On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:24:57 -0800 (PST), ghostwhistler@googlemail.com
wrote:

>On Nov 14, 7:57 pm, Punter  wrote:
>> >> > > > > For me, i choose work from the list they provide because thats the
>> >> > > > > only choice available. What i want to do, what i would like to do and
>> >> > > > > what i might be good at are irrelevant. my skills are irrelevant. you
>> >> > > > > MUST pick from their official list. its a joke. there is no effort
>> >> > > > > made to help get you into something meaningful (there's no help at all
>> >> > > > > really).
>>
>> .
>>
>> Oh  *do* give the location of this Jobcentre. If what you say *is* a
>> fact I shall be happy to take the matter further - all I need is for
>> you to provide details - if you care to, that is.
>>
>
>take the matter further how?
>
If you care to provide the details of where this alleged action is
taking place I shall be able to invistigate *why* and *how* they are
implementing it.

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:24:28 -0800 (PST), ghostwhistler@googlemail.com
wrote:

>On Nov 17, 2:04 pm, Punter  wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:24:57 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 14, 7:57 pm, Punter  wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > For me, i choose work from the list they provide because thats the
>> >> >> > > > > only choice available. What i want to do, what i would like to do and
>> >> >> > > > > what i might be good at are irrelevant. my skills are irrelevant. you
>> >> >> > > > > MUST pick from their official list. its a joke. there is no effort
>> >> >> > > > > made to help get you into something meaningful (there's no help at all
>> >> >> > > > > really).
>>
>> >> .
>>
>> >> Oh  *do* give the location of this Jobcentre. If what you say *is* a
>> >> fact I shall be happy to take the matter further - all I need is for
>> >> you to provide details - if you care to, that is.
>>
>> >take the matter further how?
>>
>> If you care to provide the details of where this alleged action is
>> taking place I shall be able to invistigate *why* and *how* they are
>> implementing it.
>
>you are suggesting it isn't job centre policy?
>
>and you still haven't answered my question?  What basis do you
>personally intend to investigate? Are you the secretary for work and
>pensions?

I am indeed suggesting that this is *not* Jobcentre Plus policy.

And you have yet to identify the location of this apparent mis-deed.

How am I able to investigate? By making contact with people and asking
questions.  Simple enough. Just leave it that, eh?

Now - are you prepared to name and shame the Jobcentre involved or can
I assume the whole thing is a figment of your imagination?

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:12:19 -0800 (PST), ghostwhistler@googlemail.com
wrote:

>On Nov 18, 3:32 pm, Punter  wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:24:28 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 17, 2:04 pm, Punter  wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:24:57 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Nov 14, 7:57 pm, Punter  wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > > > For me, i choose work from the list they provide because thats the
>> >> >> >> > > > > only choice available. What i want to do, what i would like to do and
>> >> >> >> > > > > what i might be good at are irrelevant. my skills are irrelevant. you
>> >> >> >> > > > > MUST pick from their official list. its a joke. there is no effort
>> >> >> >> > > > > made to help get you into something meaningful (there's no help at all
>> >> >> >> > > > > really).
>>
>> >> >> .
>>
>> >> >> Oh  *do* give the location of this Jobcentre. If what you say *is* a
>> >> >> fact I shall be happy to take the matter further - all I need is for
>> >> >> you to provide details - if you care to, that is.
>>
>> >> >take the matter further how?
>>
>> >> If you care to provide the details of where this alleged action is
>> >> taking place I shall be able to invistigate *why* and *how* they are
>> >> implementing it.
>>
>> >you are suggesting it isn't job centre policy?
>>
>> >and you still haven't answered my question?  What basis do you
>> >personally intend to investigate? Are you the secretary for work and
>> >pensions?
>>
>> I am indeed suggesting that this is *not* Jobcentre Plus policy.
>>
>> And you have yet to identify the location of this apparent mis-deed.
>>
>> How am I able to investigate? By making contact with people and asking
>> questions.  Simple enough. Just leave it that, eh?
>>
>> Now - are you prepared to name and shame the Jobcentre involved or can
>> I assume the whole thing is a figment of your imagination?
>
>You are asking me to possibly put myself into an awkward position
>because you are assming im making this up, yet you ask me to 'just
>leave it at that' in return?
>
>A bit much isn't it? Is there a reason why you shouldn't tell me why i
>should trust you and believe you have a healthy interest in this?
>
>Given this has been JC policy for as long as I can remember in every
>office I've been in I must assume that you are not perhaps as familiar
>with how they work as you would like to think. Perhaps you could tell
>me what you think they should be doing instead, if you find what i
>claim so unbelievable as to think i'd waste my time posting utter
>nonsense. They have always said you must pick three categories fo work
>for your jobseekers agreement and those categories must be the
>categories they use to advertise jobs. they don't offer training or
>anything like that and when i was alast signing on there was no effort
>made to offer me anything beyond my own efforts to find work.
>
>Now if you want me to 'name and shame', you need to give me a bit more
>to go on.

I am simply asking you to name the location of the Jobcentre where you
claim this is happening. There's no need to be paranoid. I don't want
your details. Just the location - that's all. What's the harm in
providing that? Is there a fear that your complaint will be proved
unfounded?

However - if you choose not to name the location then there is nothing
further to be said.

"Punter"  wrote in message 
news:5im0k3h35km1nsuollollto1ruehjijodi@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:24:28 -0800 (PST), ghostwhistler@googlemail.com
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 17, 2:04 pm, Punter  wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:24:57 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Nov 14, 7:57 pm, Punter  wrote:
>>> >> >> > > > > For me, i choose work from the list they provide because 
>>> >> >> > > > > thats the
>>> >> >> > > > > only choice available. What i want to do, what i would 
>>> >> >> > > > > like to do and
>>> >> >> > > > > what i might be good at are irrelevant. my skills are 
>>> >> >> > > > > irrelevant. you
>>> >> >> > > > > MUST pick from their official list. its a joke. there is 
>>> >> >> > > > > no effort
>>> >> >> > > > > made to help get you into something meaningful (there's no 
>>> >> >> > > > > help at all
>>> >> >> > > > > really).
>>>
>>> >> .
>>>
>>> >> Oh  *do* give the location of this Jobcentre. If what you say *is* a
>>> >> fact I shall be happy to take the matter further - all I need is for
>>> >> you to provide details - if you care to, that is.
>>>
>>> >take the matter further how?
>>>
>>> If you care to provide the details of where this alleged action is
>>> taking place I shall be able to invistigate *why* and *how* they are
>>> implementing it.
>>
>>you are suggesting it isn't job centre policy?
>>
>>and you still haven't answered my question?  What basis do you
>>personally intend to investigate? Are you the secretary for work and
>>pensions?
>
> I am indeed suggesting that this is *not* Jobcentre Plus policy.
>
> And you have yet to identify the location of this apparent mis-deed.
>
> How am I able to investigate? By making contact with people and asking
> questions.  Simple enough. Just leave it that, eh?
>
> Now - are you prepared to name and shame the Jobcentre involved or can
> I assume the whole thing is a figment of your imagination?


I am not putting you down Ghostwhist but I have to agree with Punter on 
this, it is not JC policy to suggest that you only look for work from a list 
they provide, you can look for work anywhere, even abroad if you feel like 
it.
What they will do is list 3 main categories that they think will give the 
best chance of finding work, this is based on what they think is suitable 
for you and is the basis of your JSAg, they do this when you have not found 
work in your chosen field. This does not mean you have to stick rigidly to 
the JSAg, you can still look for work outside this range.
I never look for work as per the JSAg, I just look for work. Any job will do 
me as long as it gets me off of benefit.
The 3 categories they have put down for me are Warehouse, Gardening, and 
Handyman. I have never worked in a warehouse, been a gardener or handyman.
I have an engineering background, using lathes, tool and machine part 
making, totally redundant in this day and age.

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:43:42 -0800 (PST), ghostwhistler@googlemail.com
wrote:

>On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Punter  wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:12:19 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
>> wrote:


>> However - if you choose not to name the location then there is nothing
>> further to be said.
>
>you are very good at avoiding questions. You haven't even given me any
>proof that you can do anything about it. Why shulkd I believe you have
>any special ability to change things?

Which part of  "However - if you choose not to name the location then
there is nothing further to be said" are you having trouble
understanding?

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 08:29:11 -0800 (PST), ghostwhistler@googlemail.com
wrote:

>On Nov 21, 6:45 pm, Punter  wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:43:42 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Punter  wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:12:19 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >> However - if you choose not to name the location then there is nothing
>> >> further to be said.
>>
>> >you are very good at avoiding questions. You haven't even given me any
>> >proof that you can do anything about it. Why shulkd I believe you have
>> >any special ability to change things?
>>
>> Which part of  "However - if you choose not to name the location then
>> there is nothing further to be said" are you having trouble
>> understanding?
>
>You really are a prize cunt aren't you. YOu expect me to name the
>place which could well lead to me getting into trouble because i have
>to sign there and have absolutely no idea who you are or even if you
>can do anything, and yet when aked for a little reciprocation you
>decide to have a hissy fit.
>
>What part of you are a fucking prick don't YOU understand you silly
>cunt.

You were only asked to say which office is carrying on this dodgy
sounding practice. You weren't asked your name, were you? Or do you
imagine that 'they' will be able to read your mind despite the
tin-foil hat.

Oh perleeease -  do stop being so precious. You'd either like this
questioned from within or you wouldn't. It's as easy as that.

I'm really not at all surprised you seem to be having such a hard
time, given your somewhat negative attitude and apparent unwillingness
to relay even the most simple piece of information without making a
big drama from it.

On Dec 3, 10:02 pm, Gran  wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 08:29:11 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 21, 6:45 pm, Punter  wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:43:42 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Punter  wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:12:19 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> However - if you choose not to name the location then there is nothing
> >> >> further to be said.
>
> >> >you are very good at avoiding questions. You haven't even given me any
> >> >proof that you can do anything about it. Why shulkd I believe you have
> >> >any special ability to change things?
>
> >> Which part of  "However - if you choose not to name the location then
> >> there is nothing further to be said" are you having trouble
> >> understanding?
>
> >You really are a prize cunt aren't you. YOu expect me to name the
> >place which could well lead to me getting into trouble because i have
> >to sign there and have absolutely no idea who you are or even if you
> >can do anything, and yet when aked for a little reciprocation you
> >decide to have a hissy fit.
>
> >What part of you are a fucking prick don't YOU understand you silly
> >cunt.
>
> You were only asked to say which office is carrying on this dodgy
> sounding practice. You weren't asked your name, were you? Or do you
> imagine that 'they' will be able to read your mind despite the
> tin-foil hat.
>
> Oh perleeease -  do stop being so precious. You'd either like this
> questioned from within or you wouldn't. It's as easy as that.
>
> I'm really not at all surprised you seem to be having such a hard
> time, given your somewhat negative attitude and apparent unwillingness
> to relay even the most simple piece of information without making a
> big drama from it.

and this is going to be investigated how? Some nerd on the internet
has the power to ring up the DWP and say 'oy, i heard on the internets
you are shit! sort it ahhhht!'

get real.

if the loser can't answer a basic question as to how he intends to
investigate or who he is in relationship to being able to inetigate
any kind of change then why should i tell him anything?

if he can't divgule info quid pro quo then he's the one with the
tinfoil hat, pal, not i.

ghostwhistler@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Dec 3, 10:02 pm, Gran  wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 08:29:11 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 21, 6:45 pm, Punter  wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:43:42 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Punter  wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:12:19 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> However - if you choose not to name the location then there is nothing
>>>>>> further to be said.
>>>>> you are very good at avoiding questions. You haven't even given me any
>>>>> proof that you can do anything about it. Why shulkd I believe you have
>>>>> any special ability to change things?
>>>> Which part of  "However - if you choose not to name the location then
>>>> there is nothing further to be said" are you having trouble
>>>> understanding?
>>> You really are a prize cunt aren't you. YOu expect me to name the
>>> place which could well lead to me getting into trouble because i have
>>> to sign there and have absolutely no idea who you are or even if you
>>> can do anything, and yet when aked for a little reciprocation you
>>> decide to have a hissy fit.
>>> What part of you are a fucking prick don't YOU understand you silly
>>> cunt.
>> You were only asked to say which office is carrying on this dodgy
>> sounding practice. You weren't asked your name, were you? Or do you
>> imagine that 'they' will be able to read your mind despite the
>> tin-foil hat.
>>
>> Oh perleeease -  do stop being so precious. You'd either like this
>> questioned from within or you wouldn't. It's as easy as that.
>>
>> I'm really not at all surprised you seem to be having such a hard
>> time, given your somewhat negative attitude and apparent unwillingness
>> to relay even the most simple piece of information without making a
>> big drama from it.
> 
> and this is going to be investigated how? Some nerd on the internet
> has the power to ring up the DWP and say 'oy, i heard on the internets
> you are shit! sort it ahhhht!'
> 
> get real.
> 
> if the loser can't answer a basic question as to how he intends to
> investigate or who he is in relationship to being able to inetigate
> any kind of change then why should i tell him anything?
> 
> if he can't divgule info quid pro quo then he's the one with the
> tinfoil hat, pal, not i.

Reading between the lines I think the poster was going to phone that 
local Job Centre! Quite rightly the other poster didn't divulge his or 
her location.

-- 
Robbie

On Dec 4, 11:37 am, Robbie  wrote:
> ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 10:02 pm, Gran  wrote:
> >> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 08:29:11 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 21, 6:45 pm, Punter  wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:43:42 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Punter  wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:12:19 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> However - if you choose not to name the location then there is nothing
> >>>>>> further to be said.
> >>>>> you are very good at avoiding questions. You haven't even given me any
> >>>>> proof that you can do anything about it. Why shulkd I believe you have
> >>>>> any special ability to change things?
> >>>> Which part of  "However - if you choose not to name the location then
> >>>> there is nothing further to be said" are you having trouble
> >>>> understanding?
> >>> You really are a prize cunt aren't you. YOu expect me to name the
> >>> place which could well lead to me getting into trouble because i have
> >>> to sign there and have absolutely no idea who you are or even if you
> >>> can do anything, and yet when aked for a little reciprocation you
> >>> decide to have a hissy fit.
> >>> What part of you are a fucking prick don't YOU understand you silly
> >>> cunt.
> >> You were only asked to say which office is carrying on this dodgy
> >> sounding practice. You weren't asked your name, were you? Or do you
> >> imagine that 'they' will be able to read your mind despite the
> >> tin-foil hat.
>
> >> Oh perleeease -  do stop being so precious. You'd either like this
> >> questioned from within or you wouldn't. It's as easy as that.
>
> >> I'm really not at all surprised you seem to be having such a hard
> >> time, given your somewhat negative attitude and apparent unwillingness
> >> to relay even the most simple piece of information without making a
> >> big drama from it.
>
> > and this is going to be investigated how? Some nerd on the internet
> > has the power to ring up the DWP and say 'oy, i heard on the internets
> > you are shit! sort it ahhhht!'
>
> > get real.
>
> > if the loser can't answer a basic question as to how he intends to
> > investigate or who he is in relationship to being able to inetigate
> > any kind of change then why should i tell him anything?
>
> > if he can't divgule info quid pro quo then he's the one with the
> > tinfoil hat, pal, not i.
>
> Reading between the lines I think the poster was going to phone that
> local Job Centre! Quite rightly the other poster didn't divulge his or
> her location.
>
> --
> Robbie

I don't care who he is or where he lives, but if he thinks that ringin
up the JC in question in classic 'angry from tumbriudge wells' style
indignation, he's even more in need of that tinfoil hat.