Having a go at the wrong person/people.

nilagin said:
Whilst I have some sympathy for her that she is struggling to live, if she us struggling to survive on £400 a week in benefits let alone having them cut, I think her anger is misdirected. Surely it's the responsibility of her ex, who is paying maintenance to make up the shortfall, or pay more for that matter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-minister-Question-Time-tax-credits-cut.html
Click to expand...

You buy a new monitor then find out it got a dead pixel, surely you have the right to complain to the company about it and ask for a replacement or refund?

You order soup and find a fly in it, surely you have the right to complain to the chef and refuse to pay for your meal, better go to another restaurant?

Your car broken down, the garage ran by Del Boy repaired it with doggy parts, surely you have the right to sue the garage, and tell your mates to go to another garage somewhere else?

If a Tory leader said they will not make more cuts, and encouraged the public to vote for them, they win, form government, then suddenly make a U-Turn, and do make cuts...

What did you expect her to do? Not allowed to tell off any Tory MPs? Surely if you can complain to the companies for bad goods or services, why can't you complain to MPs for changing their package?

After all, you voted for them because of what they offered for the voters, so if they changed their offers, and you end up saying "Hey! That's not what I voted for!", unlike asking for replacement or refund, unlike going to another restaurant, unlike going for another garage, you have to end up waiting 5 years for the next general election so you can say "This time I'm voting for the other party!"

Beside, those cuts and taxes can affect the ex, therefore if the ex find himself struggling to live, surely he would direct his anger at the Tory MPs?
 
Major Eazy said:
You buy a new monitor then find out it got a dead pixel, surely you have the right to complain to the company about it and ask for a replacement or refund?

You order soup and find a fly in it, surely you have the right to complain to the chef and refuse to pay for your meal, better go to another restaurant?

Your car broken down, the garage ran by Del Boy repaired it with doggy parts, surely you have the right to sue the garage, and tell your mates to go to another garage somewhere else?

If a Tory leader said they will not make more cuts, and encouraged the public to vote for them, they win, form government, then suddenly make a U-Turn, and do make cuts...

What did you expect her to do? Not allowed to tell off any Tory MPs? Surely if you can complain to the companies for bad goods or services, why can't you complain to MPs for changing their package?

After all, you voted for them because of what they offered for the voters, so if they changed their offers, and you end up saying "Hey! That's not what I voted for!", unlike asking for replacement or refund, unlike going to another restaurant, unlike going for another garage, you have to end up waiting 5 years for the next general election so you can say "This time I'm voting for the other party!"

Beside, those cuts and taxes can affect the ex, therefore if the ex find himself struggling to live, surely he would direct his anger at the Tory MPs?
Click to expand...

If you care to read my last post, she may well not be affected anyway and even if she is it won't be until April 2017, so possibly enough time for her to find a better paid income.
And if some bloke(s) gets you pregnant 4 times they should be paying to house and feed the kids, not the benefits system.
 
Last edited:
Back in the mid eighties, I took a job in the private sector for the first time (after 10 years in local government). It didn't work out, so I resigned and did six months despatch riding for various firms in the South East. It was hard work and long hours, and it was dangerous. I used that time to look for jobs elsewhere, and often handed out CV's whilst on runs up to and around London.
Those were the days when you could walk out of one job and start in another the next day. I even had two jobs for about a year - which enabled me to take driving lessons and replace my totally knackered Kawasaki 550 (the despatch riding took its toll).
From 1985 to around 2012/13, most of my work was finance based in London, which involved leaving the house at 6.30 and getting back just before 8.00 in the evening.
The point which I am trying to (clumsily) make, is that I am not a lazy person, and a prospective employer should be able to see that from looking at my CV, the firms I have worked for, knowledge of systems and regulations.
However, my OH and I were speaking to a business adviser (who runs a recruitment firm - IT) a couple of months ago, who told us that she REGULARLY gets employers asking her NOT to send them details of staff over the age of 40. The reasons given are usually that "older" people would find it more difficult to "bond" with the team and the "style" of the company.
We all know that this is illegal, but how do you stop employers doing it?
Age discrimination is no different to discrimination on racial, religious or sexual preference grounds, but it is a huge problem and something which is not discussed often enough.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
andy700 said:
Back in the mid eighties, I took a job in the private sector for the first time (after 10 years in local government). It didn't work out, so I resigned and did six months despatch riding for various firms in the South East. It was hard work and long hours, and it was dangerous. I used that time to look for jobs elsewhere, and often handed out CV's whilst on runs up to and around London.
Those were the days when you could walk out of one job and start in another the next day. I even had two jobs for about a year - which enabled me to take driving lessons and replace my totally knackered Kawasaki 550 (the despatch riding took its toll).
From 1985 to around 2012/13, most of my work was finance based in London, which involved leaving the house at 6.30 and getting back just before 8.00 in the evening.
The point which I am trying to (clumsily) make, is that I am not a lazy person, and a prospective employer should be able to see that from looking at my CV, the firms I have worked for, knowledge of systems and regulations.
However, my OH and I were speaking to a business adviser (who runs a recruitment firm - IT) a couple of months ago, who told us that she REGULARLY gets employers asking her NOT to send them details of staff over the age of 40. The reasons given are usually that "older" people would find it more difficult to "bond" with the team and the "style" of the company.
We all know that this is illegal, but how do you stop employers doing it?
Age discrimination is no difference to discrimination on racial, religious or sexual preference grounds, but it is a huge problem and something which is not discussed often enough.
Click to expand...

I totally agree Andy, there are many good people out there, at all levels of skill, experience and determination, that are being passed aside become they are too old at 45 years ....... never mind 55 or 65 years .......... loads of good and sensible experience and skill out there that is not being used by UK Plc.
 
I also notice many want less and less detail on the cv. In my experience it's the hr team or commercial team as for skilled people they just don't understand them. I like seeing an 8 page cv with lots of past experience. However you got to grip me on the first page as well as for the initial sift time is limited. It's not easy for people not used to that.
 
nilagin said:
Regardless of how the £400 is made up (How do you know for a fact it has be misreported).
Click to expand...
Because we went to the website and it's impossible to get £400 in working tax credits for 4 kids. :)

But quite frankly this really winds me up, people who claim to be the hard working backbone of the country in other threads brag about how easy their work is and for a decent salary too!

It's OK for those lucky enough to be in that position to get 'money for old rope' but other people should have to work hard for it, and if they work hard and don't get it, then it's their own fault!
 
andy700 said:
Back in the mid eighties, I took a job in the private sector for the first time (after 10 years in local government). It didn't work out, so I resigned and did six months despatch riding for various firms in the South East. It was hard work and long hours, and it was dangerous. I used that time to look for jobs elsewhere, and often handed out CV's whilst on runs up to and around London.
Those were the days when you could walk out of one job and start in another the next day. I even had two jobs for about a year - which enabled me to take driving lessons and replace my totally knackered Kawasaki 550 (the despatch riding took its toll).
From 1985 to around 2012/13, most of my work was finance based in London, which involved leaving the house at 6.30 and getting back just before 8.00 in the evening.
The point which I am trying to (clumsily) make, is that I am not a lazy person, and a prospective employer should be able to see that from looking at my CV, the firms I have worked for, knowledge of systems and regulations.
However, my OH and I were speaking to a business adviser (who runs a recruitment firm - IT) a couple of months ago, who told us that she REGULARLY gets employers asking her NOT to send them details of staff over the age of 40. The reasons given are usually that "older" people would find it more difficult to "bond" with the team and the "style" of the company.
We all know that this is illegal, but how do you stop employers doing it?
Age discrimination is no difference to discrimination on racial, religious or sexual preference grounds, but it is a huge problem and something which is not discussed often enough.
Click to expand...
It's not just an age thing, which I know won't help you, but it's all the criteria that employers set for recruitment agencies for job applications. My son's qualifications from school weren't that brilliant, D's and E's but he went on to college studied car service and repair and then motorsport engineering, his BTEC and NVQ exam results are above A level standard but all employers are interested in are his school results, for which they want a minimum of GCSE grade C. Hence his applications get overlooked. I realise that employers get 100's or 1000's of applicants for jobs and have to try to reduce the numbers they consider somehow, but like yourself it doesn't help you find employment or prove you are more than capable of doing the job. I was fortunate that when my employer wanted to close our toolroom and press shop, they promised jobs for anyone that didn't wish to take the redundancy or early retirement offer. I was more fortunate than some of my mates that the company retrained me at the age of 51 whilst others, many younger ended up on the production line. Ironic thing is my son could do my job and from what I've seen of some of the apprentices and ex apprentices, he could do a darn sight better job than some of them too.
 
andy700 said:
...
However, my OH and I were speaking to a business adviser (who runs a recruitment firm - IT) a couple of months ago, who told us that she REGULARLY gets employers asking her NOT to send them details of staff over the age of 40. The reasons given are usually that "older" people would find it more difficult to "bond" with the team and the "style" of the company.
We all know that this is illegal, but how do you stop employers doing it?
Age discrimination is no difference to discrimination on racial, religious or sexual preference grounds, but it is a huge problem and something which is not discussed often enough.
Click to expand...
It also doesn't bode well for a workforce being asked to work until we're much older. How is that supposed to work if employers aren't interested in an older workforce, many workers will need to retrain as they get old, as the job they're doing is too physical, who's going to take on a 55 year old trainee?
 
nilagin said:
If you care to read my last post, she may well not be affected anyway and even if she is it won't be until April 2017, so possibly enough time for her to find a better paid income.
And if some bloke(s) gets you pregnant 4 times they should be paying to house and feed the kids, not the benefits system.
Click to expand...

Okay so she got time to find a better paid income, but she still got a right to complaint to the government for changing their policy so soon after the General Election.
 
Phil V said:
Because we went to the website and it's impossible to get £400 in working tax credits for 4 kids. :)

But quite frankly this really winds me up, people who claim to be the hard working backbone of the country in other threads brag about how easy their work is and for a decent salary too!

It's OK for those lucky enough to be in that position to get 'money for old rope' but other people should have to work hard for it, and if they work hard and don't get it, then it's their own fault!
Click to expand...
The article mentions £400 a week in benefits anyway, not tax credits, the rest will probably be help in Council tax and rent. Still doesn't alter the fact that the £400 a week she is getting is more than some people get from actually working.
 
Phil V said:
It also doesn't bode well for a workforce being asked to work until we're much older. How is that supposed to work if employers aren't interested in an older workforce, many workers will need to retrain as they get old, as the job they're doing is too physical, who's going to take on a 55 year old trainee?
Click to expand...
To be honest I know many people who have found part time work that exceeds what they would get on state pension, usually in schools etc.
 
Major Eazy said:
Okay so she got time to find a better paid income, but she still got a right to complaint to the government for changing their policy so soon after the General Election.
Click to expand...


A bit like Nick Clegg and tuition fees then? There are probably countless other examples where politicians lie to us, but until we restructure parliament, regulations applying to MP's, disciplinary procedures etc, then nothing will change.
MP's do not answer to the same laws as the rest of us, they close ranks and use "special priveleges to avoid prosecution, but having said that, the UK is streets ahead of places like Italy, where Berlusconi introduced laws which basically said he could not be arrested for anything.
 
Major Eazy said:
Okay so she got time to find a better paid income, but she still got a right to complaint to the government for changing their policy so soon after the General Election.
Click to expand...
And wouldn't it be an ideal world if people didn't have to change a decision or statement they had made.
 
nilagin said:
The article mentions £400 a week in benefits anyway, not tax credits, the rest will probably be help in Council tax and rent. Still doesn't alter the fact that the £400 a week she is getting is more than some people get from actually working.
Click to expand...
She is actually working (not that I believe her every word), and others earning less would also be entitled to help, that's how the system works, it's a sliding scale.

Unlike how the right wing press portray it where there are loads of rich people on benefit whilst the rest of us are working hard and struggling.

It's this manipulation of the story that's led to this ladies woes though. She feels she's part of the 'hard working' brigade who's just had her nest feathering nicked by the government.
 
andy700 said:
A bit like Nick Clegg and tuition fees then? There are probably countless other examples where politicians lie to us, but until we restructure parliament, regulations applying to MP's, disciplinary procedures etc, then nothing will change.
MP's do not answer to the same laws as the rest of us, they close ranks and use "special priveleges to avoid prosecution, but having said that, the UK is streets ahead of places like Italy, where Berlusconi introduced laws which basically said he could not be arrested for anything.
Click to expand...
Hate to say it, but 'Nick Clegg and the tuition fees' was a really good bit of liberal legislation. More students will pay less back under the changes they made. In fact it's estimated that the exchequer will get 40% less back than under the £3k a year scheme.
 
nilagin said:
To be honest I know many people who have found part time work that exceeds what they would get on state pension, usually in schools etc.
Click to expand...
That'll be great, loads of former scaffolders working as teaching assistants :p
 
Phil V said:
She is actually working (not that I believe her every word), and others earning less would also be entitled to help, that's how the system works, it's a sliding scale.

Unlike how the right wing press portray it where there are loads of rich people on benefit whilst the rest of us are working hard and struggling.

It's this manipulation of the story that's led to this ladies woes though. She feels she's part of the 'hard working' brigade who's just had her nest feathering nicked by the government.
Click to expand...
But the economists reckon she won't be affected anyway. So she still has plenty of opportunity to improve on her own situation.
 
Phil V said:
That'll be great, loads of former scaffolders working as teaching assistants :p
Click to expand...
Classroom assistant doesn't necessarily mean teaching assistant. One bloke, ex toolmaker is a laboratory assistant, setting out all the equipment for lessons as well as ordering new supplies. Another ex toolmaker now teaches plumbing classes. An ex scaffolder could easily be a groundskeeper/caretakers assistant.
 
nilagin said:
But the economists reckon she won't be affected anyway. So she still has plenty of opportunity to improve on her own situation.
Click to expand...
What 'economists'? I was under the impression that the tax credit cuts came in this year and the higher NMW doesn't kick in till 2017, I didn't read the report all the way through because it started so full of inaccuracies which is typical of the DM. Let's face it they're part of the machine that convinced her yo vote Tory because they were on her side, of course they're not about to admit it's all part of their plan.

Remember this is the paper full of 'British values' slagging off anything un - British that is owned by a non-dom and has its company address headquarters in a tax haven. I'd add that the founder was a huge fan of Hitler prior to the outbreak of the war, you can see I'm not really one for believing they know what's good for me and my country.
 
Phil V said:
What 'economists'? I was under the impression that the tax credit cuts came in this year and the higher NMW doesn't kick in till 2017, I didn't read the report all the way through because it started so full of inaccuracies which is typical of the DM. Let's face it they're part of the machine that convinced her yo vote Tory because they were on her side, of course they're not about to admit it's all part of their plan.

Remember this is the paper full of 'British values' slagging off anything un - British that is owned by a non-dom and has its company address headquarters in a tax haven. I'd add that the founder was a huge fan of Hitler prior to the outbreak of the war, you can see I'm not really one for believing they know what's good for me and my country.
Click to expand...
NO idea who the economists are, hence my disclaimer as regards misreporting. Cuts in child tax credits don't take place until April 2017 and from what I've read, only for new claimants anyway.
 
viv1969 said:
I'm not sure why you seem so angry at me tbh.

Nowhere here have I suggested that JSA is too much or too easily given, in fact your post kind of makes my point for me.

The kind of system I favour would assist you, not hinder you.
Your household expenditure would be calculated from existing bills, and benefit would be paid accordingly, ensuring that your utilitues are covered, your bellies full and your accommodation is not at risk etc.

And yes, I have been unemployed, though it was back when the benefit wasn't given the pretty name of JSA.
It wasn't for long though, because when it became obvious that I too was vastly over qualified for many of the jobs, I tailored my CV to suit each application, and gave my interview answers accordingly.

The job I secured didn't pay enough so I got a second one in the evenings.
It was hard, and knackering, but it wasn't for the long term because I discovered that it's a fact that it's easier to get another job when you already have one.

I'm glad you're successful now, and sorry you didn't get sufficient support at the time, but having a go at me when it seems you haven't comprehended what I've said is a bit of a teddy throwing exercise.
Click to expand...

Who said I was angry at you, and why is it that every time somebody disagrees with or questions your views you accuse them of throwing their toys out of the cot.

Maybe I didn't comprehend what you said because you certainly didn't make it clear what system you would favour.

All I got from you was JSA should only pay for the essentials, which it does already, barely. And people should get a job to earn more, which in sure the majority are trying to do. The days of walking out of one job into another are over, and we have ourselves to blame for that.
 
ecoleman said:
Who said I was angry at you, and why is it that every time somebody disagrees with or questions your views you accuse them of throwing their toys out of the cot.

Maybe I didn't comprehend what you said because you certainly didn't make it clear what system you would favour.

All I got from you was JSA should only pay for the essentials, which it does already, barely. And people should get a job to earn more, which in sure the majority are trying to do. The days of walking out of one job into another are over, and we have ourselves to blame for that.
Click to expand...

I didn't say JSA should cover only the basics.
I said ALL benefits should pay only the basics. Quite clearly....several times, from the beginning of the thread.
You assumed I've never had to rely on benefits and you were wrong. But it wasn't for long because yes, I got a job. That job didn't pay enough so I got a second. I certainly didn't "expect" to walk into a job similar to the one I'd had previously simply because I was qualified to do so.
I'm happy for people to disagree with me....the discussions are interesting.
I'm also happy to apologise, and have done many times when it's called for, but I've said nothing in this thread which qualifies.
 
Llamaman said:
Go and Google "Levenson enquiry" then. That's just the start.
Click to expand...
So easy to highlight an edge case. Besides that didn't mean the info is wrong.
 
nilagin said:
That doesn't mean that they will always be a dubious source though does it.
Click to expand...
dejongj said:
So easy to highlight an edge case. Besides that didn't mean the info is wrong.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't mean all the info is wrong, but if you can't tell which is fact and which is fiction, you have to treat all of it as if it were fiction.
Here's just a recent one, post-Leveson, to show that this behaviour is deeply rooted within 'Fleet Street'
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/15/the-sun-newspaper-corbyn-privy-council_n_8138174.html

And here's an article looking at how and why this behavior occurs
http://towcenter.org/research/lies-damn-lies-and-viral-content/

There's also the even more obvious point that certain newspapers (and the Mail is one) have a disturbing habit of putting editorial comment on the front page, masquerading as news. More respectable newspapers (although none of them are Snow White) reserve the opinion pieces for a fixed position, clearly labeled as such, within the paper.
 
Last edited:
Not everything in black and white makes sense....

But really every paper has its own agenda left or right. Each one puts it own spin and take on things, some go as far as lies or bending the truth. Just look at what they said about Corbyn and bin laden
Surely we all are smart enough to know that and don't always believe the tripe?
 
Llamaman said:
There's an the even more obvious point that certain newspapers (and the Mail is one) have a disturbing habit of putting editorial comment on the front page, masquerading as news.
Click to expand...

They also (especially the Mail) have to print retractions on an almost daily basis...sometimes several.
You'll have to search for them though as they're not exactly given prominence.
 
eeyore said:
Just look at what they said about Corbyn and bin laden?
Click to expand...
To be fair, they didn't originate that story. It was Cameron's speech writers who came up with that gem, and the media (including the BBC) just repeated it without challenging the accuracy of it.

There is a general trend (and I consider it a serious fault) in journalism towards simply repeating what people say without doing any due diligence or fact checking. So we get "Tory spokesperson says "2 plus 2 equals 5"" followed the next day with "Labour hit back at Tory's numeracy, claiming "actually it's 3"".
Neither is correct, but it's all that is served up to the public. Lies, conjecture, contorted logic.
And our schools don't help, since apparently teaching children to analyze sources critically and think for themselves is bad, so the government want a return to learning a list of approved "facts" by rote.
 
viv1969 said:
They also (especially the Mail) have to print retractions on an almost daily basis...sometimes several.
You'll have to search for them though as they're not exactly given prominence.
Click to expand...

Aye, I remember trying to find one for them apologizing that "the thin blue line" badges were a political protest by the police.... They are for supporting a charity COPS (IIRC):facepalm:
 
Llamaman said:
To be fair, they didn't originate that story. It was Cameron's speech writers who came up with that gem, and the media (including the BBC) just repeated it without challenging the accuracy of it.

There is a general trend (and I consider it a serious fault) in journalism towards simply repeating what people say without doing any due diligence or fact checking. So we get "Tory spokesperson says "2 plus 2 equals 5"" followed the next day with "Labour hit back at Tory's numeracy, claiming "actually it's 3"".
Neither is correct, but it's all that is served up to the public. Lies, conjecture, contorted logic.
And our schools don't help, since apparently teaching children to analyze sources critically and think for themselves is bad, so the government want a return to learning a list of approved "facts" by rote.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the press had a hand in it too at the time (It was a bit ago an I have had a cider or 3 since then)
I'm sure there are plenty more examples tho!

But go agree with you about checking facts... like I should have done!!!
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
To be fair, they didn't originate that story. It was Cameron's speech writers who came up with that gem, and the media (including the BBC) just repeated it without challenging the accuracy of it.

There is a general trend (and I consider it a serious fault) in journalism towards simply repeating what people say without doing any due diligence or fact checking. So we get "Tory spokesperson says "2 plus 2 equals 5"" followed the next day with "Labour hit back at Tory's numeracy, claiming "actually it's 3"".
Neither is correct, but it's all that is served up to the public. Lies, conjecture, contorted logic.
And our schools don't help, since apparently teaching children to analyze sources critically and think for themselves is bad, so the government want a return to learning a list of approved "facts" by rote.
Click to expand...
Interesting article by Stewart Lee in yesterday's paper, saying that an MP can get away with an outright lie, the newspapers will repeat it as a quote, but lawyers crawl all over comedians content ensuring its squeaky clean.

He quoted the Cameron speech re Corbyn. Cameron knows it's s lie, the TV and newspapers repeat it though and it lives in the public conscience. It's a perfect storm combined with the publics lack of critical thinking.
 
I read the same article. Interesting reading (although Lee's 'casually' referring to his BAFTAs was cringeworthy).
 
Llamaman said:
I read the same article. Interesting reading (although Lee's 'casually' referring to his BAFTAs was cringeworthy).
Click to expand...
It's part of his 'persona', although it's weird he's critically acclaimed, he's not particularly popular, funny or entertaining. He is smart and sharp as a razor though.
 
In any sort of serious academic pursuit you'd get laughed out of the room if you used a newspaper as a source for anything but the most basic, objective reportage (e.g. "there was a car crash at × location at x time").
 
ghoti said:
In any sort of serious academic pursuit you'd get laughed out of the room if you used a newspaper as a source for anything but the most basic, objective reportage (e.g. "there was a car crash at × location at x time").
Click to expand...
There is a big difference between say forensic evidence and standing up to academic scrutiny, versus a dubious source. Mistakes get made but they cannot just print full untruths. Editors will require something to corroborate the story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top