says...

ANY WHERE BUT HERE wrote:
Banning dogs from council owned cemeteries, where muslims are buried. The rate payers own them you ****.
They do really like to divide in BRADFORD. Ive got a problem with muslims marrying there cousins which in turn leads to health problems, which the NHS ratepayer needs to pay for ALL the recipetents LIFE. Is that a problem. You really couldn't make it up.
Well to your quotes, its only in you religion that priest abuse kids

Its your religion that teaches a man to hump another man to transfers the glorious AIDs, which costs us the tax payer.

Its your religion that promotes incent, leading to deformed kids

its your relgiions that causes innocent people to die when your fcuking drunk

So stop chatting cr@p
[quote][p][bold]ANY WHERE BUT HERE[/bold] wrote: Banning dogs from council owned cemeteries, where muslims are buried. The rate payers own them you ****. They do really like to divide in BRADFORD. Ive got a problem with muslims marrying there cousins which in turn leads to health problems, which the NHS ratepayer needs to pay for ALL the recipetents LIFE. Is that a problem. You really couldn't make it up.[/p][/quote]Well to your quotes, its only in you religion that priest abuse kids Its your religion that teaches a man to hump another man to transfers the glorious AIDs, which costs us the tax payer. Its your religion that promotes incent, leading to deformed kids its your relgiions that causes innocent people to die when your fcuking drunk So stop chatting cr@p thruth9211

2:29pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Bellamaie1 says...

Im just saying people being gay actually happens in all religions. And muslims do drink and dont say they dont or take drugs. There is bad in all different kinds of cultures. Nothing to do with religion more through their own choices!
Im just saying people being gay actually happens in all religions. And muslims do drink and dont say they dont or take drugs. There is bad in all different kinds of cultures. Nothing to do with religion more through their own choices! Bellamaie1

2:59pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Andy2010 says...

thruth9211 wrote:
ANY WHERE BUT HERE wrote: Banning dogs from council owned cemeteries, where muslims are buried. The rate payers own them you ****. They do really like to divide in BRADFORD. Ive got a problem with muslims marrying there cousins which in turn leads to health problems, which the NHS ratepayer needs to pay for ALL the recipetents LIFE. Is that a problem. You really couldn't make it up.
Well to your quotes, its only in you religion that priest abuse kids Its your religion that teaches a man to hump another man to transfers the glorious AIDs, which costs us the tax payer. Its your religion that promotes incent, leading to deformed kids its your relgiions that causes innocent people to die when your fcuking drunk So stop chatting cr@p
LOL

I work with a gay muslim...just saying

Also incest...hhmm...dont some (well lots to be honest) muslims marry their cousins etc?
[quote][p][bold]thruth9211[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ANY WHERE BUT HERE[/bold] wrote: Banning dogs from council owned cemeteries, where muslims are buried. The rate payers own them you ****. They do really like to divide in BRADFORD. Ive got a problem with muslims marrying there cousins which in turn leads to health problems, which the NHS ratepayer needs to pay for ALL the recipetents LIFE. Is that a problem. You really couldn't make it up.[/p][/quote]Well to your quotes, its only in you religion that priest abuse kids Its your religion that teaches a man to hump another man to transfers the glorious AIDs, which costs us the tax payer. Its your religion that promotes incent, leading to deformed kids its your relgiions that causes innocent people to die when your fcuking drunk So stop chatting cr@p[/p][/quote]LOL I work with a gay muslim...just saying Also incest...hhmm...dont some (well lots to be honest) muslims marry their cousins etc? Andy2010

5:39pm Fri 7 Dec 12

ANY WHERE BUT HERE says...

thruth9211 wrote:
ANY WHERE BUT HERE wrote:
Banning dogs from council owned cemeteries, where muslims are buried. The rate payers own them you ****.
They do really like to divide in BRADFORD. Ive got a problem with muslims marrying there cousins which in turn leads to health problems, which the NHS ratepayer needs to pay for ALL the recipetents LIFE. Is that a problem. You really couldn't make it up.
Well to your quotes, its only in you religion that priest abuse kids

Its your religion that teaches a man to hump another man to transfers the glorious AIDs, which costs us the tax payer.

Its your religion that promotes incent, leading to deformed kids

its your relgiions that causes innocent people to die when your fcuking drunk

So stop chatting cr@p
Has your boat just landed? which religion am i,or is it that all other religion barring islam is wrong. Everything i say is fact, when you roll over ask your cousin.
[quote][p][bold]thruth9211[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ANY WHERE BUT HERE[/bold] wrote: Banning dogs from council owned cemeteries, where muslims are buried. The rate payers own them you ****. They do really like to divide in BRADFORD. Ive got a problem with muslims marrying there cousins which in turn leads to health problems, which the NHS ratepayer needs to pay for ALL the recipetents LIFE. Is that a problem. You really couldn't make it up.[/p][/quote]Well to your quotes, its only in you religion that priest abuse kids Its your religion that teaches a man to hump another man to transfers the glorious AIDs, which costs us the tax payer. Its your religion that promotes incent, leading to deformed kids its your relgiions that causes innocent people to die when your fcuking drunk So stop chatting cr@p[/p][/quote]Has your boat just landed? which religion am i,or is it that all other religion barring islam is wrong. Everything i say is fact, when you roll over ask your cousin. ANY WHERE BUT HERE

6:34pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Shelfrhino says...

thruth9211 wrote:
ANY WHERE BUT HERE wrote:
Banning dogs from council owned cemeteries, where muslims are buried. The rate payers own them you ****.
They do really like to divide in BRADFORD. Ive got a problem with muslims marrying there cousins which in turn leads to health problems, which the NHS ratepayer needs to pay for ALL the recipetents LIFE. Is that a problem. You really couldn't make it up.
Well to your quotes, its only in you religion that priest abuse kids

Its your religion that teaches a man to hump another man to transfers the glorious AIDs, which costs us the tax payer.

Its your religion that promotes incent, leading to deformed kids

its your relgiions that causes innocent people to die when your fcuking drunk

So stop chatting cr@p
Ironic much?
[quote][p][bold]thruth9211[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ANY WHERE BUT HERE[/bold] wrote: Banning dogs from council owned cemeteries, where muslims are buried. The rate payers own them you ****. They do really like to divide in BRADFORD. Ive got a problem with muslims marrying there cousins which in turn leads to health problems, which the NHS ratepayer needs to pay for ALL the recipetents LIFE. Is that a problem. You really couldn't make it up.[/p][/quote]Well to your quotes, its only in you religion that priest abuse kids Its your religion that teaches a man to hump another man to transfers the glorious AIDs, which costs us the tax payer. Its your religion that promotes incent, leading to deformed kids its your relgiions that causes innocent people to die when your fcuking drunk So stop chatting cr@p[/p][/quote]Ironic much? Shelfrhino

7:06pm Fri 7 Dec 12

thruth9211 says...

its better than marrying same sex u idot
its better than marrying same sex u idot thruth9211

7:11pm Fri 7 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

i hate bradford wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
i hate bradford wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
Bellamaie1 wrote:
Haha you definatly think your above everbody else. I actually did my A levels and worked part time yes at morrisons you will find that funny as your better than every body else.
Terrible Grammar and spelling for someone who has (apparently), achieved 'A' level qualifications.

I will correct it for you:
" HA HA! You definately think you are above everybody else. I actually did 'A' levels and worked part-time, yes, at Morrisons. You will find that funny, as you're better then everybody else."

Now,go away and write it out,accurately, 100 times. Then type it correctly. Don'f come back until you have done so.

LOL
Now,go away and write it out,accurately, 100 times. Then type it correctly. Don'f come back until you have done so.


Again I will use the same comment to you but also I will point out in this last part you make at least half a dozen mistakes.

Now I will correct you.

Now go away and write it out accurately one hundred times then type it correctly. Do not come back until you have done so.

If you are going to pick up on another persons spelling or grammar you should always make sure yours is perfect otherwise you open yourself up to ridicule.

In this on comment there are many mistakes. Someone who cannot get even the basic English correct should not even attempt to teach others.

Why not follow your own advice and get a little English help at college as you obviously need it?

Meantime you ought to think about not giving others anymore of these patronizing condescending lectures in the disguise of giving friendly advice.

I find you extremely rude and presumptuous especially talking about people on benefits having dirty nails. How bigoted can a person be.

You do seem to be a very reasonable chap so I am sure you will understand my advice is merely to help you improve your own future.
Oh dear, this is interesting...

I pasted mine into Word, corrected the Typing errors and guess what "The spelling and grammar check is complete"

I pasted yours into Word, corrected the Typing errors and guess what "The spelling and grammar check is complete".

Neither is incorrect. I made typing errors, not spelling and grammar mistakes. Mine has pauses in it, via the commas.

But my post was tongue in cheek and designed to illicit exactly the response it received, only I was expecting it from someone other than you.

For your information, I did 'O; Level English Language grade B. So I have a basic grasp of my mother language. Grammar is no longer taught, I believe, and I think it should be.

And, to correct you.. I do not think unemployed peoples fingernails are dirty. How presumptuous of you to say so. I said "Strangely enough, I look at the fingernails". I did NOT say it affected my decision in any way shape and form,. It is something I have noticed I subconsciously do.

However, I do believe you asked me for my opinion on a given situation, and I responded in kind. But I spotted you trying to direct me down a specific path when you asked about Cameron and Osbourne, and curtailed the post.

Your comment "patronizing condescending lectures in the disguise of giving friendly advice" (you need a comma in there, after patronizing). is completely incorrect, and you have formed an incorrect opinion. Perhaps this is deliberate, I do not know.

As for YOUR help to improve my own future.. Thank you for that, I will graciously decline your offer, as I do not consider myself bigoted at all,

Now, I have to get in the shower, clean my nails and prepare myself for a day at the office. Good day to you.
Your posts are all riddled with many mistakes. Spellings maybe correct as you say but your grammar, use of commas, full stops and spaces etc. are appalling and far worse than the one you insult. My grandchildren could do a better job. As for my post I was not the one commenting on someone else terrible grammar and insulting them was I?

I may have mistakes but that is laziness not ignorance as yours obviously is. You admit using a spell checker, my advice is use a grammar checker too and also ask your children for help to learn basic things like full stops. I am sure they could advise you. Your comas, capitals and spaces are are regularly incorrect.

My point is that your English is at primary school level so you are not in a position to comment about other peoples bad English especially when you admit to using a spell checker and still get it wrong. You need to learn how to use a spell checker properly as the fact you use one and still make this many mistakes is actually pretty laughable.

Be off with you and go get signed up for evening class for basic English lessons because if you became unemployed I would not hire you with your attitude and lack of English skills.

As for you inferring you are a copper that sounds about right with your smug condescending attitude. They often think they have achieved something wonderful when they are actually nothing but glorified pen pushers. No wonder Bradford is in the state it is in if your an example of our police!
You chose the wrong word to remove, as expected.
[quote][p][bold]i hate bradford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i hate bradford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bellamaie1[/bold] wrote: Haha you definatly think your above everbody else. I actually did my A levels and worked part time yes at morrisons you will find that funny as your better than every body else.[/p][/quote]Terrible Grammar and spelling for someone who has (apparently), achieved 'A' level qualifications. I will correct it for you: " HA HA! You definately think you are above everybody else. I actually did 'A' levels and worked part-time, yes, at Morrisons. You will find that funny, as you're better then everybody else." Now,go away and write it out,accurately, 100 times. Then type it correctly. Don'f come back until you have done so. LOL[/p][/quote]Now,go away and write it out,accurately, 100 times. Then type it correctly. Don'f come back until you have done so. Again I will use the same comment to you but also I will point out in this last part you make at least half a dozen mistakes. Now I will correct you. Now go away and write it out accurately one hundred times then type it correctly. Do not come back until you have done so. If you are going to pick up on another persons spelling or grammar you should always make sure yours is perfect otherwise you open yourself up to ridicule. In this on comment there are many mistakes. Someone who cannot get even the basic English correct should not even attempt to teach others. Why not follow your own advice and get a little English help at college as you obviously need it? Meantime you ought to think about not giving others anymore of these patronizing condescending lectures in the disguise of giving friendly advice. I find you extremely rude and presumptuous especially talking about people on benefits having dirty nails. How bigoted can a person be. You do seem to be a very reasonable chap so I am sure you will understand my advice is merely to help you improve your own future.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, this is interesting... I pasted mine into Word, corrected the Typing errors and guess what "The spelling and grammar check is complete" I pasted yours into Word, corrected the Typing errors and guess what "The spelling and grammar check is complete". Neither is incorrect. I made typing errors, not spelling and grammar mistakes. Mine has pauses in it, via the commas. But my post was tongue in cheek and designed to illicit exactly the response it received, only I was expecting it from someone other than you. For your information, I did 'O; Level English Language grade B. So I have a basic grasp of my mother language. Grammar is no longer taught, I believe, and I think it should be. And, to correct you.. I do not think unemployed peoples fingernails are dirty. How presumptuous of you to say so. I said "Strangely enough, I look at the fingernails". I did NOT say it affected my decision in any way shape and form,. It is something I have noticed I subconsciously do. However, I do believe you asked me for my opinion on a given situation, and I responded in kind. But I spotted you trying to direct me down a specific path when you asked about Cameron and Osbourne, and curtailed the post. Your comment "patronizing condescending lectures in the disguise of giving friendly advice" (you need a comma in there, after patronizing). is completely incorrect, and you have formed an incorrect opinion. Perhaps this is deliberate, I do not know. As for YOUR help to improve my own future.. Thank you for that, I will graciously decline your offer, as I do not consider myself bigoted at all, Now, I have to get in the shower, clean my nails and prepare myself for a day at the office. Good day to you.[/p][/quote]Your posts are all riddled with many mistakes. Spellings maybe correct as you say but your grammar, use of commas, full stops and spaces etc. are appalling and far worse than the one you insult. My grandchildren could do a better job. As for my post I was not the one commenting on someone else terrible grammar and insulting them was I? I may have mistakes but that is laziness not ignorance as yours obviously is. You admit using a spell checker, my advice is use a grammar checker too and also ask your children for help to learn basic things like full stops. I am sure they could advise you. Your comas, capitals and spaces are are regularly incorrect. My point is that your English is at primary school level so you are not in a position to comment about other peoples bad English especially when you admit to using a spell checker and still get it wrong. You need to learn how to use a spell checker properly as the fact you use one and still make this many mistakes is actually pretty laughable. Be off with you and go get signed up for evening class for basic English lessons because if you became unemployed I would not hire you with your attitude and lack of English skills. As for you inferring you are a copper that sounds about right with your smug condescending attitude. They often think they have achieved something wonderful when they are actually nothing but glorified pen pushers. No wonder Bradford is in the state it is in if your an example of our police![/p][/quote]You chose the wrong word to remove, as expected. WayneRouke

7:16pm Fri 7 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
Bellamaie1 wrote:
Yes his children and we both have clearly stated we wanted to be clearly sterilised and they said no due to our age and no not 16 they said we dont no what will happen in the future aswell as other things so very sorry not througg my own personal choice through as proffesions choice as appatently no best which myself think is wrong!! We had 3 children when he was working yes and the last baby was conceived was i had a contraceptive implant in which apparantly is meant to be more effective than sterilisation as i was told so did not really plan on having any more but let me guess you think because at that time i fell pregnant my partner was unemployed i should of had an abortion due to being on benefits but god if i had of done that that would of cost tax payers no win situation. And i have actually just applied to the university of bradford to do a nursing degree which yes will be goverment funded but as soon as i am working it will be payed back. I have applied for any job going god i would wipe a dogs arse all day to provide for my children but dont get any where did you no you can be to over qualified to get a job at mcdonalds? So yes i am going to better myself for me and my children may take 5 years but at least in the end i wont be branded scum like every body seems to think peole on benefits are
Well good for you....isnt your partner working though?

I dont think anyone hear has a problem with anyone claiming benefits when they are actively looking for work. Its the ones that have no intention and breed to benefit purposes (see Jeremy Kyle show)
Ditto, go for it and I wish you the best of luck.

You are intent on breaking the circle, and appear to be determined to do so.

In my view, you deserve support and I will happily pay my taxes to help the likes of you.

I wish you the best of luck...
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bellamaie1[/bold] wrote: Yes his children and we both have clearly stated we wanted to be clearly sterilised and they said no due to our age and no not 16 they said we dont no what will happen in the future aswell as other things so very sorry not througg my own personal choice through as proffesions choice as appatently no best which myself think is wrong!! We had 3 children when he was working yes and the last baby was conceived was i had a contraceptive implant in which apparantly is meant to be more effective than sterilisation as i was told so did not really plan on having any more but let me guess you think because at that time i fell pregnant my partner was unemployed i should of had an abortion due to being on benefits but god if i had of done that that would of cost tax payers no win situation. And i have actually just applied to the university of bradford to do a nursing degree which yes will be goverment funded but as soon as i am working it will be payed back. I have applied for any job going god i would wipe a dogs arse all day to provide for my children but dont get any where did you no you can be to over qualified to get a job at mcdonalds? So yes i am going to better myself for me and my children may take 5 years but at least in the end i wont be branded scum like every body seems to think peole on benefits are[/p][/quote]Well good for you....isnt your partner working though? I dont think anyone hear has a problem with anyone claiming benefits when they are actively looking for work. Its the ones that have no intention and breed to benefit purposes (see Jeremy Kyle show)[/p][/quote]Ditto, go for it and I wish you the best of luck. You are intent on breaking the circle, and appear to be determined to do so. In my view, you deserve support and I will happily pay my taxes to help the likes of you. I wish you the best of luck... WayneRouke

7:16pm Fri 7 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
Bellamaie1 wrote:
Yes his children and we both have clearly stated we wanted to be clearly sterilised and they said no due to our age and no not 16 they said we dont no what will happen in the future aswell as other things so very sorry not througg my own personal choice through as proffesions choice as appatently no best which myself think is wrong!! We had 3 children when he was working yes and the last baby was conceived was i had a contraceptive implant in which apparantly is meant to be more effective than sterilisation as i was told so did not really plan on having any more but let me guess you think because at that time i fell pregnant my partner was unemployed i should of had an abortion due to being on benefits but god if i had of done that that would of cost tax payers no win situation. And i have actually just applied to the university of bradford to do a nursing degree which yes will be goverment funded but as soon as i am working it will be payed back. I have applied for any job going god i would wipe a dogs arse all day to provide for my children but dont get any where did you no you can be to over qualified to get a job at mcdonalds? So yes i am going to better myself for me and my children may take 5 years but at least in the end i wont be branded scum like every body seems to think peole on benefits are
Well good for you....isnt your partner working though?

I dont think anyone hear has a problem with anyone claiming benefits when they are actively looking for work. Its the ones that have no intention and breed to benefit purposes (see Jeremy Kyle show)
Ditto, go for it and I wish you the best of luck.

You are intent on breaking the circle, and appear to be determined to do so.

In my view, you deserve support and I will happily pay my taxes to help the likes of you.

I wish you the best of luck...
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bellamaie1[/bold] wrote: Yes his children and we both have clearly stated we wanted to be clearly sterilised and they said no due to our age and no not 16 they said we dont no what will happen in the future aswell as other things so very sorry not througg my own personal choice through as proffesions choice as appatently no best which myself think is wrong!! We had 3 children when he was working yes and the last baby was conceived was i had a contraceptive implant in which apparantly is meant to be more effective than sterilisation as i was told so did not really plan on having any more but let me guess you think because at that time i fell pregnant my partner was unemployed i should of had an abortion due to being on benefits but god if i had of done that that would of cost tax payers no win situation. And i have actually just applied to the university of bradford to do a nursing degree which yes will be goverment funded but as soon as i am working it will be payed back. I have applied for any job going god i would wipe a dogs arse all day to provide for my children but dont get any where did you no you can be to over qualified to get a job at mcdonalds? So yes i am going to better myself for me and my children may take 5 years but at least in the end i wont be branded scum like every body seems to think peole on benefits are[/p][/quote]Well good for you....isnt your partner working though? I dont think anyone hear has a problem with anyone claiming benefits when they are actively looking for work. Its the ones that have no intention and breed to benefit purposes (see Jeremy Kyle show)[/p][/quote]Ditto, go for it and I wish you the best of luck. You are intent on breaking the circle, and appear to be determined to do so. In my view, you deserve support and I will happily pay my taxes to help the likes of you. I wish you the best of luck... WayneRouke

7:20pm Fri 7 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

Bellamaie1 wrote:
Aww thats fab thank you will get him to look it up !
Good luck with that..
[quote][p][bold]Bellamaie1[/bold] wrote: Aww thats fab thank you will get him to look it up ![/p][/quote]Good luck with that.. WayneRouke

8:31pm Fri 7 Dec 12

RollandSmoke says...

@Wayne In an earlier post you mentioned job applicant's appearance. Considering the jobseeker will no doubt be demoralised by the constant stigmatisation and the high risk of further rejection would you suggest a tie? I know those higher up are keen on nooses in their initiation ceremonies but for a jobseeker isn't this a serious health and safety risk? You might as well conduct your interviews on a large bridge.
@Wayne In an earlier post you mentioned job applicant's appearance. Considering the jobseeker will no doubt be demoralised by the constant stigmatisation and the high risk of further rejection would you suggest a tie? I know those higher up are keen on nooses in their initiation ceremonies but for a jobseeker isn't this a serious health and safety risk? You might as well conduct your interviews on a large bridge. RollandSmoke

9:12pm Fri 7 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
@Wayne In an earlier post you mentioned job applicant's appearance. Considering the jobseeker will no doubt be demoralised by the constant stigmatisation and the high risk of further rejection would you suggest a tie? I know those higher up are keen on nooses in their initiation ceremonies but for a jobseeker isn't this a serious health and safety risk? You might as well conduct your interviews on a large bridge.
People have differing views, and some say the job itself determines whether a tie should be worn. For example, a job on the shop floor of a steelworks would not require a tie, but a clerical job probably would.

Others feel a tie is out of date, or discriminatory because females are not obliged to wear them.

My own personal opinion is that, for a male, a suit and tie should be worn in all cases, even if the interview is in jeans and T shirt. For a female a smart skirt or trousers and a jacket.

It is an established view (or fact, cant remember) that the decision to hire is subconsciously made in the opening moments of an interview. Therefore appearance is important. Whether the applicant decides to wear a tie/suit or not, in my opinion they should at the very least be presentable.and clean. An effort should be made, even if the interviewer doesnt.

I once atttended an interview, and was shortlisted to one of two for final selection. I had been told I was the strongest candidate, by a fair margin. I was in first. I came out and took one look at the next candidate, who was in a lovely short skirt and looked gorgeous. I wished her luck and kissed the job bye bye.

I was not being prejudicial, sexist or anything like that. I was being a realist. Appearance matters.

However, my attempts to give the benefit of my experiences of my brief periods of unemployment and my genuine offers of help (and my tongue in cheek bits of fun) do not appear to be appreciated on here, or are taken out of context and seen to be patronising.

So, my response is this. Do whatever it takes, and act appropriately according to your own feelings and instincts.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: @Wayne In an earlier post you mentioned job applicant's appearance. Considering the jobseeker will no doubt be demoralised by the constant stigmatisation and the high risk of further rejection would you suggest a tie? I know those higher up are keen on nooses in their initiation ceremonies but for a jobseeker isn't this a serious health and safety risk? You might as well conduct your interviews on a large bridge.[/p][/quote]People have differing views, and some say the job itself determines whether a tie should be worn. For example, a job on the shop floor of a steelworks would not require a tie, but a clerical job probably would. Others feel a tie is out of date, or discriminatory because females are not obliged to wear them. My own personal opinion is that, for a male, a suit and tie should be worn in all cases, even if the interview is in jeans and T shirt. For a female a smart skirt or trousers and a jacket. It is an established view (or fact, cant remember) that the decision to hire is subconsciously made in the opening moments of an interview. Therefore appearance is important. Whether the applicant decides to wear a tie/suit or not, in my opinion they should at the very least be presentable.and clean. An effort should be made, even if the interviewer doesnt. I once atttended an interview, and was shortlisted to one of two for final selection. I had been told I was the strongest candidate, by a fair margin. I was in first. I came out and took one look at the next candidate, who was in a lovely short skirt and looked gorgeous. I wished her luck and kissed the job bye bye. I was not being prejudicial, sexist or anything like that. I was being a realist. Appearance matters. However, my attempts to give the benefit of my experiences of my brief periods of unemployment and my genuine offers of help (and my tongue in cheek bits of fun) do not appear to be appreciated on here, or are taken out of context and seen to be patronising. So, my response is this. Do whatever it takes, and act appropriately according to your own feelings and instincts. WayneRouke

10:53pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Wanna Have says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
No doubt the labour council has ringfenced the money paid to unions and the salaries of the top brass in city hall before agreeing all this.
Unions are needed now, please come back and fight this battle for the working clas now.We don't want to let these bankers and capitalists hold anymore sway over us.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: No doubt the labour council has ringfenced the money paid to unions and the salaries of the top brass in city hall before agreeing all this.[/p][/quote]Unions are needed now, please come back and fight this battle for the working clas now.We don't want to let these bankers and capitalists hold anymore sway over us. Wanna Have

11:04pm Fri 7 Dec 12

i hate bradford says...

WayneRouke wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
@Wayne In an earlier post you mentioned job applicant's appearance. Considering the jobseeker will no doubt be demoralised by the constant stigmatisation and the high risk of further rejection would you suggest a tie? I know those higher up are keen on nooses in their initiation ceremonies but for a jobseeker isn't this a serious health and safety risk? You might as well conduct your interviews on a large bridge.
People have differing views, and some say the job itself determines whether a tie should be worn. For example, a job on the shop floor of a steelworks would not require a tie, but a clerical job probably would.

Others feel a tie is out of date, or discriminatory because females are not obliged to wear them.

My own personal opinion is that, for a male, a suit and tie should be worn in all cases, even if the interview is in jeans and T shirt. For a female a smart skirt or trousers and a jacket.

It is an established view (or fact, cant remember) that the decision to hire is subconsciously made in the opening moments of an interview. Therefore appearance is important. Whether the applicant decides to wear a tie/suit or not, in my opinion they should at the very least be presentable.and clean. An effort should be made, even if the interviewer doesnt.

I once atttended an interview, and was shortlisted to one of two for final selection. I had been told I was the strongest candidate, by a fair margin. I was in first. I came out and took one look at the next candidate, who was in a lovely short skirt and looked gorgeous. I wished her luck and kissed the job bye bye.

I was not being prejudicial, sexist or anything like that. I was being a realist. Appearance matters.

However, my attempts to give the benefit of my experiences of my brief periods of unemployment and my genuine offers of help (and my tongue in cheek bits of fun) do not appear to be appreciated on here, or are taken out of context and seen to be patronising.

So, my response is this. Do whatever it takes, and act appropriately according to your own feelings and instincts.
Yes that's right be a good lad and run along now. Your posts are extremely condescending and uncalled for. No one asked for your advice but you decided to give it anyway which is pushy and patronising. Everyone knows how to do interviews these days they are taught in school. Now be a reasonable chap and stop with the unwanted lectures.
[quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: @Wayne In an earlier post you mentioned job applicant's appearance. Considering the jobseeker will no doubt be demoralised by the constant stigmatisation and the high risk of further rejection would you suggest a tie? I know those higher up are keen on nooses in their initiation ceremonies but for a jobseeker isn't this a serious health and safety risk? You might as well conduct your interviews on a large bridge.[/p][/quote]People have differing views, and some say the job itself determines whether a tie should be worn. For example, a job on the shop floor of a steelworks would not require a tie, but a clerical job probably would. Others feel a tie is out of date, or discriminatory because females are not obliged to wear them. My own personal opinion is that, for a male, a suit and tie should be worn in all cases, even if the interview is in jeans and T shirt. For a female a smart skirt or trousers and a jacket. It is an established view (or fact, cant remember) that the decision to hire is subconsciously made in the opening moments of an interview. Therefore appearance is important. Whether the applicant decides to wear a tie/suit or not, in my opinion they should at the very least be presentable.and clean. An effort should be made, even if the interviewer doesnt. I once atttended an interview, and was shortlisted to one of two for final selection. I had been told I was the strongest candidate, by a fair margin. I was in first. I came out and took one look at the next candidate, who was in a lovely short skirt and looked gorgeous. I wished her luck and kissed the job bye bye. I was not being prejudicial, sexist or anything like that. I was being a realist. Appearance matters. However, my attempts to give the benefit of my experiences of my brief periods of unemployment and my genuine offers of help (and my tongue in cheek bits of fun) do not appear to be appreciated on here, or are taken out of context and seen to be patronising. So, my response is this. Do whatever it takes, and act appropriately according to your own feelings and instincts.[/p][/quote]Yes that's right be a good lad and run along now. Your posts are extremely condescending and uncalled for. No one asked for your advice but you decided to give it anyway which is pushy and patronising. Everyone knows how to do interviews these days they are taught in school. Now be a reasonable chap and stop with the unwanted lectures. i hate bradford

11:20pm Fri 7 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

i hate bradford wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
@Wayne In an earlier post you mentioned job applicant's appearance. Considering the jobseeker will no doubt be demoralised by the constant stigmatisation and the high risk of further rejection would you suggest a tie? I know those higher up are keen on nooses in their initiation ceremonies but for a jobseeker isn't this a serious health and safety risk? You might as well conduct your interviews on a large bridge.
People have differing views, and some say the job itself determines whether a tie should be worn. For example, a job on the shop floor of a steelworks would not require a tie, but a clerical job probably would.

Others feel a tie is out of date, or discriminatory because females are not obliged to wear them.

My own personal opinion is that, for a male, a suit and tie should be worn in all cases, even if the interview is in jeans and T shirt. For a female a smart skirt or trousers and a jacket.

It is an established view (or fact, cant remember) that the decision to hire is subconsciously made in the opening moments of an interview. Therefore appearance is important. Whether the applicant decides to wear a tie/suit or not, in my opinion they should at the very least be presentable.and clean. An effort should be made, even if the interviewer doesnt.

I once atttended an interview, and was shortlisted to one of two for final selection. I had been told I was the strongest candidate, by a fair margin. I was in first. I came out and took one look at the next candidate, who was in a lovely short skirt and looked gorgeous. I wished her luck and kissed the job bye bye.

I was not being prejudicial, sexist or anything like that. I was being a realist. Appearance matters.

However, my attempts to give the benefit of my experiences of my brief periods of unemployment and my genuine offers of help (and my tongue in cheek bits of fun) do not appear to be appreciated on here, or are taken out of context and seen to be patronising.

So, my response is this. Do whatever it takes, and act appropriately according to your own feelings and instincts.
Yes that's right be a good lad and run along now. Your posts are extremely condescending and uncalled for. No one asked for your advice but you decided to give it anyway which is pushy and patronising. Everyone knows how to do interviews these days they are taught in school. Now be a reasonable chap and stop with the unwanted lectures.
Ditto

If you care to look, my opinion was requested.I dont remember ever seeing you being invited to respond.

From reading other posts, that would appear to be at least one more request than you have had.

You are now being childish and condescending, in exactly the same way as you have accused me.

So why don't you go take a long walk off a very short pier.

My apologies for any (perceived) bad grammar and typos.
[quote][p][bold]i hate bradford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: @Wayne In an earlier post you mentioned job applicant's appearance. Considering the jobseeker will no doubt be demoralised by the constant stigmatisation and the high risk of further rejection would you suggest a tie? I know those higher up are keen on nooses in their initiation ceremonies but for a jobseeker isn't this a serious health and safety risk? You might as well conduct your interviews on a large bridge.[/p][/quote]People have differing views, and some say the job itself determines whether a tie should be worn. For example, a job on the shop floor of a steelworks would not require a tie, but a clerical job probably would. Others feel a tie is out of date, or discriminatory because females are not obliged to wear them. My own personal opinion is that, for a male, a suit and tie should be worn in all cases, even if the interview is in jeans and T shirt. For a female a smart skirt or trousers and a jacket. It is an established view (or fact, cant remember) that the decision to hire is subconsciously made in the opening moments of an interview. Therefore appearance is important. Whether the applicant decides to wear a tie/suit or not, in my opinion they should at the very least be presentable.and clean. An effort should be made, even if the interviewer doesnt. I once atttended an interview, and was shortlisted to one of two for final selection. I had been told I was the strongest candidate, by a fair margin. I was in first. I came out and took one look at the next candidate, who was in a lovely short skirt and looked gorgeous. I wished her luck and kissed the job bye bye. I was not being prejudicial, sexist or anything like that. I was being a realist. Appearance matters. However, my attempts to give the benefit of my experiences of my brief periods of unemployment and my genuine offers of help (and my tongue in cheek bits of fun) do not appear to be appreciated on here, or are taken out of context and seen to be patronising. So, my response is this. Do whatever it takes, and act appropriately according to your own feelings and instincts.[/p][/quote]Yes that's right be a good lad and run along now. Your posts are extremely condescending and uncalled for. No one asked for your advice but you decided to give it anyway which is pushy and patronising. Everyone knows how to do interviews these days they are taught in school. Now be a reasonable chap and stop with the unwanted lectures.[/p][/quote]Ditto If you care to look, my opinion was requested.I dont remember ever seeing you being invited to respond. From reading other posts, that would appear to be at least one more request than you have had. You are now being childish and condescending, in exactly the same way as you have accused me. So why don't you go take a long walk off a very short pier. My apologies for any (perceived) bad grammar and typos. WayneRouke

4:30pm Sat 8 Dec 12

The obvious says...

One word for Bradford Council. Actually a few words
1 jokers
2 not fit for purpose
3 treachourous neglect of its people.

Time to move abroad where local politicians PROTECT and SERVE their community.
One word for Bradford Council. Actually a few words 1 jokers 2 not fit for purpose 3 treachourous neglect of its people. Time to move abroad where local politicians PROTECT and SERVE their community. The obvious

7:29pm Sat 8 Dec 12

Commonsensefirst says...

Time to update your passport and apply for work abroad. Simple.
Time to update your passport and apply for work abroad. Simple. Commonsensefirst

7:47pm Sat 8 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

Commonsensefirst wrote:
Time to update your passport and apply for work abroad. Simple.
Is it that easy?

I would have thought work was harder to come by in Europe, with the current economic climate.

But I do not know and would really appreciate the benefit of advice from someone who knows.

Because, I would go tomorrow.

After 50 odd years of living in this country, loyal, patriotic (and ex forces), I owe it nothing. All politicians, whether central or local government are corrupt and out for themselves.

In my view, an MP or councillor should do the job "for the honour of representing the people", and not get paid anything for it. Wonder how many would stand for election then...
[quote][p][bold]Commonsensefirst[/bold] wrote: Time to update your passport and apply for work abroad. Simple.[/p][/quote]Is it that easy? I would have thought work was harder to come by in Europe, with the current economic climate. But I do not know and would really appreciate the benefit of advice from someone who knows. Because, I would go tomorrow. After 50 odd years of living in this country, loyal, patriotic (and ex forces), I owe it nothing. All politicians, whether central or local government are corrupt and out for themselves. In my view, an MP or councillor should do the job "for the honour of representing the people", and not get paid anything for it. Wonder how many would stand for election then... WayneRouke

7:55pm Sat 8 Dec 12

Albion. says...

WayneRouke wrote:
Commonsensefirst wrote:
Time to update your passport and apply for work abroad. Simple.
Is it that easy?

I would have thought work was harder to come by in Europe, with the current economic climate.

But I do not know and would really appreciate the benefit of advice from someone who knows.

Because, I would go tomorrow.

After 50 odd years of living in this country, loyal, patriotic (and ex forces), I owe it nothing. All politicians, whether central or local government are corrupt and out for themselves.

In my view, an MP or councillor should do the job "for the honour of representing the people", and not get paid anything for it. Wonder how many would stand for election then...
That would be like the old days when they were all millionaires.
[quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Commonsensefirst[/bold] wrote: Time to update your passport and apply for work abroad. Simple.[/p][/quote]Is it that easy? I would have thought work was harder to come by in Europe, with the current economic climate. But I do not know and would really appreciate the benefit of advice from someone who knows. Because, I would go tomorrow. After 50 odd years of living in this country, loyal, patriotic (and ex forces), I owe it nothing. All politicians, whether central or local government are corrupt and out for themselves. In my view, an MP or councillor should do the job "for the honour of representing the people", and not get paid anything for it. Wonder how many would stand for election then...[/p][/quote]That would be like the old days when they were all millionaires. Albion.

11:14am Mon 10 Dec 12

Gabbysgran says...

The obvious wrote:
One word for Bradford Council. Actually a few words 1 jokers 2 not fit for purpose 3 treachourous neglect of its people. Time to move abroad where local politicians PROTECT and SERVE their community.
After having worked for Bradford Council I can tell you the waste would take your breath away! Its not the Councillors so much as the Council Managers - a bloody joke - sack the lot of them!
[quote][p][bold]The obvious[/bold] wrote: One word for Bradford Council. Actually a few words 1 jokers 2 not fit for purpose 3 treachourous neglect of its people. Time to move abroad where local politicians PROTECT and SERVE their community.[/p][/quote]After having worked for Bradford Council I can tell you the waste would take your breath away! Its not the Councillors so much as the Council Managers - a bloody joke - sack the lot of them! Gabbysgran

11:15am Mon 10 Dec 12

Gabbysgran says...

The obvious wrote:
One word for Bradford Council. Actually a few words 1 jokers 2 not fit for purpose 3 treachourous neglect of its people. Time to move abroad where local politicians PROTECT and SERVE their community.
After having worked for Bradford Council I can tell you the waste would take your breath away! Its not the Councillors so much as the Council Managers - a bloody joke - sack the lot of them!
[quote][p][bold]The obvious[/bold] wrote: One word for Bradford Council. Actually a few words 1 jokers 2 not fit for purpose 3 treachourous neglect of its people. Time to move abroad where local politicians PROTECT and SERVE their community.[/p][/quote]After having worked for Bradford Council I can tell you the waste would take your breath away! Its not the Councillors so much as the Council Managers - a bloody joke - sack the lot of them! Gabbysgran

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree