Obelix Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I'm still waiting for you to provide proof that they are not counted in the figures. Come on lets have some proof from you apart from a bald faced assertion just because you thinks so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I'm still waiting for you to provide proof that they are not counted in the figures. Come on lets have some proof from you apart from a bald faced assertion just because you thinks so... I provided a link and you choose to ignore it (your choice) then you provided me a link but for some reason I cant see the part about sanctioned people on it like I said if you could copy and paste from the link and prove me wrong I will certainly apologise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I didn't ignore it - it was just that it didn't have any meaningful content in it and you cannot show me anything else. So come on, prove your assertion please because that without proof can be dismissed out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I didn't ignore it - it was just that it didn't have any meaningful content in it and you cannot show me anything else. So come on, prove your assertion please because that without proof can be dismissed out of hand. and the same can be said about you put me out of my misery and prove me wrong with a cut and paste job then I will apologise simples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 and the same can be said about you put me out of my misery and prove me wrong with a cut and paste job then I will apologise simples Read that part about how they do the test yet? no of course you havnt..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I provided a link and you choose to ignore it (your choice) then you provided me a link but for some reason I cant see the part about sanctioned people on it like I said if you could copy and paste from the link and prove me wrong I will certainly apologise This is Obelix's regular modus operandi. Take no notice of him. He tries to rile you by insisting on 'evidence' even after you've provided it. He enjoys derailing threads, a regular troll. You are right, as I said in my post claimants who have been sanctioned are not counted unless they continue signing on during the sanction, (which few of them do - probably don't even know they are expected to,) and those on Universal Credit are not counted at all. This information is on the ONS website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I'm still waiting for you to provide proof that they are not counted in the figures. Come on lets have some proof from you apart from a bald faced assertion just because you thinks so... Here you go= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117 Read the bit under the "understanding unemployment" where it says " unemployment is higher than the claimant count as many jobseekers do not or cannot claim JSA" Someone who has been sanctioned is someone who cannot claim JSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 This is Obelix's regular modus operandi. Take no notice of him. He tries to rile you by insisting on 'evidence' even after you've provided it. He enjoys derailing threads, a regular troll. You are right, as I said in my post claimants who have been sanctioned are not counted unless they continue signing on during the sanction, (which few of them do - probably don't even know they are expected to,) and those on Universal Credit are not counted at all. This information is on the ONS website. And there we see your modus operandi Anna known as the strawman fallacy. I never said that those sanctioned appear on the claimant count figures. if fact if you'd care to open your eyes and LOOK you will see that I've already said in this thread that they will not be on the claimant count. Post #17 - I said sanctioned people do not appear in the claimant count (but they do appear in the unemployment count) and in the NEXT LINE you accuse me of saying that sanctioned people appear in the claimaint count. That's dishonest of you Anna. That's a lie by you right there in black and white. Be ashamed and apologise. Let's have a look at ricgems point. At the beginning El Cid talked about the unemployment figures. Not the JSA count. The unemployment count. Very different metric. Ricgem said that the count ius being massaged by people being sanctioned. Since sanctioned people appear on the unemployment count - because the ONS phone 41,000 people up and ask them if they are unemployed his statement is demonstrably wrong. He's not managed to answer that point. Hes waffled and posted stuff that answers a different question but he has not answered the charge that he is making this stuff up and then hiding behind a different set of figures. That's dishonest again. He also should be ashamed. Do you get it now? I'll spell it out. There are two metrics. One is the UNEMPLOYMENT figure. That's the one we are talking about. That's the one that sanctioned people appear on. You and ricgem to save face are talking about the CLAIMANT figure. I am NOT talking about the claimant figure. Stop trying to insinuate that I am. If you want to talk about it - start another thread and stop going off topic. ---------- Post added 18-06-2015 at 02:49 ---------- Here you go= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117 Read the bit under the "understanding unemployment" where it says " unemployment is higher than the claimant count as many jobseekers do not or cannot claim JSA" Someone who has been sanctioned is someone who cannot claim JSA. You've fallen for the trap that Anna fell into - no ones doubting that the claimant figure is not showing sanctioned people - least of all me. See post #17 and my reply to Anna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annbaker Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 You know what - you're all wrong but Obelix is the closest to how things are really counted. Oh and I work for DWP so I know exactly how these things are counted but you carry on and have your spat. Am I going to tell you? No cos you know what it's actually not that hard to work it out yourselves if you put your egos to one side and stop behaving like 5 year olds Anna B calling someone a troll a bit rich from you! grow up and play nicely children Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 You know what - you're all wrong but Obelix is the closest to how things are really counted. Oh and I work for DWP so I know exactly how these things are counted but you carry on and have your spat. Am I going to tell you? No cos you know what it's actually not that hard to work it out yourselves if you put your egos to one side and stop behaving like 5 year olds Anna B calling someone a troll a bit rich from you! grow up and play nicely children I'd be interested to know how they do please - I've only got the publication from the ONS about how they collect the ILO to figures to go on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now