Working full-time, fined by government for going on holiday!

[tinfoilhat]

Correction, by her own admission its as much as 50 hours or as little as 20 hours per week. She says herself its on average 30 hours per week, which puts her below the 35 hours cut off.

 

 

 

The reporter and this lady contradict one-another as she cannot typically work 30-40 hours per week and on average work 30 hours a week. The two do not add up.

 

I think the problem there is shoddy journalism.

 

Quelle surprise.

[Cyclone]

If you say so.

 

There are enough people on the forum who know what work I do.

I even worked briefly with one of the original site administrators.

[sutty27]

There are enough people on the forum who know what work I do.

I even worked briefly with one of the original site administrators.

 

If you say so.

[Berberis]

There are enough people on the forum who know what work I do.

I even worked briefly with one of the original site administrators.

 

Cyclone and I may rarely see eye to eye, but even I can vouch for this. You're barking up the wrong tree there sutty27.

[Cyclone]

Funny to watch him attack the poster instead of the argument though. Particularly when he's got it so very, very wrong.

[sutty27]

Cyclone and I may rarely see eye to eye, but even I can vouch for this. You're barking up the wrong tree there sutty27.

 

I was just barking up the same tree that Cyclone was barking up.

He likes to dish it out but cries foul when he get them back.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2016 at 13:54 ----------

 

Funny to watch him attack the poster instead of the argument though. Particularly when he's got it so very, very wrong.

 

 

 

You been looking in the mirror again.

 

It is you attacking me and not the argument.

 

You haven't even presented an argument, you have just claimed that I am wrong and tried your usual mocking and belittling tactics.

Edited April 27, 2016 by sutty27

[Mister M]

Yep. Why does it surprise you?

 

 

 

I haven't asked you to give me your personal information, but if you claim benefits you should expect that they will ask and you will have to comply or loose your freebies.

 

It surprises me because you appear to be censorious about the woman who works in a low paid job, saying that she doesn't work very hard or that she is paid too much, yet you freely admit, with no apparent embarrassment, that you post on Sheffield Forum whilst you're working. Some people, if they were as censorious as you, would say that you're skiving.

And people on benefits, as far as I'm aware, don't have to justify what they are spending their money on. Well not yet anyway.

[Cyclone]

 

You been looking in the mirror again.

 

It is you attacking me and not the argument.

 

You haven't even presented an argument, you have just claimed that I am wrong and tried your usual mocking and belittling tactics.

 

I've asked you a series of pointed questions, all of which you've been incapable of answering.

So apart from commenting on your apparent intelligence, there's nothing resembling an attack on you. And the opinion on your intelligence is a genuine conclusion drawn from this discussion.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2016 at 14:26 ----------

 

I was just barking up the same tree that Cyclone was barking up.

He likes to dish it out but cries foul when he get them back.

 

You must be confused. Where did I comment on your working status? Or personal circumstances?

[francypants]

It surprises me because you appear to be censorious about the woman who works in a low paid job, saying that she doesn't work very hard or that she is paid too much, yet you freely admit, with no apparent embarrassment, that you post on Sheffield Forum whilst you're working. Some people, if they were as censorious as you, would say that you're skiving.

And people on benefits, as far as I'm aware, don't have to justify what they are spending their money on. Well not yet anyway.

 

 

In Sutty's ' cloud cuckoo land ' you'd have to though.

[sutty27]

It surprises me because you appear to be censorious about the woman who works in a low paid job, saying that she doesn't work very hard or that she is paid too much, yet you freely admit, with no apparent embarrassment, that you post on Sheffield Forum whilst you're working. Some people, if they were as censorious as you, would say that you're skiving.

And people on benefits, as far as I'm aware, don't have to justify what they are spending their money on. Well not yet anyway.

 

Appearances are often deceiving.

 

I haven't said anything at all about any single individual, you should look back at the point I joined the discussion and follow it from that point.

 

Why would I be embarrassed about the fact I no longer have to work hard or that my work enables me to work and post on here at the same time?

 

I think you will find that when someone on benefits is splashing the cash they will be asked question if the benefits office become aware of it. Do you really think that someone on benefits should have the ability to save for a,

SAMSUNG Smart 65" Curved LED TV or a new 911 Carrera cabriolet. Chances are if they can afford such items whilst claiming benefits they will be something something a little fishy.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2016 at 14:44 ----------

 

I've asked you a series of pointed questions, all of which you've been incapable of answering.

You asked question and I answered, the fact you didn't like or understand the answers is your problem.

 

 

But at no time have you presented an argument to support your belief that benefits claimants should have the ability to save for the same luxuries that non claimants can afford.

Edited April 27, 2016 by sutty27