Yet more feckless wasters.

[NorthernBoy]

martin84 said:

Too many ego's on this site, too many people who's mummy never told them they're actually quite st and not the centre of the universe.

There's no apostrophe needed with plurals such as egos.

The word is whose.

The reason that we are laughing at you Marty is the combination of your claims to intellectual superiority with your inability to construct proper sentences. I could write better English at ten than you do now, yet you pretend you are more intelligent than I.

I have a set of degrees in physics, yet you crow about your numeracy to me.

Don't you see the irony of writing at the level that you do, and suggesting that others are "quite st"?

Instead of posting so badly on here, why not improve your skills with an adult literacy course? Why not improve yourself, instead of boasting how superior you are?

[NorthernBoy]

martin84 said:

while the forums most abusive poster (NorthernBoy) has fked off after his unsubstantiated rant.

Forum's. It's possessive, as in "belonging to the forum".

But will you thank me for setting you right?

[martin84]

NorthernBoy said:

There's no apostrophe needed with plurals such as egos.

The word is whose.

Its a car forum. Who cares?

NorthernBoy said:

I could write better English at ten than you do now, yet you pretend you are more intelligent than I.

Did you actually write anything constructive or on topic then? Out of interest. I'm only asking, because I haven't seen you do so here yet.

NorthernBoy said:

I have a set of degrees in physics, yet you crow about your numeracy to me.

Oh I do apologise, I shall bow down to you and kiss your feet because you got a fancy piece of paper. Come off it mate, can nobody with less degrees than you criticise any of your opinions?

Is this why you discredit the arguer rather than the argument? You feel your education means you don't actually have to respond to anything, you can just shove the piece of paper in someones face and go 'look I'm amazing!'

NorthernBoy said:

Instead of posting so badly on here, why not improve your skills with an adult literacy course? Why not improve yourself, instead of boasting how superior you are?

You really do need to get down off your high horse. Theres only one person here who thinks they're better than everybody else and its you. Arrogance isn't attractive you know

[martin84]

NorthernBoy said:

Forum's. It's possessive, as in "belonging to the forum".

But will you thank me for setting you right?

I'm surprised nobody has smashed your face in yet if this is how you speak to people.

[GavinPearson]

martin84 said:

NorthernBoy said:

There's no apostrophe needed with plurals such as egos.

The word is whose.

Its a car forum. Who cares?

We do! Pistonheads - grammar matters.

[Lost_BMW]

GavinPearson said:

martin84 said:

NorthernBoy said:

There's no apostrophe needed with plurals such as egos.

The word is whose.

Its a car forum. Who cares?

We do! Pistonheads - grammar matters.

Absolutely! Should PH accept the 'dumbing down' so prevalent in our society? Pushed, noticeably, by those who use it as a mask to cover up their own ignorance.

It is so telling that those who moan about posters who care for correctness and the maintenance of standards on "just a car forum" are always the ones - like Martin, the self-styled naturally gifted education refusnik - who litter their ramblings with missing and misplaced apostrophes, incorrect spellings and poorly constructed sentences. Excuse mongers. At least Martin has now indicated the cause of his 'issues'; a poor attitude to education and his deliberate waste of years of expensive tax payer funded state education.

Curious that he then expects us to be impressed by his later ability to pull himself semi-successfully above the floor line. Or to sympathise with his fellow travellers; the sort who wasted their and their classmates' opportunities and then expect others to pick up the pieces and provide for them in their self-appointed failure. I have no such sympathy I'm afraid. They make their bed and they can lie in it until they have the sense - and dignity - to realise the error of their ways, get back into education and work to develop the skills that make them both useful and viable. Instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for a lifestyle their uselessness does not deserve.

Imagine, as a potential employer, receiving letters of application written with the quality and care Martin demonstrates. Would you be impressed enough to employ him? And yet, if one points out the areas where he could improve there is no acceptance or learning evident, just bitter self-justification and denials of the importance of literacy. Pathetic.

Edited by Lost_BMW on Sunday 3rd June 08:44

[New POD]

davepoth said:

Anyone who gets pregnant while on benefits does not get any extra benefits for that child, including a bigger house. It's a simple measure, and since contraception of many varieties is available free (as is not having sex). If they continue to breed like chavvy rabbits then the children get taken away because they can't live in such cramped conditions.

So, child who had no choice but to be born, is then subjected to living in poverty.

You basically want to live in 1920 ?

[New POD]

It's the calculation of need. It's TOO much.

Ignoring my Mortgage, and council tax. I could survive on £600 a month, I'd need another £200 for my wife, and £50 a month per child. Any less would be very difficult.

But that's £11K a year for 4, £11.6 for 5, £12.2 for 6, £12.8 for 7, £13.4, £14K for 9, Call it £15K for 12 shall we.

Add rent and council tax, and They'd need £20K. Now £20K after tax is £30K before tax if they were employed.

I just think we've got the amounts wrong. Give them less to live on, and if they are smart they can survive

[Getragdogleg]

We need to define what "poverty" is, the word evokes images of bare footed grubby rag-tag urchins begging for scraps and looking for pennys in the gutter.
The reality of poverty today is a lack of Xbox and new trainers, fed junk food while mum smokes weed and watches sky tv in the benefits funded house with a matress on the lawn and broken toys in th elong grass, ratty looking boyfriend optional.

At least the poor of the past would get up and hunt for scraps and pennies, this lot just want it brought to them and complain about it, no get up and go and no drive to do anything,
And it's a self generating problem, kids learn by example and being brought up in a no work house often means the kids will never work either.

Break the chain, make benefits a safety net not a hammock for lazy bds to lounge about in.

[Lost_BMW]

Getragdogleg said:

We need to define what "poverty" is, the word evokes images of bare footed grubby rag-tag urchins begging for scraps and looking for pennys in the gutter.
The reality of poverty today is a lack of Xbox and new trainers, fed junk food while mum smokes weed and watches sky tv in the benefits funded house with a matress on the lawn and broken toys in th elong grass, ratty looking boyfriend optional.

At least the poor of the past would get up and hunt for scraps and pennies, this lot just want it brought to them and complain about it, no get up and go and no drive to do anything,
And it's a self generating problem, kids learn by example and being brought up in a no work house often means the kids will never work either.

Break the chain, make benefits a safety net not a hammock for lazy bds to lounge about in.

Children express that as an intention all too often and shockingly early in many cases - I have had many children, even at primary age, say that they'll never work, that there is no point in/need to work (and even that they don't need to work in school as they will be drug dealers!) during my visits to schools. Sometimes accompanied by , "My mum/dad says..." and talk about benefits etc.

If anyone who cares about these issues visited schools and spoke to students regularly they would be sadly disappointed at how common this attitude and world view is - even if it is felt by a minority, there are many, many students who give in before they have even attempted to reach the start line. The certain knowledge of a sufficiently generous state funded safety net to come, that allows all the luxuries and fripperies they require, backs them in the belief that they need put in no effort but will not be found wanting.

The government urgently needs to address the root causes of this for the sake of society as well as the economy.

[blueg33]

Just an observation in context of some posts above

I am an employer, I need to employ someone to manage part of my business that produces 25% of the turnover and carries about 20% of the costs.

I have two applicants - one has managed a business like this before, the other is unemployed and has no track record in a relevant field.

For the sake of my business and my other employees why would I give the second candidate a "chance"?

I would only ever consider the second candidate if the role needed no experience.

[Lost_BMW]

blueg33 said:

Just an observation in context of some posts above

I am an employer, I need to employ someone to manage part of my business that produces 25% of the turnover and carries about 20% of the costs.

I have two applicants - one has managed a business like this before, the other is unemployed and has no track record in a relevant field.

For the sake of my business and my other employees why would I give the second candidate a "chance"?

I would only ever consider the second candidate if the role needed no experience.

Also an observation in the context of the thread; sounds like a good, necessary job, a good opportunity for someone, so why only two applicants? Where are all these people who want but can't find a job?

[blueg33]

Lost_BMW said:

Also an observation in the context of the thread; sounds like a good, necessary job, a good opportunity for someone, so why only two applicants? Where are all these people who want but can't find a job?

There would be many more than two applicants. It was a scenario. Last vacancy I had similar to my scenario attracted nearly 200 applicants but most of them were not suitable in terms of experience and knowledge.

[davepoth]

New POD said:

davepoth said:

Anyone who gets pregnant while on benefits does not get any extra benefits for that child, including a bigger house. It's a simple measure, and since contraception of many varieties is available free (as is not having sex). If they continue to breed like chavvy rabbits then the children get taken away because they can't live in such cramped conditions.

So, child who had no choice but to be born, is then subjected to living in poverty.

You basically want to live in 1920 ?

As I said, the child won't be subjected to living in poverty - if the parents can't afford to look after the child it would be taken away. It's much better to intervene right at the beginning when the child can be adopted and given a better start in life by people who care about it rather than the benefit payments.

We have to set a line somewhere otherwise we end up with a subculture where it is acceptable to have large numbers of children and not contribute towards their upbringing. That's extremely dangerous.

[blueg33]

davepoth said:

As I said, the child won't be subjected to living in poverty - if the parents can't afford to look after the child it would be taken away. It's much better to intervene right at the beginning when the child can be adopted and given a better start in life by people who care about it rather than the benefit payments.

We have to set a line somewhere otherwise we end up with a subculture where it is acceptable to have large numbers of children and not contribute towards their upbringing. That's extremely dangerous.

It can't possibly be a sensible idea to have a blanket rule that says you take children away if the family is living in poverty! That would be a great way to create a generation of dysfunctional people that would make the current social problems seem miniscule

[otolith]

No jobs in the North - I heard a lot of that in the late 80's from unemployed twentysomethings I knew when I was a teenager. All Thatcher's fault, not enough jobs, do you know why they call the Job Centre the Joke Shop, etc. Roll on ten years and I was back in the area to find the same old faces still smoking pot all day and blaming anyone but themselves. I spent a day in Manchester city centre trolling the agencies and came back with a job. Not a brilliant job, but it kept me going for six months while I found something better. That made me wonder how much effort they had been making.

I still have plenty of family in the area, many in their twenties and early thirties now, and the difference between those who have been mostly in employment and those who have been mostly welfare dependent is entirely down to attitude. Those who have applied themselves have done ok, those who have sat back and blamed the world have not.

Individual circumstances differ, and opportunities and the freedom to take them are not the same for everyone, but even so there is a lot of excuse making being done.

Apropos of more jobseekers than vacancies - I was in the Post Office the other week, and the queue was six people long with only two cashiers. I went home, clearly it would be impossible to ever post my parcel when there were more people waiting than there were vacancies...

[martin84]

blueg33 said:

I have two applicants - one has managed a business like this before, the other is unemployed and has no track record in a relevant field.

For the sake of my business and my other employees why would I give the second candidate a "chance"?

I would only ever consider the second candidate if the role needed no experience.

Why has Lost BMW not pointed out your inability to spell relevent and beaten you down with abusive lies?

Secondly, experienced candidates only have experience because someone gave them a chance.

Lost BMW said:

Lots of abusive, belittling nonsense and most of it not even true.

Don't you have anything better to do than lie about other posters and insult them? Who the hell do you think you are?

Where do you get off speaking to people like they're st on the bottom of your shoe? How many times have you had your face smashed in during your life? At least 50 I would think by now, if this is how you speak to other people.

[chrisispringles]

martin84 said:

Secondly, experienced candidates only have experience because someone gave them a chance.

Experience also comes from starting at the bottom of the chain and working your way up. Someone who hasn't worked is, to an employer, an unknown quantity; they have no idea whether they have any sort of work ethic. The only way to really prove that you have a work ethic is to hold down a job and that means starting from the bottom. The trouble is that, at least among people my age, many seem to think they are above working in the jobs at the bottom of the ladder and think that they are entitled to a management role on the basis that they just think they deserve it. If attitudes are similar among people older than me then that may well explain why people are unwilling to work; especially given that benefits provide enough for a lifestyle, not just an existance, and probably more than they can earn in the sort of jobs that they can take.

[skinley]

martin84 said:

Don't you have anything better to do than lie about other posters and insult them? Who the hell do you think you are?

Where do you get off speaking to people like they're st on the bottom of your shoe? How many times have you had your face smashed in during your life? At least 50 I would think by now, if this is how you speak to other people.

[AndrewW-G]

martin84 said:

Why has Lost BMW not pointed out your inability to spell relevent .