On Dec 5, 10:41 am, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
wrote:
> On 5 Dec, 08:03, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 10:08 pm, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
> > >  wrote in message
>
> > >news:6fae1913-d5c5-4d07-bb23-a269f1020705@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On 4 Dec, 21:15, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> > > >>  wrote in message
>
> > > >>news:7ddf53e9-5475-49d7-8402-ad96873104e7@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> > On 4 Dec, 19:00, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> > > >> >> "Robbie"  wrote in message
>
> > > >> >>news:5rlfmkF151r30U2@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > >> >> > Niteawk wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >>  wrote in message >
>
> > > >> >> >>> Seems to be a fair bit of screw them on both sides.Plusa good
> > > >> >> >>> chunk
> > > >> >> >>> of trying to do the rigfht thing on each side too.
>
> > > >> >> >> I dont think so, a very high percentage will be signing on for the
> > > >> >> >> first
> > > >> >> >> time ever.Plusa fair percentage will not be out of work for long,
> > > >> >> >> you
> > > >> >> >> cant say these people have a screw them attitude. Maybe you can,
> > > >> >> >> this
> > > >> >> >> proves what some of us have been saying, you tar everyone with the
> > > >> >> >> same
> > > >> >> >> brush.
>
> > > >> >> > it does work both ways...
>
> > > >> >> Oh no it does not, there is a big difference, you lot make the rules
> > > >> >> and
> > > >> >> call the tune, like I said before, its down to you and how you treat
> > > >> >> people.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >> > You lot?
> > > >> > I'm a charity worker who begs for a living. On a commercial scale
> > > >> > (spare a grand guv?).
>
> > > >> > I and the staff I work with have to have some rules. Which we do
> > > >> > make.
> > > >> > Things like no dealing on the premises. Outside the door is a
> > > >> > different matter....
>
> > > >> > Martin  <><
>
> > > >> Yes of course you need rules, the rules I speak of are rules which are of
> > > >> no
> > > >> use to anyone, bureaucracy for the sake of it like Mandatory Courses, if
> > > >> those fucking courses were any good you would not have to force people to
> > > >> attend them, they would be queing up of their own free will.- Hide quoted
> > > >> text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > I take it you would't go on another New Deal course if you could help
> > > > it.
>
> > > I would attend actually, free tea and biscuits is not to be sniffed at. No
> > > seriously I would attend, for about 1/2 hour or so to make use of the free
> > > stamps and envelopes, apart from that the rest of it is a waste of time.
>
> > what use are free stamps when employers don't receive or properly
> > record the arrival of an application? Then you get your benefit
> > stopped ebcause you have no proof you applied.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Can't do a thing about not receiving it (except hand it in by hand),
> TNT aren't the only people to lose post.
> But record receipt of an application? Not easy for employers. We
> aren't talking a handful of applications, we are talking hundreds.
> Sifting for interview might leave a half dozen - we shred the rest.
> Someone asking weeks later about an application that didn't go for
> interview? Not a chance of remembering.
> Remember, no-one gives the employer extra money for extra admin or
> storage of applications - extra costs have to be met from existing
> funds.
>
> Martin  <><

End result: employer says person didn't apply JC naturally sides with
them (and that's my expeience) and loses all benefit straight away.