Jobless man refuses to get up at 8am
Discussion
I don't think he is typical of the majority of unemployed people. Most people want to get on in my view. What he is though is an absolute disgrace, and he IS typical of a minority of unemployed people. He has a sense of entitlement, and a way of life that he is happy to pursue at society's expense - and he has all the standard excuses ready to trott out when challenged: There are no jobs, the pay isn't good enough, the conditions aren't to my liking, it's my rights....etc etc etc.
Sadly, even in the comments section of the article you can see (presumably Labour voting) members of society all too willing to pander to his view.
Sadly, even in the comments section of the article you can see (presumably Labour voting) members of society all too willing to pander to his view.
I'm speechless!this type of broadcast merely serves in the continued division within Society causing friction we could all do without. Plenty of people will be thinking all benefit recipients are like Paul, which obviously is not the case. What was the purpose of the broadcast, (or did it go out live).
This is what happens when you let people decide if they are going to work, or sit on benefits. Only made worse by the fact that now he has turned down a job after 7 years of being unemployed and doing cash in hand work, there is still no consequences for him and still no shortage of idiots who rush to defend him being picked on by the State.
Gotta love LBC, started listening to it when Moyles finished on Radio 1.
Some truly brilliant 'characters' turn up occsaionally and I'm not always entirely sure if they're trolls or genuine.
Makes for good listening though as the presenters try to stay neutral and not react to some of it
Some truly brilliant 'characters' turn up occsaionally and I'm not always entirely sure if they're trolls or genuine.
Makes for good listening though as the presenters try to stay neutral and not react to some of it
crankedup said:
I'm speechless!this type of broadcast merely serves in the continued division within Society causing friction we could all do without. Plenty of people will be thinking all benefit recipients are like Paul, which obviously is not the case. What was the purpose of the broadcast, (or did it go out live).
I'm amazed. A useless waste of space, cheating on benefits by doing cash in hand jobs and refusing work. Yet what you care about is muzzling the media in case people realise there are free-loaders like this out there. If it was never aired then people would start claiming there are no benefit recipients like this.Phil1 said:
I'm amazed. A useless waste of space, cheating on benefits by doing cash in hand jobs and refusing work. Yet what you care about is muzzling the media in case people realise there are free-loaders like this out there. If it was never aired then people would start claiming there are no benefit recipients like this.
I think his agrument is more against sensationalist 'news' stories giving a false impression of the actual situation, a la Daily Mail. Yes these people exist, and yes they're scum and need dealing with, but if your average London Banker only pay attention to only these type of broadcast, then go on to discuss 'the scum' over cocktails and cocaine, their impression will be that ALL people on benefits are of a similar, work-shy, disposition. Which is clearly not the case.It's the picking on these emotive subjects that gets my goat. Immigration the same. Yes there will be problem cases, but there will also be genuine cases. The media spotlight the problems, and people get on their high horse on the basis of misinformed 'news' reports.
As PH consists of powerfully built company directors, I'd suggest most on PH arent fooled by the media and can, hopefully, see the bigger picture beyond what most fiction pushing 'news' rags sell. But not everybody is as savvy as your average PH'der.
BTW I dont think that broadcast was aimed to pick on benefit cheats. More an unfortunate example was aired and taken to task, quite rightly, when he was allowed to inflict his views onto us all.
Edited by MocMocaMoc on Friday 4th January 12:02
crankedup said:
Plenty of people will be thinking all benefit recipients are like Paul, which
obviously is not the case. What was the purpose of the broadcast, (or did it go out live).
In a round about way I think ALL benefits claimants are like Paul. Certainly applicable in the South East.obviously is not the case. What was the purpose of the broadcast, (or did it go out live).
I honestly believe that any unemployed person could get casual low-paid work. Anybody who doesnt work chooses not to.
RealSquirrels said:
I've got a job and I refuse to start (or even get up) at 8am!
He's got to be a troll
Me too. Alarm goes off at 8am but I'll be fHe's got to be a troll
ked if I'm getting out of bed before 8.20am.In my last job I had to be out of the house by 5.20am, a time I rarely see nowadays I'm glad to say.
MocMocaMoc said:
It's the picking on these emotive subjects that gets my goat. Immigration the same. Yes there will be problem cases, but there will also be genuine cases. The media spotlight the problems, and people get on their high horse on the basis of misinformed 'news' reports.
Due to the UK's geography, there are very few genuine cases of asylum here - broadly speaking, only those arriving by air direct from the country of origin can be classified as genuine.Anyone arriving via the Channel ports is an economic migrant.
blindswelledrat said:
I honestly believe that any unemployed person could get casual low-paid work. Anybody who doesnt work chooses not to.
Quite right. However while the amount of benefits they can receive is similar to the pay available in these jobs then the freeloaders will always choose the sit-on-their-arse optionPuggit said:
MocMocaMoc said:
It's the picking on these emotive subjects that gets my goat. Immigration the same. Yes there will be problem cases, but there will also be genuine cases. The media spotlight the problems, and people get on their high horse on the basis of misinformed 'news' reports.
Due to the UK's geography, there are very few genuine cases of asylum here - broadly speaking, only those arriving by air direct from the country of origin can be classified as genuine.Anyone arriving via the Channel ports is an economic migrant.
andymadmak said:
I don't think he is typical of the majority of unemployed people. Most people want to get on in my view. What he is though is an absolute disgrace, and he IS typical of a minority of unemployed people. He has a sense of entitlement, and a way of life that he is happy to pursue at society's expense - and he has all the standard excuses ready to trott out when challenged: There are no jobs, the pay isn't good enough, the conditions aren't to my liking, it's my rights....etc etc etc.
Sadly, even in the comments section of the article you can see (presumably Labour voting) members of society all too willing to pander to his view.
He may not be typical of the majority of unemployed, but he's certainly typical of a very great many. Sadly, even in the comments section of the article you can see (presumably Labour voting) members of society all too willing to pander to his view.
I know of many women who've got themselves sprogged up and live quite happily on benefits in a reasonable house, sometimes with a car, and have enough to go out of a weekend.
It IS a lifestyle for many.
MocMocaMoc said:
I think his agrument is more against sensationalist 'news' stories giving a false impression of the actual situation, a la Daily Mail. Yes these people exist, and yes they're scum and need dealing with, but if your average London Banker only pay attention to only these type of broadcast, then go on to discuss 'the scum' over cocktails and cocaine, their impression will be that ALL people on benefits are of a similar, work-shy, disposition. Which is clearly not the case.
You think stories should be blocked in case people form their own opinions! You're worried people might form sweepingly generalized opinions, then post such a broad sweeping slur as bankers discussing the news over cocktails and cocaine!anonymous said:
[redacted]
Errrr <panics at sense he is wandering unwittingly into a moral minefield> we're not alowed to talk about cash in hand these days are we, without some government minister or other chastising us for not allowing them to waste more tax, so I guess it would be as employees, with a pension and company car. With a driver, obviously.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff