I've been out of work for 8 years except for a few training courses.
Recently I have been assigned to a personal advisor who have been
pressurizing me to do voluntary work.  I am not interested in doing
woluntary work and know that I cannot be forced to do it, but for some
reason my advisor is doing the "hard sell" and won't give up.  I feel
like saying two words to her and one of them is "off".  How do I deal
with someone like this who won't take no for an answer?

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT), e.david6@ntlworld.com wrote:

>I've been out of work for 8 years except for a few training courses.
>Recently I have been assigned to a personal advisor who have been
>pressurizing me to do voluntary work.  I am not interested in doing
>woluntary work and know that I cannot be forced to do it, but for some
>reason my advisor is doing the "hard sell" and won't give up.  I feel
>like saying two words to her and one of them is "off".  How do I deal
>with someone like this who won't take no for an answer?

Voluntary work is an excellent way of updating skills and getting back
into the work ethic and routine which, after 8 years, you must surely
appreciate is important to any prospective employer.

What is your reason for feeling so strongly aginst doing something
that can only help, not just you but other people as well?

e.david6@ntlworld.com wrote:
> I've been out of work for 8 years except for a few training courses.
> Recently I have been assigned to a personal advisor who have been
> pressurizing me to do voluntary work.  I am not interested in doing
> woluntary work and know that I cannot be forced to do it, but for some
> reason my advisor is doing the "hard sell" and won't give up.  I feel
> like saying two words to her and one of them is "off".  How do I deal
> with someone like this who won't take no for an answer?
> 

I agree with you personal adviser. After 8 years of unemployment you 
have little to offer a potential employer - you have no recent work 
experience at all and nothing to show an prospective employer that you 
have commitment or recent work experience.

A voluntary job for 2 or 3 days a week would help establish routine and 
provide something to show a potential employer. It's also a good way of 
getting a good reference and could even lead to employment.

You could just tell your personal adviser you aren't interested but my 
guess is that you will just stay unemployed as a result.

Why do you not want to do voluntary work? You may not get a job from 
doing this, but at least you will have tried.

-- 
Robbie

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:45:28 +0100, Robbie 
wrote:

>e.david6@ntlworld.com wrote:
>> I've been out of work for 8 years except for a few training courses.
>> Recently I have been assigned to a personal advisor who have been
>> pressurizing me to do voluntary work.  I am not interested in doing
>> woluntary work and know that I cannot be forced to do it, but for some
>> reason my advisor is doing the "hard sell" and won't give up.  I feel
>> like saying two words to her and one of them is "off".  How do I deal
>> with someone like this who won't take no for an answer?
>> 
>
>I agree with you personal adviser. After 8 years of unemployment you 
>have little to offer a potential employer - you have no recent work 
>experience at all and nothing to show an prospective employer that you 
>have commitment or recent work experience.
>
>A voluntary job for 2 or 3 days a week would help establish routine and 
>provide something to show a potential employer. It's also a good way of 
>getting a good reference and could even lead to employment.
>
>You could just tell your personal adviser you aren't interested but my 
>guess is that you will just stay unemployed as a result.
>
>Why do you not want to do voluntary work? You may not get a job from 
>doing this, but at least you will have tried.

At a wild guess (And I apologise if I am wrong) but the OP has no
intention of working for  a living. I don't believe anyone would be
jobless for 8 years if they actually wanted to work.
-- 
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

On 19 Jun, 08:17, mogga  wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:45:28 +0100, Robbie 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >e.dav...@ntlworld.com wrote:
> >> I've been out of work for 8 years except for a few training courses.
> >> Recently I have been assigned to a personal advisor who have been
> >> pressurizing me to do voluntary work.  I am not interested in doing
> >> woluntary work and know that I cannot be forced to do it, but for some
> >> reason my advisor is doing the "hard sell" and won't give up.  I feel
> >> like saying two words to her and one of them is "off".  How do I deal
> >> with someone like this who won't take no for an answer?
>
> >I agree with you personal adviser. After 8 years of unemployment you
> >have little to offer a potential employer - you have no recent work
> >experience at all and nothing to show an prospective employer that you
> >have commitment or recent work experience.
>
> >A voluntary job for 2 or 3 days a week would help establish routine and
> >provide something to show a potential employer. It's also a good way of
> >getting a good reference and could even lead to employment.
>
> >You could just tell your personal adviser you aren't interested but my
> >guess is that you will just stay unemployed as a result.
>
> >Why do you not want to do voluntary work? You may not get a job from
> >doing this, but at least you will have tried.
>
> At a wild guess (And I apologise if I am wrong) but the OP has no
> intention of working for  a living. I don't believe anyone would be
> jobless for 8 years if they actually wanted to work.
> --http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.ukhttp://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

Well, I've been in a kind of double catch 22 situation.  I have a
degree IT qualification but not enough experience except for a
placement year at university.  Most agencies regard my placement year
as "not a real job".  So if a placement year is "not a real job", how
will voluntary work will be regarded?  I have applied for loads of
jobs and just given up for long periods.  I have applied for lower end
jobs and gotten nowhere with that - that's the other part of the catch
22 - too much qualifications for rubbish jobs.  I recently got to the
interview stage of working with the DWP and for some reason was
rejected - waiting for feedback.  The other problem I have is shyness,
which I have partly overcome over the years, but still holds me back a
lot.

The thing about voluntary work is: first, I am an atheist and I would
need to work with a registered charity, which at a guess would be
based on christianity of some form.  If I am an atheist, then why
should I help a religious organisation when I am against religion?
Secondly,  I feel that my personal advisor is targetting me because I
am a nice person and won't tell her to ____ off.  I know many people
who sign on who would just say ____ off and that would be the end of
it.

On 19 Jun, 11:37, e.dav...@ntlworld.com wrote:
> On 19 Jun, 08:17, mogga  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:45:28 퍝, Robbie 
> > wrote:
>
> > >e.dav...@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > >> I've been out of work for 8 years except for a few training courses.
> > >> Recently I have been assigned to a personal advisor who have been
> > >> pressurizing me to do voluntary work.  I am not interested in doing
> > >> woluntary work and know that I cannot be forced to do it, but for some
> > >> reason my advisor is doing the "hard sell" and won't give up.  I feel
> > >> like saying two words to her and one of them is "off".  How do I deal
> > >> with someone like this who won't take no for an answer?
>
> > >I agree with you personal adviser. After 8 years of unemployment you
> > >have little to offer a potential employer - you have no recent work
> > >experience at all and nothing to show an prospective employer that you
> > >have commitment or recent work experience.
>
> > >A voluntary job for 2 or 3 days a week would help establish routine and
> > >provide something to show a potential employer. It's also a good way of
> > >getting a good reference and could even lead to employment.
>
> > >You could just tell your personal adviser you aren't interested but my
> > >guess is that you will just stay unemployed as a result.
>
> > >Why do you not want to do voluntary work? You may not get a job from
> > >doing this, but at least you will have tried.
>
> > At a wild guess (And I apologise if I am wrong) but the OP has no
> > intention of working for  a living. I don't believe anyone would be
> > jobless for 8 years if they actually wanted to work.
> > --http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.ukhttp://www.holidayunder100.co.uk
>
> Well, I've been in a kind of double catch 22 situation.  I have a
> degree IT qualification but not enough experience except for a
> placement year at university.  Most agencies regard my placement year
> as "not a real job".  So if a placement year is "not a real job", how
> will voluntary work will be regarded?  I have applied for loads of
> jobs and just given up for long periods.  I have applied for lower end
> jobs and gotten nowhere with that - that's the other part of the catch
> 22 - too much qualifications for rubbish jobs.  I recently got to the
> interview stage of working with the DWP and for some reason was
> rejected - waiting for feedback.  The other problem I have is shyness,
> which I have partly overcome over the years, but still holds me back a
> lot.
>
> The thing about voluntary work is: first, I am an atheist and I would
> need to work with a registered charity, which at a guess would be
> based on christianity of some form.  If I am an atheist, then why
> should I help a religious organisation when I am against religion?
> Secondly,  I feel that my personal advisor is targetting me because I
> am a nice person and won't tell her to ____ off.  I know many people
> who sign on who would just say ____ off and that would be the end of
> it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There are 190,000 registered charities - and many small groups too
small to bother registering. Some with Christian bases, some with
other religion bases, many simply community based.
Some people see a need, they start a charity to deal with that need,
they need volunteers. Basically how most charities in this country
start.

So don't help a religious organisation, help people instead. The local
community centre lunch club, the local disability group, the local
homeless organisation, the local drugs help, the local charitable
trust etc.
I daresay the smaller ones would be ecstatic if you could use your
qualification to help them - IT is an area that many charities have
problems with.

Oh, and charities also employ staff - with a track record of work,
might find a job that suits your peronality, skills and temperment.

How do you feel about using a computer to research and write
applications for funding? Not everyone can do it - and charities tend
to be short of them.
And can develop your own track record of applications to get a job
fundraising. Check out http://www.institute-of-fundraising.org.uk/


Martin  <><

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:37:25 -0700 (PDT), e.david6@ntlworld.com wrote:


>Well, I've been in a kind of double catch 22 situation.  I have a
>degree IT qualification but not enough experience except for a
>placement year at university.  Most agencies regard my placement year
>as "not a real job".  So if a placement year is "not a real job", how
>will voluntary work will be regarded?  I have applied for loads of


As valid as any other employment... if it's not relevent to your
degree and you're applying for an IT job it'll not be as useful as
directly relating voluntary work.
After 8 years though I imagine your IT skills aren't as top notch as a
recent graduate - unless you've kept up yourself.

Can you use PHP?


>jobs and just given up for long periods.  I have applied for lower end
>jobs and gotten nowhere with that - that's the other part of the catch
>22 - too much qualifications for rubbish jobs.  I recently got to the
>interview stage of working with the DWP and for some reason was
>rejected - waiting for feedback.  The other problem I have is shyness,
>which I have partly overcome over the years, but still holds me back a
>lot.
>
>The thing about voluntary work is: first, I am an atheist and I would
>need to work with a registered charity, which at a guess would be
>based on christianity of some form.  If I am an atheist, then why
>should I help a religious organisation when I am against religion?
>Secondly,  I feel that my personal advisor is targetting me because I
>am a nice person and won't tell her to ____ off.  I know many people
>who sign on who would just say ____ off and that would be the end of
>it.
>
>
>

I volunteer for Age Concern. I help out in one of their shops. They
didn't care that I had a degree or no experience - they were after
people to do a pretty basis job. It takes me out the house one morning
a week when otherwise I wouldn't see people. I too am quite shy (No,
really!)
I work for myself the rest of the time. 

It can be hard to know what you want to do for a living - but it's
better to do something rather than sit and do nothing.

There's so many groups looking for volunteers - look for "Voluntary
Action" organisations near you (My local one is called Voluntary
Action Oldham - and there's one in Manchester called VAM ...) 
Get in touch with them and see whether they can find you a placement -
they'll have detailed knowledge of opportunities available.

You don't have to stick with IT. Do something different. Try several
different things until you get something you enjoy. You never know
what might come from it.


-- 
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

mogga wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:37:25 -0700 (PDT), e.david6@ntlworld.com wrote:
> 
> 
>> Well, I've been in a kind of double catch 22 situation.  I have a
>> degree IT qualification but not enough experience except for a
>> placement year at university.  Most agencies regard my placement year
>> as "not a real job".  So if a placement year is "not a real job", how
>> will voluntary work will be regarded?  I have applied for loads of
> 
> 
> As valid as any other employment... if it's not relevent to your
> degree and you're applying for an IT job it'll not be as useful as
> directly relating voluntary work.
> After 8 years though I imagine your IT skills aren't as top notch as a
> recent graduate - unless you've kept up yourself.
> 
> Can you use PHP?
> 
> 
>> jobs and just given up for long periods.  I have applied for lower end
>> jobs and gotten nowhere with that - that's the other part of the catch
>> 22 - too much qualifications for rubbish jobs.  I recently got to the
>> interview stage of working with the DWP and for some reason was
>> rejected - waiting for feedback.  The other problem I have is shyness,
>> which I have partly overcome over the years, but still holds me back a
>> lot.
>>
>> The thing about voluntary work is: first, I am an atheist and I would
>> need to work with a registered charity, which at a guess would be
>> based on christianity of some form.  If I am an atheist, then why
>> should I help a religious organisation when I am against religion?
>> Secondly,  I feel that my personal advisor is targetting me because I
>> am a nice person and won't tell her to ____ off.  I know many people
>> who sign on who would just say ____ off and that would be the end of
>> it.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> I volunteer for Age Concern. I help out in one of their shops. They
> didn't care that I had a degree or no experience - they were after
> people to do a pretty basis job. It takes me out the house one morning
> a week when otherwise I wouldn't see people. I too am quite shy (No,
> really!)
> I work for myself the rest of the time. 
> 
> It can be hard to know what you want to do for a living - but it's
> better to do something rather than sit and do nothing.
> 
> There's so many groups looking for volunteers - look for "Voluntary
> Action" organisations near you (My local one is called Voluntary
> Action Oldham - and there's one in Manchester called VAM ...) 
> Get in touch with them and see whether they can find you a placement -
> they'll have detailed knowledge of opportunities available.
> 
> You don't have to stick with IT. Do something different. Try several
> different things until you get something you enjoy. You never know
> what might come from it.
> 
> 

there's this site

http://www.do-it.org.uk/

that lists voluntary jobs from a wide variety of organisations in the 
UK. Some of the jobs may now be filled but it does list the nearest 
Voluntary Bureau or agency who may have more voluntary jobs on their books.

also:

http://www.volunteering.org.uk/ - lists most voluntary agencies in the 
UK with phone numbers.

-- 
Robbie

On 18 Jun, 20:10, Gran  wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT), e.dav...@ntlworld.com wrote:
> >I've been out of work for 8 years except for a few training courses.
> ?
>
> Voluntary work is an excellent way of updating skills and getting back
> into the work ethic and routine which, after 8 years, you must surely
> appreciate is important to any prospective employer.
>
> What is your reason for feeling so strongly aginst doing something
> that can only help, not just you but other people as well?

But that is not answering his question. Surely a straight question
should receive a straight  answer. Ie how to say no to an advisor who,
according to the posting ( of course the posting only tells us one
side of the story, who does  not appear to listen

On 18 Jun, 20:45, Robbie  wrote:
> e.dav...@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > I've been out of work for 8 years except for a few training courses.
> > Recently I have been assigned to a personal advisor who have been
> > pressurizing me to do voluntary work.  I am not interested in doing
> > woluntary work and know that I cannot be forced to do it, but for some
> > reason my advisor is doing the "hard sell" and won't give up.  I feel
> > like saying two words to her and one of them is "off".  How do I deal
> > with someone like this who won't take no for an answer?
>
> I agree with you personal adviser. After 8 years of unemployment you
> have little to offer a potential employer - you have no recent work
> experience at all and nothing to show an prospective employer that you
> have commitment or recent work experience.
>
> A voluntary job for 2 or 3 days a week would help establish routine and
> provide something to show a potential employer. It's also a good way of
> getting a good reference and could even lead to employment.
>
> You could just tell your personal adviser you aren't interested but my
> guess is that you will just stay unemployed as a result.
>
> Why do you not want to do voluntary work? You may not get a job from
> doing this, but at least you will have tried.
>
> --
> Robbie

Yes, I agree, but as stated above, he is not actually asking that.

scoff12@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 18 Jun, 20:45, Robbie  wrote:
>> e.dav...@ntlworld.com wrote:
>>> I've been out of work for 8 years except for a few training courses.
>>> Recently I have been assigned to a personal advisor who have been
>>> pressurizing me to do voluntary work.  I am not interested in doing
>>> woluntary work and know that I cannot be forced to do it, but for some
>>> reason my advisor is doing the "hard sell" and won't give up.  I feel
>>> like saying two words to her and one of them is "off".  How do I deal
>>> with someone like this who won't take no for an answer?
>> I agree with you personal adviser. After 8 years of unemployment you
>> have little to offer a potential employer - you have no recent work
>> experience at all and nothing to show an prospective employer that you
>> have commitment or recent work experience.
>>
>> A voluntary job for 2 or 3 days a week would help establish routine and
>> provide something to show a potential employer. It's also a good way of
>> getting a good reference and could even lead to employment.
>>
>> You could just tell your personal adviser you aren't interested but my
>> guess is that you will just stay unemployed as a result.
>>
>> Why do you not want to do voluntary work? You may not get a job from
>> doing this, but at least you will have tried.
>>
>> --
>> Robbie
> 
> Yes, I agree, but as stated above, he is not actually asking that.

He already knows the answer to his question as he's already stated it. 
he just has to say "no" and that is that.

-- 
Robbie

scoff12@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 18 Jun, 20:10, Gran  wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT), e.dav...@ntlworld.com wrote:
>>> I've been out of work for 8 years except for a few training courses.
>> ?
>>
>> Voluntary work is an excellent way of updating skills and getting back
>> into the work ethic and routine which, after 8 years, you must surely
>> appreciate is important to any prospective employer.
>>
>> What is your reason for feeling so strongly aginst doing something
>> that can only help, not just you but other people as well?
> 
> But that is not answering his question. Surely a straight question
> should receive a straight  answer. Ie how to say no to an advisor who,
> according to the posting ( of course the posting only tells us one
> side of the story, who does  not appear to listen
> 

Straight answer: "No I won't do it".

There are of course many variations on this.

Mike

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT), e.david6@ntlworld.com wrote:

Its like looking in a mirror she is stuborn and obstinate in pursuing
her goal. The relection (you) do like wise...

>I've been out of work for 8 years except for a few training courses.
>Recently I have been assigned to a personal advisor who have been
>pressurizing me to do voluntary work.  I am not interested in doing
>woluntary work and know that I cannot be forced to do it, but for some
>reason my advisor is doing the "hard sell" and won't give up.  I feel
>like saying two words to her and one of them is "off".  How do I deal
>with someone like this who won't take no for an answer?

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:10:50 +0100, Gran  wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT), e.david6@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
>>I've been out of work for 8 years except for a few training courses.
>>Recently I have been assigned to a personal advisor who have been
>>pressurizing me to do voluntary work.  I am not interested in doing
>>woluntary work and know that I cannot be forced to do it, but for some
>>reason my advisor is doing the "hard sell" and won't give up.  I feel
>>like saying two words to her and one of them is "off".  How do I deal
>>with someone like this who won't take no for an answer?
>
>Voluntary work is an excellent way of updating skills and getting back
>into the work ethic and routine which, after 8 years, you must surely
>appreciate is important to any prospective employer.
>
>What is your reason for feeling so strongly aginst doing something
>that can only help, not just you but other people as well?

On 22 Aug, 17:59, joss  wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT), e.dav...@ntlworld.com wrote:

I agree with Gran and Robbie. Voluntary work would get you back into
the work ethic and into the real world instead of sitting at home and
wallowing in your hatred.

"I'm an atheist so I won't help charities". Jeez, I'm not religious
either but I've given to charity. They won't care what your beliefs
are.

You're just putting obstacles in your way and will end up being a lazy
bum for the rest of your life. You only have one life so make the most
of it. Get out into the fresh air today and do some work, even if it's
for free and only lasts a couple of hours - it's a start!

On 15 Sep, 10:08, Frank Sidebottom  wrote:
> On 22 Aug, 17:59, joss  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT), e.dav...@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> I agree with Gran and Robbie. Voluntary work would get you back into
> the work ethic and into the real world instead of sitting at home and
> wallowing in your hatred.
>
> "I'm an atheist so I won't help charities". Jeez, I'm not religious
> either but I've given to charity. They won't care what your beliefs
> are.
>
> You're just putting obstacles in your way and will end up being a lazy
> bum for the rest of your life. You only have one life so make the most
> of it. Get out into the fresh air today and do some work, even if it's
> for free and only lasts a couple of hours - it's a start!

Plenty of non-religious charities. Even some of the religious ones
don't care about your beliefs so long as you stick to the charity
ethos.
Which tend to be along the lines of helping someone or something.

Can lead to jobs too - we have 2 volunteers here at the moment being
interviewed for 2 jobs we are offering at my charity.
Nothing to say they will get the job, but they are in with a chance
because we know they can do the work, we know they get on with the
client group and we know what their work attitude is.

Martin  <><

On Sep 15, 10:08 am, Frank Sidebottom  wrote:
> On 22 Aug, 17:59, joss  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT), e.dav...@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> I agree with Gran and Robbie. Voluntary work would get you back into
> the work ethic and into the real world instead of sitting at home and
> wallowing in your hatred.
>
> "I'm an atheist so I won't help charities". Jeez, I'm not religious
> either but I've given to charity. They won't care what your beliefs
> are.
>
> You're just putting obstacles in your way and will end up being a lazy
> bum for the rest of your life. You only have one life so make the most
> of it. Get out into the fresh air today and do some work, even if it's
> for free and only lasts a couple of hours - it's a start!

Dear oh dear, do you really think you are helping by spewing out this
kind of rubbish?

On 19 Sep, 08:12, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Sep 15, 10:08 am, Frank Sidebottom  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 22 Aug, 17:59, joss  wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT), e.dav...@ntlworld.com wrote> > I agree with Gran and Robbie. Voluntary work would get you back into
> > the work ethic and into the real world instead of sitting at home and
> > wallowing in your hatred.
>
> > "I'm an atheist so I won't help charities". Jeez, I'm not religious
> > either but I've given to charity. They won't care what your beliefs
> > are.
>
> > You're just putting obstacles in your way and will end up being a lazy
> > bum for the rest of your life. You only have one life so make the most
> > of it. Get out into the fresh air today and do some work, even if it's
> > for free and only lasts a couple of hours - it's a start!
>
> Dear oh dear, do you really think you are helping by spewing out this
> kind of rubbish?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Is it rubbish? Or is it you just disagree with it?

Martin  <><

On Sep 19, 10:44 am, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
wrote:
> On 19 Sep, 08:12, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 15, 10:08 am, Frank Sidebottom  wrote> > > On 22 Aug, 17:59, joss  wrote:
>
> > > > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT), e.dav...@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> > > I agree with Gran and Robbie. Voluntary work would get you back into
> > > the work ethic and into the real world instead of sitting at home and
> > > wallowing in your hatred.
>
> > > "I'm an atheist so I won't help charities". Jeez, I'm not religious
> > > either but I've given to charity. They won't care what your beliefs
> > > are.
>
> > > You're just putting obstacles in your way and will end up being a lazy
> > > bum for the rest of your life. You only have one life so make the most
> > > of it. Get out into the fresh air today and do some work, even if it's
> > > for free and only lasts a couple of hours - it's a start!
>
> > Dear oh dear, do you really think you are helping by spewing out this
> > kind of rubbish?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Is it rubbish? Or is it you just disagree with it?
>
> Martin  <><

It's rubbish. It's not helpful. It's a load of cliched crap spouted by
people who use the word lazy to describe people ironically as a way of
avoiding engaging with them and simply dismissing them. Then they
wonder why the people they aren't helping aren't getting anywhere.

On 19 Sep, 11:26, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Sep 19, 10:44 am, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 19 Sep, 08:12, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 15, 10:08 am, Frank Sidebottom  wrote:
>
> > > > On 22 Aug, 17:59, joss  wrote:
>
> > > > > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT), e.dav...@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> > > > I agree with Gran and Robbie. Voluntary work would get you back into
> > > > the work ethic and into the real world instead of sitting at home and
> > > > wallowing in your hatred.
>
> > > > "I'm an atheist so I won't help charities". Jeez, I'm not religious
> > > > either but I've given to charity. They won't care what your beliefs
> > > > are.
>
> > > > You're just putting obstacles in your way and will end up being a lazy
> > > > bum for the rest of your life. You only have one life so make the most
> > > > of it. Get out into the fresh air today and do some work, even if it's
> > > > for free and only lasts a couple of hours - it's a start!
>
> > > Dear oh dear, do you really think you are helping by spewing out this
> > > kind of rubbish?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Is it rubbish? Or is it you just disagree with it?
>
> > Martin  <><
>
> It's rubbish. It's not helpful. It's a load of cliched crap spouted by
> people who use the word lazy to describe people ironically as a way of
> avoiding engaging with them and simply dismissing them. Then they
> wonder why the people they aren't helping aren't getting anywhere.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Its also true that some people are lazy.
Not everyone.

I don't know about you but I have met some people who will refuse to
work no matter what, just because they prefer being on the dole.
Many others I've met want to work, just can't find what they want at
the salary they want.

Humans are wonderful at procrastination. And coming up with excuses is
part and parcel of that.
Solutions to those real or imagined problems have been mentioned. Its
not us forcing people to do things though.....

Martin  <><

On Sep 19, 12:23 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
wrote:
> On 19 Sep, 11:26, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 10:44 am, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 19 Sep, 08:12, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 15, 10:08 am, Frank Sidebottom  wrote:
>
> > > > > On 22 Aug, 17:59, joss  wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT), e.dav...@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> > > > > I agree with Gran and Robbie. Voluntary work would get you back into
> > > > > the work ethic and into the real world instead of sitting at home and
> > > > > wallowing in your hatred.
>
> > > > > "I'm an atheist so I won't help charities". Jeez, I'm not religious
> > > > > either but I've given to charity. They won't care what your beliefs
> > > > > are.
>
> > > > > You're just putting obstacles in your way and will end up being a lazy
> > > > > bum for the rest of your life. You only have one life so make the most
> > > > > of it. Get out into the fresh air today and do some work, even if it's
> > > > > for free and only lasts a couple of hours - it's a start!
>
> > > > Dear oh dear, do you really think you are helping by spewing out this
> > > > kind of rubbish?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Is it rubbish? Or is it you just disagree with it?
>
> > > Martin  <><
>
> > It's rubbish. It's not helpful. It's a load of cliched crap spouted by
> > people who use the word lazy to describe people ironically as a way of
> > avoiding engaging with them and simply dismissing them. Then they
> > wonder why the people they aren't helping aren't getting anywhere.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Its also true that some people are lazy.
> Not everyone.
>
How profound.

> I don't know about you but I have met some people who will refuse to
> work no matter what, just because they prefer being on the dole.

I question the validity of your statement entirely. It's far too easy
to just assume this.

> Many others I've met want to work, just can't find what they want at
> the salary they want.
>
And many people are just not ever going to be able to work at all,
despite what cunts like James Purnell and his big business cronies
might like to think.

> Humans are wonderful at procrastination. And coming up with excuses is
> part and parcel of that.

A disingenuous statement that has nothing to do with anything here.

On 19 Sep, 13:26, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Sep 19, 12:23 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 19 Sep, 11:26, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 19, 10:44 am, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On 19 Sep, 08:12, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 15, 10:08 am, Frank Sidebottom  wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 22 Aug, 17:59, joss  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT), e.dav...@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > I agree with Gran and Robbie. Voluntary work would get you back into
> > > > > > the work ethic and into the real world instead of sitting at home and
> > > > > > wallowing in your hatred.
>
> > > > > > "I'm an atheist so I won't help charities". Jeez, I'm not religious
> > > > > > either but I've given to charity. They won't care what your beliefs
> > > > > > are.
>
> > > > > > You're just putting obstacles in your way and will end up being a lazy
> > > > > > bum for the rest of your life. You only have one life so make the most
> > > > > > of it. Get out into the fresh air today and do some work, even if it's
> > > > > > for free and only lasts a couple of hours - it's a start!
>
> > > > > Dear oh dear, do you really think you are helping by spewing out this
> > > > > kind of rubbish?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Is it rubbish? Or is it you just disagree with it?
>
> > > > Martin  <><
>
> > > It's rubbish. It's not helpful. It's a load of cliched crap spouted by
> > > people who use the word lazy to describe people ironically as a way of
> > > avoiding engaging with them and simply dismissing them. Then they
> > > wonder why the people they aren't helping aren't getting anywhere.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Its also true that some people are lazy.
> > Not everyone.
>
> How profound.
>
> > I don't know about you but I have met some people who will refuse to
> > work no matter what, just because they prefer being on the dole.
>
> I question the validity of your statement entirely. It's far too easy
> to just assume this.

Not assuming, they've said themselves.
I'm related to one of them!

>
> > Many others I've met want to work, just can't find what they want at
> > the salary they want.
>
> And many people are just not ever going to be able to work at all,
> despite what cunts like James Purnell and his big business cronies
> might like to think.

And why are they not going to be able to work at all?
'Not going to' seems like quite a large statement.


>
> > Humans are wonderful at procrastination. And coming up with excuses is
> > part and parcel of that.
>
> A disingenuous statement that has nothing to do with anything here.- Hide quoted text -
>

Then read the previous messages in this thread.

Martin  <><

> Not assuming, they've said themselves.
> I'm related to one of them!
>
And such people, if true, are hardly representatitve of anything.
Despite what the government and the media would have us all believe.

> And why are they not going to be able to work at all?
> 'Not going to' seems like quite a large statement.
>
Some people are just unemployable. Don't forget that the DWP claim
full employment to be 80% of the workforce. The system doesn't want
everyone to be employed otherwise it loses its power and can't keep
wages down (bit like immigration really). Bottom line, these 20%, of
which the chronically unemployable are a small minority, are as much a
part of the system as the people who work for the DWP themselves.

On 19 Sep, 18:46, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Not assuming, they've said themselves.
> > I'm related to one of them!
>
> And such people, if true, are hardly representatitve of anything.
> Despite what the government and the media would have us all believe.
>

Are you suggesting that all the unemployed all want to work?


> > And why are they not going to be able to work at all?
> > 'Not going to' seems like quite a large statement.
>
> Some people are just unemployable.

Totally unemployable? Or just you wouldn't employ them?

Don't forget that the DWP claim
> full employment to be 80% of the workforce.

Leaving 20% temporarily out of work or ill.

The system doesn't want
> everyone to be employed otherwise it loses its power and can't keep
> wages down (bit like immigration really).

LOL.
Its not the percentage of the workforce in work that impacts wage
rises.

Bottom line, these 20%, of
> which the chronically unemployable are a small minority, are as much a
> part of the system as the people who work for the DWP themselves.

And what makes these people you see as chronically unemployable,
chronically unemployable?

Martin  <><

> Are you suggesting that all the unemployed all want to work?
>
Are you suggesting that government should base policy on a tiny
minority whose negative impact is demonstrably negiligable? That's the
same argument that demonises all kids because of the nasty minority?
Do you think that as well?

> Totally unemployable? Or just you wouldn't employ them?
>
Some people just don't fit into the modern workaday worl of today's
Britain. Again, despite what the DWP and the media would have you
believe, people are different and everyone has their own shit. Some
people just can't cope with the way the world works.

> Don't forget that the DWP claim
>
> > full employment to be 80% of the workforce.

If you can't respond properly without trying to cut up my posts and be
a smartarse then kindly don't respond at all. The government doesn't
want 100% employment, only 80%. iIlness has nothing to do with it.

> LOL.
> Its not the percentage of the workforce in work that impacts wage
> rises.
>
If we had 100% employment then the government would have no control
over wages. By keeping employment to 80% it can maintain a pool of
unemployed to control the workforce. Don't forget also that
unemployment is an industry.

> And what makes these people you see as chronically unemployable,
> chronically unemployable?

Environment, upbringing, circumstances, psychology, health, all manner
of factors that I am not qualified to comment on as I'm not a
psychiatrist or sociologist. The why isn't really important nor is it
my responsibility to explain why.

On 20 Sep, 10:52, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Are you suggesting that all the unemployed all want to work?
>
> Are you suggesting that government should base policy on a tiny
> minority whose negative impact is demonstrably negiligable? That's the
> same argument that demonises all kids because of the nasty minority?
> Do you think that as well?

So are you suggesting that a portion of the unemployed should be just
left to their own devices and just given the benefit they want?


>
> > Totally unemployable? Or just you wouldn't employ them?
>
> Some people just don't fit into the modern workaday worl of today's
> Britain.

And which people would that be?


 Again, despite what the DWP and the media would have you
> believe, people are different and everyone has their own shit.

True. But in this country the government tends to use a broad brush
and treat people as groups, not as all different.

Some
> people just can't cope with the way the world works.

So which people are those?


>
> > Don't forget that the DWP claim
>
> > > full employment to be 80% of the workforce.
>
> If you can't respond properly without trying to cut up my posts and be
> a smartarse then kindly don't respond at all. The government doesn't
> want 100% employment, only 80%. iIlness has nothing to do with it.

I daresay they'd accept 100% workforce if they could get it.
100% working population paying taxes......... not exactly bad for the
economy.
And some of the workforce will always be too ill to work. So never
actually achieve 100% itself.  :)


>
> > LOL.
> > Its not the percentage of the workforce in work that impacts wage
> > rises.
>
> If we had 100% employment then the government would have no control
> over wages.

It would have exactly the control it does now. With its own employees.
Whether the working population is 10%, 30% or 100%, its got the same
control over wages.




 By keeping employment to 80% it can maintain a pool of
> unemployed to control the workforce.

Its not the unemployed who control the workforce. An employer can
threaten someone that 'there are many unemployed who'd do this job'
but thats about as far as it can go.
Not cost effective to replace staff like that unless they are really
bad.


Don't forget also that
> unemployment is an industry.

Its a lack of industry that itself feeds industries. Local and
national government departments, insurance, doorstep
lenders.......need I go on?


>
> > And what makes these people you see as chronically unemployable,
> > chronically unemployable?
>
> Environment, upbringing, circumstances, psychology, health, all manner
> of factors that I am not qualified to comment on as I'm not a
> psychiatrist or sociologist. The why isn't really important nor is it
> my responsibility to explain why.

So you don't know what you see as chronically unemployable?
I'm not after a dictionary definition from society viewpoint, I'm
after what types or groups you think meet your criteria.

Martin  <><

> So are you suggesting that a portion of the unemployed should be just
> left to their own devices and just given the benefit they want?

I believe society should be built on compassion and support. Since we
can easily afford it, paying a tiny minority what amounts to a
pittance anyway (i'd pay them more, as I said we can easily afford
it). Let them live their lives. Maybe in time they can change their
circumstances. Maybe not. Either way what's the harm?

Personally I support the idea of the citizens wage and then we can pay
people a basic amount to live on each week and anything else they can
earn themselves.

Unfortunately people's attitudes inthis country are brainwashed by the
media and the government to be motivated by scarcity of resources fear
and self interest. Consequently people rail at the idea of giving
their 'hard earned taxes' to 'scroungers'.

That, though, is just bollocks.

> And which people would that be?
>
This question makes no sense.

> True. But in this country the government tends to use a broad brush
> and treat people as groups, not as all different.
>
Which is flawed since people shoudl never be judged fit or otherwise
by the standards of a majority.

> So which people are those?

This question makes no sense.

> I daresay they'd accept 100% workforce if they could get it.
> 100% working population paying taxes......... not exactly bad for the
> economy.
> And some of the workforce will always be too ill to work. So never
> actually achieve 100% itself.  :)

But the government's stated objective for full employment is 80%. It's
not 100% and it's not going to be 100% nor do they want this.

The economy doesn't need 100% of people paying taxes. This country is
plenty rich it's just a matter of how the money is collected and
spent. There is more money lost to the economy through tax avoidance
by the super rich (or anyone really) than there is spent on fraudulent
claims. Do people get thir knickers in a knot about that? Of course
not, because some single mother in a council house, or a druggie, or a
burberry wearing 'layabout' is an easier target for the media and the
masses ot buy into.

> It would have exactly the control it does now. With its own employees.
> Whether the working population is 10%, 30% or 100%, its got the same
> control over wages.
>
You are being naive. If everyone had a job, the power the workforce
would have in pushing up wages would be unstoppable. That's the
problem. If you have a pool of people out of work then you can just
threaten those disatisfied with their minimum wage slavery with being
replaced.

> Its not the unemployed who control the workforce. An employer can
> threaten someone that 'there are many unemployed who'd do this job'
> but thats about as far as it can go.
> Not cost effective to replace staff like that unless they are really
> bad.
>
Cost effectiveness isn't an issue for the sorts of jobs that pay the
low wages in the first place.

> Its a lack of industry that itself feeds industries. Local and
> national government departments, insurance, doorstep
> lenders.......need I go on?
>
This question makes no sense. The way you are cutting and pasting is
making it impossible to be understood.

> So you don't know what you see as chronically unemployable?
> I'm not after a dictionary definition from society viewpoint, I'm
> after what types or groups you think meet your criteria.
>

Why do i need to know what I see as chronically unemployable to know
that there are people who just can't function well enough, for
wahtever reason, in today's society. A society that is very pressured,
very fast and non stop. Is it so unbelievable to accept that not 100%
of the population of this country can cope with it?

On 20 Sep, 18:21, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > So are you suggesting that a portion of the unemployed should be just
> > left to their own devices and just given the benefit they want?
>
> I believe society should be built on compassion and support.

Good thing you aren't running society then.

 Since we
> can easily afford it,

Can we?


 paying a tiny minority what amounts to a
> pittance anyway

A pittance that adds up. For their entire life.


 (i'd pay them more, as I said we can easily afford
> it). Let them live their lives. Maybe in time they can change their
> circumstances. Maybe not. Either way what's the harm?

It becomes an option for everyone. Including workers thinking 'why
should I work and be penalised in taxes and bills when I can sit at
home all day doing nothing for free money?'


>
> Personally I support the idea of the citizens wage and then we can pay
> people a basic amount to live on each week and anything else they can
> earn themselves.

Out of what taxes?
May as well not pay people a basic amount to live on and have lower
taxes.....

>
> Unfortunately people's attitudes inthis country are brainwashed by the
> media and the government to be motivated by scarcity of resources fear
> and self interest.

And what a society it makes too.
I trust self interest more than I trust altruism. And considering we
are concentrated on a small group of islands that cannot possibly feed
the population, we do have some scarcity of resources.
Having to import a load of food for starters!


 Consequently people rail at the idea of giving
> their 'hard earned taxes' to 'scroungers'.

Come to think of it, why should I work an extra hour or two a week
simply to pay for 'scroungers'?


>
> That, though, is just bollocks.
>
> > And which people would that be?
>
> This question makes no sense.

Lets put in context shall we?

"Some people just don't fit into the modern workaday worl of today's
> Britain.

And which people would that be? "

You were suggesting that some people don't fit into modern workaday, I
was asking which people you meant.
If you don't know, how is anyone else supposed to know?

>
> > True. But in this country the government tends to use a broad brush
> > and treat people as groups, not as all different.
>
> Which is flawed since people shoudl never be judged fit or otherwise
> by the standards of a majority.

Yet its a workable system. We get many things done by grouping people
together. Aids administration, ignores individuality.


>
> > So which people are those?
>
> This question makes no sense.

Again, lets put that in context shall we?
You said:
'Some people just can't cope with the way the world works. '


So which people are those? - was asked by me.

Come on, define which people you mean by 'some people'.


>
> > I daresay they'd accept 100% workforce if they could get it.
> > 100% working population paying taxes......... not exactly bad for the
> > economy.
> > And some of the workforce will always be too ill to work. So never
> > actually achieve 100% itself.  :)
>
> But the government's stated objective for full employment is 80%. It's
> not 100% and it's not going to be 100% nor do they want this.

They'll be lucky to reach any target - its not generally government
offering jobs or getting rid of people.


>
> The economy doesn't need 100% of people paying taxes.

Doesn't need, but it does have them.
Just not everyone pays income tax. But everyone does pay taxes - VAT
is a tax.


This country is
> plenty rich

In which reality?
It spends a load of money. Also has a fair bit of income - not the
same as being rich.

it's just a matter of how the money is collected and
> spent.

Well 22 million people have just had some tax back this month,
backdated to April.
Not the wisest spending of government money when the reason for it was
a little over 5 million people were going to have higher tax bills.


 There is more money lost to the economy through tax avoidance
> by the super rich (or anyone really) than there is spent on fraudulent
> claims.

And there is a difference between tax avoidance and tax reduction.
Many employed people overpay taxes. Some of us are a little smarter
and reduce tax bills when we can.
Little things like claiming for relevant expenses, getting certain
items VAT free and so on.


Do people get thir knickers in a knot about that? Of course
> not, because some single mother in a council house, or a druggie, or a
> burberry wearing 'layabout' is an easier target for the media and the
> masses ot buy into.

Yes, much easier.
A group of people not paying their share of taxes rather than a group
of people paying more than their share.


>
> > It would have exactly the control it does now. With its own employees.
> > Whether the working population is 10%, 30% or 100%, its got the same
> > control over wages.
>
> You are being naive. If everyone had a job, the power the workforce
> would have in pushing up wages would be unstoppable.

Eh?
Not unless we worked for the same employer.
What one company gives in pay rises doesn't affect what another
company will. Or even if there is a pay rise that year.
Changes in costs, local conditions, fuel prices etc all have an impact
on how much of a pay rise people may want. But employers aren't
required to give any pay rise.
They take a risk in giving no pay rise - but its a risk that sometimes
must be taken.



 That's the
> problem. If you have a pool of people out of work then you can just
> threaten those disatisfied with their minimum wage slavery with being
> replaced.

And threatening is all you can do.
Recruiting costs money. Training costs money. Time until the
replacement worker is working at the same efficiency as the person he
replaced costs money.
And if the employee has been with the employer a length of time, they
have some rights.
Rights an employment tribunal will consider - again, costing money for
the employer.




>
> > Its not the unemployed who control the workforce. An employer can
> > threaten someone that 'there are many unemployed who'd do this job'
> > but thats about as far as it can go.
> > Not cost effective to replace staff like that unless they are really
> > bad.
>
> Cost effectiveness isn't an issue for the sorts of jobs that pay the
> low wages in the first place.

Its very much an issue for any sort of job.
We have a word for employers who don't consider cost effectiveness.
Its bankrupt.


>
> > Its a lack of industry that itself feeds industries. Local and
> > national government departments, insurance, doorstep
> > lenders.......need I go on?
>
> This question makes no sense. The way you are cutting and pasting is
> making it impossible to be understood.

You are one making statements. I'm just replying.


>
> > So you don't know what you see as chronically unemployable?
> > I'm not after a dictionary definition from society viewpoint, I'm
> > after what types or groups you think meet your criteria.
>
> Why do i need to know what I see as chronically unemployable to know
> that there are people who just can't function well enough, for
> wahtever reason, in today's society.

If you don't know, how can anyone else understand what you are on
about?



 A society that is very pressured,
> very fast and non stop.

Ah, you've been peeking at my job.
Only ever had one job thats very pressured, very fast and non-stop.
Loving every minute of it.
But every other job I've done in over 20 years has been nothing like
that.

 Is it so unbelievable to accept that not 100%
> of the population of this country can cope with it?

You are the one suggesting that some cannot. So which ones?
I work with disavantaged adults. I can't point to any of them and say
they cannot cope with employment at all.


Martin  <><

> Good thing you aren't running society then.
>
So compassion and supporting one another are bad things in your view
then?

> Can we?
>
Yes.

> A pittance that adds up. For their entire life.
>
Adds up to what? £60 a week is hardly a luxury or a privilege. If you
think that then perhaps try living like that. Especially nowadays.

> It becomes an option for everyone. Including workers thinking 'why
> should I work and be penalised in taxes and bills when I can sit at
> home all day doing nothing for free money?'
>
'free money'; here we go with the dail mail mindset. Bitterness and
envy; all courtesy of the media and the government. You shouldnt'
think like this and you don't need to - we can afford it.

Why on earth would it be an option for everyone? That's like saying
that because some people have diabetes we shouldn't give them insulin
because then everyone would want some. It's a nonsense.

As I said there's the citizens wage option. So there needn't be 'why
should i work' bollocks. Argeit macht frei eh?

> Out of what taxes?

why do you think there won't be taxes?

> May as well not pay people a basic amount to live on and have lower
> taxes.....
>
Whatever works.

> And what a society it makes too.
> I trust self interest more than I trust altruism. And considering we
> are concentrated on a small group of islands that cannot possibly feed
> the population, we do have some scarcity of resources.
> Having to import a load of food for starters!
>
self interest is what has caused the current financial crisis. Not the
fact that we don't farm enough (which we could). Unfortunately the
government has basically decimated local farming as well.

But as i've said before - we are a rich country. We aren't short of
money (or wouldn't be perhaps if the governments weren't so inept).

> Come to think of it, why should I work an extra hour or two a week
> simply to pay for 'scroungers'?
>
Then don't pay taxes. What makes you think 'scroungers' won't pay this
hard earned money of yours (it isn't yours either, it's the
governments) back in the future, or do you judge them just because
they haven't done so thus far?

> You were suggesting that some people don't fit into modern workaday, I
> was asking which people you meant.

It isn't my responsibility to know.

> If you don't know, how is anyone else supposed to know?
>
This is a nonsense statement. Other peopel's knowledge isn't dependent
on mine.

> Yet its a workable system. We get many things done by grouping people
> together. Aids administration, ignores individuality.

But you can't ignore individuality. Some people have problems, some
people don't. Judging one person's abilities and disabilities by
another's is totally flawed. IT's like saying to a person who can't
walk that they are being lazy because other people can walk.

> So which people are those? - was asked by me.
>
> Come on, define which people you mean by 'some people'.

Any people who are not able to function the way society expects or
demands of them. Could be anyone from anywhere, for a variety of
reasons: education (or lack thereof), illness, attitude, upbringing,
mental health, anything.

> They'll be lucky to reach any target - its not generally government
> offering jobs or getting rid of people.
>
Doesn't matter. It's government that dishes out benefits.

> Doesn't need, but it does have them.
> Just not everyone pays income tax. But everyone does pay taxes - VAT
> is a tax.
>
Then why make the statement about having to work extra to pay for
scroungers? Why would it bother you if everyone contributes to the
kitty?

> In which reality?
> It spends a load of money. Also has a fair bit of income - not the
> same as being rich.
>
The government can afford to support the people.

>  There is more money lost to the economy through tax avoidance
>
to the tune of tens of billions. Hardly a modest or negligible sum of
money.

> And there is a difference between tax avoidance and tax reduction.

I didn't mention tax reduction. I said tax avoidance. I also didn't
say tax evasion.

> Many employed people overpay taxes. Some of us are a little smarter
> and reduce tax bills when we can.

This has nothing to do with overpayment. Tens of billions are lost to
the treasury through legal loopholes and such that the rich can afford
to exploit. Means that exist to benefit a tiny portion of society with
an impact on the majority through deprived funds. Yet while you seem
to endorse such 'entrepreneurialism', you still use the word
'scrounger' to criticise those who act in their own self interest at
the other end of the scale for the sake of a few quid a week. Do you
not see the hypocrisy?

> Yes, much easier.
> A group of people not paying their share of taxes rather than a group
> of people paying more than their share.
>
So now people aren't paying their taxes?

Make up your mind!

> Eh?

With no threat of being replaced because everyone who could replace
you was already working, what option is left to an employer paying you
minimum wage to avoid your demand for increased wages at the expense
of the work being done?

> You are the one suggesting that some cannot. So which ones?
> I work with disavantaged adults. I can't point to any of them and say
> they cannot cope with employment at all.
>
So?

> Adds up to what? £60 a week is hardly a luxury or a privilege. If you
> think that then perhaps try living like that. Especially nowadays.

Without getting too involved in the petty argument you two seem to be 
having, may I just point out that it isn't just £60 free cash per week 
- you're forgetting the free housing, free prescriptions, and all the 
other benefit-dependant odds and sods, which soon adds up to more than 
the income many people who get off their arses to work earn.

Isn't it something like £14k per year minimum you need to earn now 
before you stand any chance of getting more than staying on benefits ?

What's the minimum wage now, something like £5.85/hr ?

£5.85 * 37 hr week = £216.45
£216.45 * 52 weeks = £11255.25 - from which you need to deduct tax/NI

On 20 Sep, 21:35, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Good thing you aren't running society then.
>
> So compassion and supporting one another are bad things in your view
> then?

Not at all.
Just glad you aren't running society with your odd ideas.

>
> > Can we?
>
> Yes.
>
> > A pittance that adds up. For their entire life.
>
> Adds up to what? £60 a week is hardly a luxury or a privilege. If you
> think that then perhaps try living like that. Especially nowadays.

£3,000 a year. Plus the freebies that go with it. Rent, council tax,
and so on.
Thats per person. Get a few hundred thousand of them and the bill each
week is massive.


>
> > It becomes an option for everyone. Including workers thinking 'why
> > should I work and be penalised in taxes and bills when I can sit at
> > home all day doing nothing for free money?'
>
> 'free money'; here we go with the dail mail mindset.

Call it what you like, they aren't having to do anything to get it.
Unlike those working who have to do something.

Bitterness and
> envy;

Of what?

 all courtesy of the media and the government. You shouldnt'
> think like this and you don't need to - we can afford it.

If you think that then you need to take a basic course in economics.
Or just read the budget sometime (not just the bit they announce on
the TV).

>
> Why on earth would it be an option for everyone? That's like saying
> that because some people have diabetes we shouldn't give them insulin
> because then everyone would want some. It's a nonsense.

And yet with diabetes requiring insulin (not all diabetes does),
everyone who needs it gets it. Or has major problems.

>
> As I said there's the citizens wage option. So there needn't be 'why
> should i work' bollocks. Argeit macht frei eh?

No idea what that last bit is.
And the citizens wage option is a crap option, moving money around but
costing a lot.

>
> > Out of what taxes?
>
> why do you think there won't be taxes?

Whatever gave you that idea?
I have never said there won't be taxes. Taxes add up to quite a bit,
income tax is only a small part these days.

>
> > May as well not pay people a basic amount to live on and have lower
> > taxes.....
>
> Whatever works.
>
> > And what a society it makes too.
> > I trust self interest more than I trust altruism. And considering we
> > are concentrated on a small group of islands that cannot possibly feed
> > the population, we do have some scarcity of resources.
> > Having to import a load of food for starters!
>
> self interest is what has caused the current financial crisis.

You really need to learn what caused the current financial crisis.

 Not the
> fact that we don't farm enough (which we could).

In these islands? No, we can't. Limited area, lots of non-farmable
land (buildings and roads on it).

 Unfortunately the
> government has basically decimated local farming as well.

The government didn't do that. Try the market for that - government
doesn't regulate the market much.


>
> But as i've said before - we are a rich country. We aren't short of
> money (or wouldn't be perhaps if the governments weren't so inept).

We aren't short of income. But neither are we short of expenditure.


>
> > Come to think of it, why should I work an extra hour or two a week
> > simply to pay for 'scroungers'?
>
> Then don't pay taxes. What makes you think 'scroungers' won't pay this
> hard earned money of yours (it isn't yours either, it's the
> governments)

The money is actually my company's first, then its mine, then some of
it is the government's.


back in the future, or do you judge them just because
> they haven't done so thus far?

You are suggesting  that some people, that you haven't yet explained
about, who are not suited to the workforce - will pay back this money
in the future?


>
> > You were suggesting that some people don't fit into modern workaday, I
> > was asking which people you meant.
>
> It isn't my responsibility to know.

Then how can you suggest that some don't fit, if you can't figure out
which people?
You really are amusing.


>
> > If you don't know, how is anyone else supposed to know?
>
> This is a nonsense statement. Other peopel's knowledge isn't dependent
> on mine.

Yet you were the one making sweeping statements that now you can't
clarify!

>
> > Yet its a workable system. We get many things done by grouping people
> > together. Aids administration, ignores individuality.
>
> But you can't ignore individuality.

But in our country we do.
You are lumped in with various groups for administrative, medical,
educational, taxation, and voting systems.



 Some people have problems, some
> people don't.

True.

Judging one person's abilities and disabilities by
> another's is totally flawed.

Yet thats how our country operates.
It works. Maybe not brilliantly well, but it works.

IT's like saying to a person who can't
> walk that they are being lazy because other people can walk.

Can't? Or won't?
Some will go around problems - have you noticed the paralympics
recently?

>
> > So which people are those? - was asked by me.
>
> > Come on, define which people you mean by 'some people'.
>
> Any people who are not able to function the way society expects or
> demands of them.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere.
So basically individuals? People who are ill? People who have a
disability? People who don't have the right transport?
People who don't have the right education? People who don't have the
right skills? People who don't have the right parents?


 Could be anyone from anywhere, for a variety of
> reasons: education (or lack thereof), illness, attitude, upbringing,
> mental health, anything.
>
> > They'll be lucky to reach any target - its not generally government
> > offering jobs or getting rid of people.
>
> Doesn't matter. It's government that dishes out benefits.

And yet they try to get organisations to reduce the number being paid
benefits.
Just done a contract application this week for Flexible New Deal -
government wanting companies to help the unemployed improve
employability and even get a job.



>
> > Doesn't need, but it does have them.
> > Just not everyone pays income tax. But everyone does pay taxes - VAT
> > is a tax.
>
> Then why make the statement about having to work extra to pay for
> scroungers? Why would it bother you if everyone contributes to the
> kitty?

Its paying extra to cover lower taxes paid by some.
If they were earning and paying increased taxes then mine could
reduce.

These days the only way to cut taxes is to have sufficient money
coming in to pay for the cut!


>
> > In which reality?
> > It spends a load of money. Also has a fair bit of income - not the
> > same as being rich.
>
> The government can afford to support the people.

The government can barely afford to fund what it needs to fund.
Especially this year with reduction in its income.
Over an economic cycle, most governments try and balance the books.
Spend more? Need to increase income.
Offer tax reductions? Need to cut something to pay for it.

>
> >  There is more money lost to the economy through tax avoidance
>
> to the tune of tens of billions. Hardly a modest or negligible sum of
> money.
>

Sure you aren't adding tax avoidance and tax reduction together?


> > And there is a difference between tax avoidance and tax reduction.
>
> I didn't mention tax reduction. I said tax avoidance. I also didn't
> say tax evasion.
>
> > Many employed people overpay taxes. Some of us are a little smarter
> > and reduce tax bills when we can.
>
> This has nothing to do with overpayment. Tens of billions are lost to
> the treasury through legal loopholes and such that the rich can afford
> to exploit.

Most of those loopholes are the same for the poor as well. Just
generally its not cost effective to utilise some of them.


Means that exist to benefit a tiny portion of society with
> an impact on the majority through deprived funds.

Yet they still pay a high amount in taxes. Just not the same
percentage as some lower earners.

 Yet while you seem
> to endorse such 'entrepreneurialism', you still use the word
> 'scrounger' to criticise those who act in their own self interest at
> the other end of the scale for the sake of a few quid a week. Do you
> not see the hypocrisy?

No - perhaps you can explain that.
There's a big difference between working and not working.


>
> > Yes, much easier.
> > A group of people not paying their share of taxes rather than a group
> > of people paying more than their share.
>
> So now people aren't paying their taxes?

Whoever said that?
I said 'share'. The word you missed out from your reply.

>
> Make up your mind!
>
> > Eh?
>
> With no threat of being replaced because everyone who could replace
> you was already working, what option is left to an employer paying you
> minimum wage to avoid your demand for increased wages at the expense
> of the work being done?

And what chance has an employer got of doing more than threatening
even with millions unemployed?
Workers have rights. Quite a few rights after 2 years, but some after
a year.
And as some employers have found out, employment tribunals can cost
them big time if they threaten employees then get rid of them.

>
> > You are the one suggesting that some cannot. So which ones?
> > I work with disavantaged adults. I can't point to any of them and say
> > they cannot cope with employment at all.
>
> So?

So to me they aren't in this group you came up with of people who
aren't fit for the workplace.

Martin  <><

On Sep 20, 9:55 pm, Colin Wilson
 wrote:
> > Adds up to what? £60 a week is hardly a luxury or a privilege. If you
> > think that then perhaps try living like that. Especially nowadays.
>
> Without getting too involved in the petty argument you two seem to be
> having,

I think it quite a relevant and important discussion, actualy.
Obviously I'm wrong, since you have deigned to give us your opinion.

> may I just point out that it isn't just £60 free cash per week
> - you're forgetting the free housing, free prescriptions, and all the
> other benefit-dependant odds and sods, which soon adds up to more than
> the income many people who get off their arses to work earn.
>
'get off their arses' - meaning?

> Isn't it something like £14k per year minimum you need to earn now
> before you stand any chance of getting more than staying on benefits ?
>
> What's the minimum wage now, something like £5.85/hr ?
>
> £5.85 * 37 hr week = £216.45
> £216.45 * 52 weeks = £11255.25 - from which you need to deduct tax/NI

What's your point?

Why would you begrudge supporting people who need help? Do you think
people should starve on the streets? Perhaps you think of the
'deserving 'poor and that we should bring back poorhouses? Or are you
embittered and envious having been successfully brainwashed by the
government into believing that the 'scroungers' are your enemy and
that you should direct your ire toward them, rather than working as a
society collectively to bring about change in this fucke dup country.
(If it's not the 'scroungers' it's the 'disabled' or 'single mothers'
or 'asylum seekers' etc. There's always an enemy).

What exactly is your point?

ghostwhistler@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Sep 20, 9:55 pm, Colin Wilson
>  wrote:
>>> Adds up to what? £60 a week is hardly a luxury or a privilege. If you
>>> think that then perhaps try living like that. Especially nowadays.
>> Without getting too involved in the petty argument you two seem to be
>> having,
> 
> I think it quite a relevant and important discussion, actualy.
> Obviously I'm wrong, since you have deigned to give us your opinion.
> 
>> may I just point out that it isn't just £60 free cash per week
>> - you're forgetting the free housing, free prescriptions, and all the
>> other benefit-dependant odds and sods, which soon adds up to more than
>> the income many people who get off their arses to work earn.
>>
> 'get off their arses' - meaning?
> 
>> Isn't it something like £14k per year minimum you need to earn now
>> before you stand any chance of getting more than staying on benefits ?
>>
>> What's the minimum wage now, something like £5.85/hr ?
>>
>> £5.85 * 37 hr week = £216.45
>> £216.45 * 52 weeks = £11255.25 - from which you need to deduct tax/NI
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Why would you begrudge supporting people who need help? Do you think
> people should starve on the streets? Perhaps you think of the
> 'deserving 'poor and that we should bring back poorhouses? Or are you
> embittered and envious having been successfully brainwashed by the
> government into believing that the 'scroungers' are your enemy and
> that you should direct your ire toward them, rather than working as a
> society collectively to bring about change in this fucke dup country.
> (If it's not the 'scroungers' it's the 'disabled' or 'single mothers'
> or 'asylum seekers' etc. There's always an enemy).
> 
> What exactly is your point?

His point was that they receive more than £60 per week and perhaps more 
than some people in work.

-- 
Robbie

> 'get off their arses' - meaning?

Working for a living

> What's your point?

The level of benefit in this country is too high, and too readily 
accessible.

> Why would you begrudge supporting people who need help? Do you think
> people should starve on the streets? Perhaps you think of the
> 'deserving 'poor and that we should bring back poorhouses?

Not a bad idea, if we're giving them free housing, perhaps all they 
should receive is food from "community canteens" to make sure they're 
not going to starve - unless they can show they need money for 
transport to a job interview. Maybe the effort involved would persuade 
them that they can do better by working.

> (If it's not the 'scroungers' it's the 'disabled' or 'single mothers'
> or 'asylum seekers' etc. There's always an enemy).

I'm registered disabled, and i've been in full time employment for 
over 24 years. As for single mothers (I live next door to two of them 
- neither has ever done a single days' work in their life, nor 
forseeably would do so) i'd restrict benefit unless they'd done a 
period of employment.

> What exactly is your point?

The system doesn't favour low paid jobs, so the baseline needs 
changing.

On Sep 21, 10:02 am, Robbie  wrote:
> ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 9:55 pm, Colin Wilson
> >  wrote:
> >>> Adds up to what? £60 a week is hardly a luxury or a privilege. If you
> >>> think that then perhaps try living like that. Especially nowadays.
> >> Without getting too involved in the petty argument you two seem to be
> >> having,
>
> > I think it quite a relevant and important discussion, actualy.
> > Obviously I'm wrong, since you have deigned to give us your opinion.
>
> >> may I just point out that it isn't just £60 free cash per week
> >> - you're forgetting the free housing, free prescriptions, and all the
> >> other benefit-dependant odds and sods, which soon adds up to more than
> >> the income many people who get off their arses to work earn.
>
> > 'get off their arses' - meaning?
>
> >> Isn't it something like £14k per year minimum you need to earn now
> >> before you stand any chance of getting more than staying on benefits ?
>
> >> What's the minimum wage now, something like £5.85/hr ?
>
> >> £5.85 * 37 hr week = £216.45
> >> £216.45 * 52 weeks = £11255.25 - from which you need to deduct tax/NI
>
> > What's your point?
>
> > Why would you begrudge supporting people who need help? Do you think
> > people should starve on the streets? Perhaps you think of the
> > 'deserving 'poor and that we should bring back poorhouses? Or are you
> > embittered and envious having been successfully brainwashed by the
> > government into believing that the 'scroungers' are your enemy and
> > that you should direct your ire toward them, rather than working as a
> > society collectively to bring about change in this fucke dup country.
> > (If it's not the 'scroungers' it's the 'disabled' or 'single mothers'
> > or 'asylum seekers' etc. There's always an enemy).
>
> > What exactly is your point?
>
> His point was that they receive more than £60 per week and perhaps more
> than some people in work.
>
> --
> Robbie

so what?

> > His point was that they receive more than £60 per week and perhaps more
> > than some people in work.
> so what?

I suspect you're taking the piss now.

Can you really not see the problem with someone working getting less 
than someone getting a hand-out every week for nothing ?

Out of interest, do you work yourself ?

On Sep 21, 5:46 pm, Colin Wilson
 wrote:
> > > His point was that they receive more than £60 per week and perhaps more
> > > than some people in work.
> > so what?
>
> I suspect you're taking the piss now.
>
Why? Why should people receiving benefits they need to not starve to
death on the streets be so terrible? What's the alternative?

> Can you really not see the problem with someone working getting less
> than someone getting a hand-out every week for nothing ?
>
That isn't the point. I'm not discussing whether or not people work
for stupidly low wages. Though unfortunately some people do. But that
has nothing to do with benefits at all.

Again with the attitude 'for nothing'.

People don't get 'free money' for anything else than to survive?
That's the point. If you think getting £60 a week is a barrel of
laughs you simply have no idea. It's far from a free ride, despite
what the stupid media will tell you with every story about some
council house tenant and his 30 kids.

> Out of interest, do you work yourself ?

what interest would that be?

> The level of benefit in this country is too high, and too readily
> accessible.
>
In what way is it too high and readily accessible? Do you think that
£60 a week is too much given the rising costs of fuel, and food - the
very things that people on benefits can all but afford It's people at
the low income end that are being affected hardest by the credit
crunch and you seriously think it's easy in reality (ie not through
what jeremy kyle might say)  to live on that kind of money?

> Not a bad idea, if we're giving them free housing, perhaps all they
> should receive is food from "community canteens" to make sure they're
> not going to starve - unless they can show they need money for
> transport to a job interview. Maybe the effort involved would persuade
> them that they can do better by working.

This is the stupidest thing i've ever heard. You have no clue about
what you are talking about. Not having a job is not a crime.

And lets not ignore the fact that there are at least three times as
many ( anumber which will rise given the current economic conditions)
people looking for work than there are jobs. So what then? Those who
don't get the jobs deserve to be punished by having their lives
curtailed because of a society and a sytem out of control and out of
their hands?

Yet again the media has made it ok for you to hate these people: they
probably all wear baseball caps as well.

> I'm registered disabled, and i've been in full time employment for
> over 24 years. As for single mothers (I live next door to two of them
> - neither has ever done a single days' work in their life, nor
> forseeably would do so) i'd restrict benefit unless they'd done a
> period of employment.
>
Do you think then that all disabled people can work the same as you?
Surely you aren't that ignorant.

And do you realised that you've just completely written off your
neighbours? Not only would you have me believe they haven't done 'a
single day's work' in their lives (according to you, their keeper),
but that they never will. Well fuck 'em then. Let's give them no hope
and then we can cluck our tongues when they resort to antisocial
behaviour - when they resort to type.

Think it through. What do you want 'done' with them? Shall we take
their 'free money' away? Great then what do they do to feed not only
themselves but their kids? Let their kids starve? Nice! What happens
when they inevitably fall foul of the criminal justice system as a
consequence of being forced to starve or live on the streets through
denial of benefits? Well for one it will cost the system more than it
will in benefits. So well done there.

These right wing ideologies that people such as yourself espouse are
not only illogical but they are self defeating, but it's all about us
and them isn't i.

> > I suspect you're taking the piss now.
> Why? Why should people receiving benefits they need to not starve to
> death on the streets be so terrible? What's the alternative?

I suggested feeding them for free. You could use existing facilities, 
such as schools.

> > Can you really not see the problem with someone working getting less
> > than someone getting a hand-out every week for nothing ?
> That isn't the point. I'm not discussing whether or not people work
> for stupidly low wages. Though unfortunately some people do. But that
> has nothing to do with benefits at all.

If someone in work is receiving less than someone on benefits, it _is_ 
wrong. It removes any incentive to improve your life.

> People don't get 'free money' for anything else than to survive?
> That's the point. If you think getting £60 a week is a barrel of
> laughs you simply have no idea.

Up until last year, I had no idea how I was going to pay the bills the 
following month. I had no more "free" cash than someone on benefits, 
after paying for my own housing - which I don't get free. I also 
suffered with toothache for months on and off as I couldn't afford NHS 
treatment. Thankfully things have eased off since !

> > Out of interest, do you work yourself ?
> what interest would that be?

It might help everyone understand your take on the situation.

> > The level of benefit in this country is too high, and too readily
> > accessible.
> In what way is it too high and readily accessible? Do you think that
> £60 a week is too much given the rising costs of fuel, and food - the
> very things that people on benefits can all but afford. It's people at
> the low income end that are being affected hardest by the credit
> crunch and you seriously think it's easy in reality

Feed them free, i've already said that, and reduce the amount of 
benefit accordingly.

> > Not a bad idea, if we're giving them free housing, perhaps all they
> > should receive is food from "community canteens" to make sure they're
> > not going to starve
> This is the stupidest thing i've ever heard. You have no clue about
> what you are talking about. Not having a job is not a crime.

Nor is stopping giving them money.

> And lets not ignore the fact that there are at least three times as
> many ( anumber which will rise given the current economic conditions)
> people looking for work than there are jobs. So what then? Those who
> don't get the jobs deserve to be punished by having their lives
> curtailed because of a society and a sytem out of control and out of
> their hands?

Why does my suggestion about feeding them for free equate to 
punishment to you ?

> Do you think then that all disabled people can work the same as you?
> Surely you aren't that ignorant.

Absolutely not. Some people are born sick, some become so during their 
lives. They will always need help.

> And do you realised that you've just completely written off your
> neighbours? Not only would you have me believe they haven't done 'a
> single day's work' in their lives (according to you, their keeper),
> but that they never will. Well fuck 'em then. Let's give them no hope
> and then we can cluck our tongues when they resort to antisocial
> behaviour - when they resort to type.

_when_ they resort to antisocial behaviour ? - you have _no_ idea !

Do you happen to live in a private housing estate ?

> Think it through. What do you want 'done' with them? Shall we take
> their 'free money' away? Great then what do they do to feed not only
> themselves but their kids? Let their kids starve?

I've already said, feed them for free.

> Feed them free, i've already said that, and reduce the amount of
> benefit accordingly.
>
And what would you feed them? How would you allow them to make their
own choices? Or do you propose a bowl of gruel dished out by their
poorhouse master? Dear god, are you for real? If you intend to
subsidise their food in place of benefit - why not just givem the
money in the first place (which would probably be cheaper anyway).

> Nor is stopping giving them money.
>
And what do you think the consequence of leaving people financially
destitute going to be, or, more importanlty perhaps, cost?

Unemployment isn't a crime. It might not be ideal, but it isn't an
excuse to demonise people so we can vilify them and dehumanise them.
People without jobs are still people. Do they not deserve toe be
treated properly? They didn't ask to be born!

> Why does my suggestion about feeding them for free equate to
> punishment to you ?
>
That isn't what I said.

> Absolutely not. Some people are born sick, some become so during their
> lives. They will always need help.
>
So why should it be relevant that you mention you are disabled and
work?

> _when_ they resort to antisocial behaviour ? - you have _no_ idea !
>
I have plenty idea; i'm not the one who commented that his single
parent neighbours, who have (according to you) never worked, and never
will, again according to you.

What then is the pint of them trying to get anywhere if yours is the
attitude they are faced with? So what do you suppose such peopel will
do if everythign is taken away from them - self respect, dignity, hope
and financial security (ie the means to not starve on the streets with
their children)? Why do you think people wind up in the criminal
justice system and fall foul of the courts?

> Do you happen to live in a private housing estate ?
>
Why would that be relevant?

> I've already said, feed them for free.

And whe