Keith Rich Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 it was, wasn't it? and a proportion of the people on benefits aren't down on their luck but too idle to work And what level is this proportion 50% 60% 90%? And if you answer this please supply proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastbank Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 No family will be entitled to more than £500 in benefits without extenuating circumstances. Osbourne, announcing the cap of around £500 a week said: The message is loud and clear: Get to work. £200 a week would be better.....sort it george... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 When I was unemployed and signing on, I can say for certain that if I were an employer, I would not give a job to the vast majority of the dregs of society I saw in there day in day out. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Rich Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 When I was unemployed and signing on, I can say for certain that if I were an employer, I would not give a job to the vast majority of the dregs of society I saw in there day in day out. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy in, my opinion. But you have no evidence for this, apart from a your biased and uninformed opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 What's his bias, he was one of the group he's categorising as wretched scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 But you have no evidence for this, apart from a your biased and uninformed opinion. What, based on the fact I had to share the same space as these foul mouthed, smelly, tattoo adorned knuckle draggers for many months, I am uninformed am I? To call me biased would mean I show prejudice against these people unfairly. Its not biased to want to be as far away from someone covered in tattoo's, who punctuates their sentences with foul language, has questionable personal hygiene and who thinks the world owes them something for nothing. To show prejudice against these people is not being biases as it is unacceptable public behaviour. If I was interviewing someone for a position and one of these walked through the door, I'm 99% sure I wouldn't employ them no matter how good their qualifications were. What makes you so well informed on the subject then Keith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevski35 Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 The UK could have supported itself in the global economy in much the same way Japan has done for the last fifty years. But Japanese politicians understand that the economy must serve the needs of the people, and not the other way round as practiced by British politicians. The japanese economy has been in the doldrums for the last 5-10 years as they rely heavily on exportation which all the surrounding tiger economies (ie China) have been beating them hands down at. A lot of major japanese companies like Sony have had to bite the bullit and move production to cheaper economies in order to be globally competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Rich Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 What's his bias, he was one of the group he's categorising as wretched scum. Ha Ha very good. It would be interesting to know how others in the jobcentre saw him. Certainly not as he sees himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Ha Ha very good. It would be interesting to know how others in the jobcentre saw him. Certainly not as he sees himself. In actual fact, I discussed this very aspect with a member of the JS staff. He commented that the atmosphere had changed somewhat in the JS due the number of hard working and willing to work people now coming through their doors. He stated that even though the place is now busier and they are having to work harder, he is thankful people like me are now coming to him, nice people he can communicate with who want to work and are willing to try and find a job. But anyway, your inability to spot the direct star wars quote is pretty funny. I'm still waiting for you to furnish us all with the reasons why you are such an expert on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Rich Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 What, based on the fact I had to share the same space as these foul mouthed, smelly, tattoo adorned knuckle draggers for many months, I am uninformed am I? To call me biased would mean I show prejudice against these people unfairly. Its not biased to want to be as far away from someone covered in tattoo's, who punctuates their sentences with foul language, has questionable personal hygiene and who thinks the world owes them something for nothing. To show prejudice against these people is not being biases as it is unacceptable public behaviour. If I was interviewing someone for a position and one of these walked through the door, I'm 99% sure I wouldn't employ them no matter how good their qualifications were. What makes you so well informed on the subject then Keith? You know nothing about these people execpt that they don't dress or act in the way you think they should. Therefore you have no evidence as to what they are really like except your opinion which you admitted yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.