quote:Originally posted by electric6:
That careers woman...shades of Pauline-League of Gentleman about her, I hope no one nicks her pens
"Think about a butterfly, its egg, a caterpillar is ugly"
Its egg?And she is patronising as heck, talking to them like they're bairns.
Look at her eyes - nothing behind them at all - she's a robot i bet ya!! 
I am sure the money could be put to better use...
quote:Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
That woman - the course leader - was putrid in every way imaginable. She was patronising and condescending and harsh and vile. Also, she brown-nosed the woman who started to agency to the fullest possible extent. Every single fibre of her made me want to smash my tellybox up
And the woman who created that agency (that the government pay to get people off benefits,) is a multi-millionaire living in a mansion with dozens of acres of land, that has seemingly been provided for her by money from the government to get people back out to work. Maybe the government are over-paying these 'agencies'
Have to say that I long for the day that that hideous woman in charge of that course, is out of work, and when she is, I hope to God that SHE has someone speaking to HER like she is something they just scraped off their shoe!
All she was interested in was getting these women into some poxy minimum-wage job to score brownie points and bonuses for herself; she didn't care about THEM at all. "Whoop whoop, we got them all jobs at poundland on minumum wage!" she screeches.. "Failing that, they can try burger king or mcdonalds! They are ALWAYS taking on!"
What about getting them trained up for a job that pays ÂĢ30,000 a year, with a company car and benefits and incentives, or helping them train for a degree course? Or is it just easier to dump them in a low paid dead-end job?
Back to the thread title: I really struggle to understand why or how that woman who was ÂĢ75K in debt managed to get THAT much in debt. What the hell has she spent it all on? I am 42, and have never had a QUARTER of THAT much debt in my life!
quote:Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
That woman - the course leader - was putrid in every way imaginable. She was patronising and condescending and harsh and vile. Also, she brown-nosed the woman who started to agency to the fullest possible extent. Every single fibre of her made me want to smash my tellybox up
And the woman who created that agency (that the government pay to get people off benefits,) is a multi-millionaire living in a mansion with dozens of acres of land, that has seemingly been provided for her by money from the government to get people back out to work. Maybe the government are over-paying these 'agencies'
Have to say that I long for the day that that hideous woman in charge of that course, is out of work, and when she is, I hope to God that SHE has someone speaking to HER like she is something they just scraped off their shoe!
All she was interested in was getting these women into some poxy minimum-wage job to score brownie points and bonuses for herself; she didn't care about THEM at all. "Whoop whoop, we got them all jobs at poundland on minumum wage!" she screeches.. "Failing that, they can try burger king or mcdonalds! They are ALWAYS taking on!"
What about getting them trained up for a job that pays ÂĢ30,000 a year, with a company car and benefits and incentives, or helping them train for a degree course? Or is it just easier to dump them in a low paid dead-end job?
Back to the thread title: I really struggle to understand why or how that woman who was ÂĢ75K in debt managed to get THAT much in debt. What the hell has she spent it all on? I am 42, and have never had a QUARTER of THAT much debt in my life!
quote:Originally posted by Darthhoob:quote:Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
That woman - the course leader - was putrid in every way imaginable. She was patronising and condescending and harsh and vile. Also, she brown-nosed the woman who started to agency to the fullest possible extent. Every single fibre of her made me want to smash my tellybox up
And the woman who created that agency (that the government pay to get people off benefits,) is a multi-millionaire living in a mansion with dozens of acres of land, that has seemingly been provided for her by money from the government to get people back out to work. Maybe the government are over-paying these 'agencies'
Have to say that I long for the day that that hideous woman in charge of that course, is out of work, and when she is, I hope to God that SHE has someone speaking to HER like she is something they just scraped off their shoe!
All she was interested in was getting these women into some poxy minimum-wage job to score brownie points and bonuses for herself; she didn't care about THEM at all. "Whoop whoop, we got them all jobs at poundland on minumum wage!" she screeches.. "Failing that, they can try burger king or mcdonalds! They are ALWAYS taking on!"
What about getting them trained up for a job that pays ÂĢ30,000 a year, with a company car and benefits and incentives, or helping them train for a degree course? Or is it just easier to dump them in a low paid dead-end job?
Back to the thread title: I really struggle to understand why or how that woman who was ÂĢ75K in debt managed to get THAT much in debt. What the hell has she spent it all on? I am 42, and have never had a QUARTER of THAT much debt in my life!
didn't watch the show but i've had experience in these types of people, and the training the job centre puts people on. it's seriously seriously shit. and they do NOTHING to boost confidence or self esteem. if anything they put people off wanting to train for a better job and/or work
Just my opinions and views. And I do think that the DSS and those types of folk, talk to people like they're shit. (Some of them anyway....) Not EVERY single mum (or any other person on benefits,) is a lazy freeloading dole-scrounging git who does not want to work - EVER, yet this is the impression that this show gave.
quote:Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
Every single fibre of her made me want to smash my tellybox up
quote:Originally posted by onetoo:quote:Originally posted by Darthhoob:quote:Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
That woman - the course leader - was putrid in every way imaginable. She was patronising and condescending and harsh and vile. Also, she brown-nosed the woman who started to agency to the fullest possible extent. Every single fibre of her made me want to smash my tellybox up
And the woman who created that agency (that the government pay to get people off benefits,) is a multi-millionaire living in a mansion with dozens of acres of land, that has seemingly been provided for her by money from the government to get people back out to work. Maybe the government are over-paying these 'agencies'
Have to say that I long for the day that that hideous woman in charge of that course, is out of work, and when she is, I hope to God that SHE has someone speaking to HER like she is something they just scraped off their shoe!
All she was interested in was getting these women into some poxy minimum-wage job to score brownie points and bonuses for herself; she didn't care about THEM at all. "Whoop whoop, we got them all jobs at poundland on minumum wage!" she screeches.. "Failing that, they can try burger king or mcdonalds! They are ALWAYS taking on!"
What about getting them trained up for a job that pays ÂĢ30,000 a year, with a company car and benefits and incentives, or helping them train for a degree course? Or is it just easier to dump them in a low paid dead-end job?
Back to the thread title: I really struggle to understand why or how that woman who was ÂĢ75K in debt managed to get THAT much in debt. What the hell has she spent it all on? I am 42, and have never had a QUARTER of THAT much debt in my life!
didn't watch the show but i've had experience in these types of people, and the training the job centre puts people on. it's seriously seriously shit. and they do NOTHING to boost confidence or self esteem. if anything they put people off wanting to train for a better job and/or work
I was put on a course (allthough granted not (AforE) Put on a placement in the admin dept in same building and got a job from it
quote:Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
Thanks folks.
I think if a wage paid twice as much as benefit, (or more,) most people on benefits would be happy to work. But when it pays no more, (and in some cases less,) you can hardly blame people for wanting to stay at home, where they are there for their kids, pets, elderly parents, neighbours, and whoever else needs them, and where they are not harrassed and bullied and nagged at and made to meet targets and goals every week, made to work with people they despise (and FOR people they despise,) for a shitty minimum wage, and where they get treated like a criminal and given the third degree if they have a day off or are 10 minutes late.
Going out to work is confidence building and character building, if you enjoy your job and are in a career you love and are being paid well, but when you're on minimum wage at macdonalds or poundland, doing a dead end job you hate, for a boss you despise, who treats you like shit, for the SAME money you get on benefits, it's not 'character building,' then; it's just thoroughly depressing.
quote:Originally posted by skive:
Apols for not having read the thread before posting but I have to vent first!
I have never ever hated someone on telly as much as I hated that Hayley woman tonight. Who the hell does she think she is the patronising, smug, meddling bully!
She is now on my list. I have even bumped Cliff Richard to make room for her against the wall when the revolution comes.
*breathes*
quote:Originally posted by electric6:
That careers woman...shades of Pauline-League of Gentleman about her, I hope no one nicks her pens
"Think about a butterfly, its egg, a caterpillar is ugly"
Its egg?
quote:Originally posted by redtriangle:
Lazy cows all of them.
Our taxes go onto benefits for these lazy work-sky people who then use our taxes to get top level Sky subscriptions and her 60 inch plasma TV.
quote:Originally posted by skive:
I actually went to bed and had to get up again because I kept thinking about that awful woman and it's made my blood pressure rise.
So I need to vent some more before I can sleep....
Another thing that made me want to slap the stupid cow was the way she handled the woman with the 'drink problem'. The private meeting - with a sodding camera crew, not exactly private luv - where she slyly asked her how she 'relaxed' and then jumped on the glass of wine answer.
If the woman is alcohol dependent it is none of your effing business you callous witch. You are not medically qualified to diagnose her in any way and you don't even have a sodding crappy counselling qualification. If you really cared about her welfare you would have directed her to QUALIFIED help away from the cameras.
The way she announced in a giggly over-excited way that something sooooo fabulous had happened that she couldn't put it into words. I'm thinking she's seen Elvis or summat and it turns out to be the stupid trolloping bosswoman who is raking it in from taxpayers money on her sham of a 'business'.
Then bosswoman arrives and asks for reasons why Hayley is so fabulous with her in the room. In what universe is that any type of performance appraisal???????????????
She gets a book out and says it's her 'bible' and it's effing Trinny and Susanna's "What not to Wear". What?????? Are you kidding me you moron!!!!
There are so many more reasons but I fear I may be here all night and I might be the first person to hit the maximum word count on one post.
but i really don't think they have done their homework as the offshore industry is in a downturn at the moment too ... i hope at least some of the people we have put through get jobs cause the money isn;t too bad offshore, but on the whole it's a bit of a waste of money.quote:She gets a book out and says it's her 'bible' and it's effing Trinny and Susanna's "What not to Wear". What?????? Are you kidding me you moron!!!!
quote:Originally posted by Cagney:
Why do people keep going on about places like Poundland, McDonalds, Burger King etc being dead end jobs? Somebody has to work there. I bet a fair few here shop or eat in these places. So it's good enough to go to but not good enough to work in? That's a very snobbish attitude. A jobs a job. My mother was a cleaner in the mornings, worked in a corner shop in the afternoon and the chippy in the evening when we were little just so she wouldn't have to claim benefits. She didn't make a fortune but she felt her money was well earned. If benefits are gonna pay for luxuries like Sky TV and a plasma telly then yeah they probably are better off not working though
quote:Originally posted by BBea:
Itâs amazing how much attitudes have changed in the past 20 or 30 years. Iâm 35 and my Mum didnât work when we were kids, she looked after us and was there each day when we got home from school â which I think is far preferable to being put in a crÃĻche or sent to a child minder.
There seems to be a culture nowadays where women are frowned upon for NOT leaving their kids, the muppet running the class referred to their kids as an âexcuseâ!
quote:Originally posted by luxor:quote:Originally posted by Cagney:
Why do people keep going on about places like Poundland, McDonalds, Burger King etc being dead end jobs? Somebody has to work there. I bet a fair few here shop or eat in these places. So it's good enough to go to but not good enough to work in? That's a very snobbish attitude. A jobs a job. My mother was a cleaner in the mornings, worked in a corner shop in the afternoon and the chippy in the evening when we were little just so she wouldn't have to claim benefits. She didn't make a fortune but she felt her money was well earned. If benefits are gonna pay for luxuries like Sky TV and a plasma telly then yeah they probably are better off not working though
After my father buggered off my Mum worked days, evenings and weekends to feed and clothe us, as she believed it was her responsibility not the taxpayers.
The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net not a way of life. If somebody on benefits is able to afford a oversized flat screen TV then they are being given to much.
quote:And she is patronising as heck, talking to them like they're bairns.
I thought so too. quote:Originally posted by luxor:
The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net not a way of life.
quote:Originally posted by Cagney:
Why do people keep going on about places like Poundland, McDonalds, Burger King etc being dead end jobs? Somebody has to work there. I bet a fair few here shop or eat in these places. So it's good enough to go to but not good enough to work in? That's a very snobbish attitude. A jobs a job. My mother was a cleaner in the mornings, worked in a corner shop in the afternoon and the chippy in the evening when we were little just so she wouldn't have to claim benefits. She didn't make a fortune but she felt her money was well earned. If benefits are gonna pay for luxuries like Sky TV and a plasma telly then yeah they probably are better off not working though
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by BBea:
Itâs amazing how much attitudes have changed in the past 20 or 30 years. Iâm 35 and my Mum didnât work when we were kids, she looked after us and was there each day when we got home from school â which I think is far preferable to being put in a crÃĻche or sent to a child minder.
There seems to be a culture nowadays where women are frowned upon for NOT leaving their kids, the muppet running the class referred to their kids as an âexcuseâ!
It's not just attitudes that have changed. It's difficult now for both partners in a couple not to work yet maintain the lifestyle people have come to expect. As households have switched to dual-income, the real cost of living of has up to match ... as you'd expect in economic activity terms. That naturally makes it quite difficult for singletons like me to keep up despite having a reasonable salary.
There are positives too of course. It's had a knock-on effect on gender equality and given women more power as individuals. When my mum separated from my father when I was a kid, she struggled financially as he was the main breadwinner in the couple. This may be part of the reason why divorce rates have climbed I suppose; divorce is now more likely to be financially viable for women as well as easier legally and culturally.
quote:Originally posted by BBea:
Maybe Iâm just a soft touch but I think your Mum was entitled to a decent quality of life with her kids - and working every morning, afternoon and evening wouldnât have been allowing her that.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by luxor:
The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net not a way of life.
I'd rather it was not just a safety net to stop people starving or freezing to death. It shouldn't become a way of life but paying (single, childless) people just enough to survive is not productive if they have fallen out of work. If a person's industry has crashed (such as the car industry now, telecoms in 2001, and coal mining in the 1980s) then those falling out of work already have a work ethic and the right mindset. Losing that is really not good and the state would be better paying lots to ease those people into alternative work.
quote:Originally posted by Mazzystar:
Not entirely true,Deej.
If both partners have to work to maintain a lifestyle,then splitting up means the lifestyle's no longer viable.
Round these parts,divorce is still too costly an option for many.Mainly because dual income families have helped inflate property prices to a level a single person could not afford.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by BBea:
Itâs amazing how much attitudes have changed in the past 20 or 30 years. Iâm 35 and my Mum didnât work when we were kids, she looked after us and was there each day when we got home from school â which I think is far preferable to being put in a crÃĻche or sent to a child minder.
There seems to be a culture nowadays where women are frowned upon for NOT leaving their kids, the muppet running the class referred to their kids as an âexcuseâ!
It's not just attitudes that have changed. It's difficult now for both partners in a couple not to work yet maintain the lifestyle people have come to expect. As households have switched to dual-income, the real cost of living of has up to match ... as you'd expect in economic activity terms. That naturally makes it quite difficult for singletons like me to keep up despite having a reasonable salary.
There are positives too of course. It's had a knock-on effect on gender equality and given women more power as individuals. When my mum separated from my father when I was a kid, she struggled financially as he was the main breadwinner in the couple. This may be part of the reason why divorce rates have climbed I suppose; divorce is now more likely to be financially viable for women as well as easier legally and culturally.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by Mazzystar:
Not entirely true,Deej.
If both partners have to work to maintain a lifestyle,then splitting up means the lifestyle's no longer viable.
Round these parts,divorce is still too costly an option for many.Mainly because dual income families have helped inflate property prices to a level a single person could not afford.
Well, yes. Middle-class people usually live close to their means and so a couple will live close to their combined means. You split up and you revert to a single-person's lifestyle, which might mean a rented flat or even a house-share. It's still usually viable.
quote:Originally posted by Cagney:
Why do people keep going on about places like Poundland, McDonalds, Burger King etc being dead end jobs? Somebody has to work there. I bet a fair few here shop or eat in these places. So it's good enough to go to but not good enough to work in? That's a very snobbish attitude. A jobs a job. My mother was a cleaner in the mornings, worked in a corner shop in the afternoon and the chippy in the evening when we were little just so she wouldn't have to claim benefits. She didn't make a fortune but she felt her money was well earned. If benefits are gonna pay for luxuries like Sky TV and a plasma telly then yeah they probably are better off not working though
quote:Originally posted by BBea:quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by BBea:
Itâs amazing how much attitudes have changed in the past 20 or 30 years. Iâm 35 and my Mum didnât work when we were kids, she looked after us and was there each day when we got home from school â which I think is far preferable to being put in a crÃĻche or sent to a child minder.
There seems to be a culture nowadays where women are frowned upon for NOT leaving their kids, the muppet running the class referred to their kids as an âexcuseâ!
It's not just attitudes that have changed. It's difficult now for both partners in a couple not to work yet maintain the lifestyle people have come to expect. As households have switched to dual-income, the real cost of living of has up to match ... as you'd expect in economic activity terms. That naturally makes it quite difficult for singletons like me to keep up despite having a reasonable salary.
There are positives too of course. It's had a knock-on effect on gender equality and given women more power as individuals. When my mum separated from my father when I was a kid, she struggled financially as he was the main breadwinner in the couple. This may be part of the reason why divorce rates have climbed I suppose; divorce is now more likely to be financially viable for women as well as easier legally and culturally.
I donât think itâs had any (significant) positive consequence gender wise. Women are still expected to be the primary carer for their kids, thus jobs and wages reflect that.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by BBea:
Maybe Iâm just a soft touch but I think your Mum was entitled to a decent quality of life with her kids - and working every morning, afternoon and evening wouldnât have been allowing her that.
Why entitled? I mean philosophically. On what is that entitlement based? We're a modern capitalist society which is predicated on the idea that people sell their labour for wages, or amass enough money not to have to work, or employ people to generate wealth from their labour for you.
quote:Originally posted by Mazzystar:
Not when you have kids.
I know men who have no option but to remain in their marital home because they don't earn enough to support their children AND pay rent for single accomodation.Let alone being able to rent a property where they can have their kids to stay at weekends.
