MY JSA SUSPENDED AGAIN

[carlt]

People only travel to the uk from the third world gaffa taped to the underneath of a lorry

Have you ever been abroad?

 

Any country that has a "colonial" history has people from those colonies wanting to go there to better themselves.

[FORTUNATA]

A good friend of mine before she died had a good rant on a train one day full of passengers. I think she was booed and heckled as she tried to tell them how much better the standard of living is in Europe. Of course, she was right but people didn't want to buy it. One woman told her if she disliked it so much over here, why not go back to France? My friend replied, "Don't worry, I am going back!"

She did as well.

[KevMc]

As I seem to recall you're involved in law then you ought to know the right to choose your own job is outlined in the European Social charter. It's what the last Government signed up to and that regulation still exists. Thus, in the case of Cait Reilley and the mechanic whose cases are now being decided I'm not sure why the lawyers didn't quote that regulation. If one client has a BA in geology and working in a museuem voluntary, the job centre are actually obliged to arrange employment in a related field (to geology or academic). This business of forcing tradesmen or grads into totally unrelated work simply disregards the employment regulations applied to all E.U. citizens.

 

Surely you understand that choice is dependent on circumstances, if there is no work in a given field then no sensible person can expect to work in that field. If this charter gives an absolute right of choice then obviously it is another piece of badly framed legislation by numpty politicians so that their lawyer mates can screw a fortune out of the taxpayers' pockets.

[Albion]

Because they can't get something for nothing in France or Germany perhaps. Which is why the French and Germans have better health care and far higher pensions.

Mass immigration is allowed here merely to create sources of cheap labour and lower the costs of production. Not in the interest of the working classes or trade unions.

 

So it is a good thing that they come here because 'they can get something for nothing'?

The French state sector is massive and costs the French tax payer a fortune. The French economy isn't in a good state but they try not to admit that because they like to be seen as the big players, equal partners with Germany in the EU strutting the world stage. That isn't the reality. Small French businesses are fettered with EU regulation and many, many small businesses are closing down in rural areas. Where small businesses are still going they tend to be husband and wife enterprises and, those we've seen, have only been open for business for a few days per week due to the working time directive and the huge costs of employing people in France. No-one that we've met in small business there employs anyone at all if they can help it because of the costs involved. If that is a pattern that we should follow then I don't think so. Germany may well be different of course and I haven't any recent personal experience there but, as the strong man of Europe, it is no wonder they are doing better than the rest of us but the German people object to bailing out the others and who can blame them.

Roger

[Smelly]

As I seem to recall you're involved in law then you ought to know the right to choose your own job is outlined in the European Social charter. It's what the last Government signed up to and that regulation still exists. Thus, in the case of Cait Reilley and the mechanic whose cases are now being decided I'm not sure why the lawyers didn't quote that regulation.

 

There is no "permitted period" so far as I'm aware. You have a right to choose whether the Tories like it or not.

 

 

 

I don't think we're signatories to the ESC; we signed up to ECSMA instead; it was either or IIRC... That's likely why Miss Reilly's solicitors (who I have worked quite closely with in times passed might I add; their being in the same building as my employer a few years ago) didn't choose to mention this.

 

Surely you understand that choice is dependent on circumstances, if there is no work in a given field then no sensible person can expect to work in that field. If this charter gives an absolute right of choice then obviously it is another piece of badly framed legislation by numpty politicians so that their lawyer mates can screw a fortune out of the taxpayers' pockets.

 

No it isn'... and to put that in context...

 

Deviation from any charter or convention right is justified where it is "proportionate to it's aim and in the interests of public policy" (an oft chanted mantra, matched by "citizenship of the union is to become the fundamental status of all member state nationals").

 

I had an interesting case in my last job debating that proportionality in the context of article 7(1)( 2004/38/EU; it'll be interesting to see what the ECJ have to say when they finally get round to deciding it

 

For your reference I am currently a "Senior" practitioner in a top 50 law firm, specialising in Welfare Benefits with a special interest in EU freedom of movement issues... Part of my role is training solicitors in Welfare Benefit issues specific to their role.

 

There is a "permitted period"... period!

Edited July 9, 2012 by Smelly

[mrsmelly]

A good friend of mine before she died had a good rant on a train one day full of passengers. I think she was booed and heckled as she tried to tell them how much better the standard of living is in Europe. Of course, she was right but people didn't want to buy it. One woman told her if she disliked it so much over here, why not go back to France? My friend replied, "Don't worry, I am going back!"

She did as well.

 

Why dont you go then if its so good ? If its so crap over here why do we have millions of immigrants ? i suggest less time spent whinging on this forum and more time spent genuinely looking for work and you may get somewhere.

 

Tim

[kiki]

Have you ever been abroad?

 

Any country that has a "colonial" history has people from those colonies wanting to go there to better themselves.

 

So true Carl. The best example I can think of is when we were travellling through Wales and stopped for coffee in a pub in the middle of nowhere. A young Kenyan man was behind the bar and we got chatting about why he was here etc, as we immigrants tend to do. He said that he was here to learn - he had found this job, which paid minimum wage, he decided to learn everything he could about catering businesses during his work visa. Instead of going to London like hs mates did, he chose to go to a rural area, nothing to spend his money on (accomodation was included) he spent his spare time in the kitchen, learning from the chef, had learned from the bar manager how to do the books and had saved his wages. His plan was to return to Mobassa and start his own resteraunt.

That is an example of how the colonials can benefit from the system here. Sadly many of them do just come for a jolly and spend all their money, but every now and again you find one who restores your faith in young immigrants. (I was an old immigrant so I dont count :-)

[carlt]

...He said that he was here to learn - he had found this job, which paid minimum wage, he decided to learn everything he could about catering businesses during his work visa....

and if he had been Senegalese, rather than Kenyan, he would have been learning the catering ropes in a French bar.

[FORTUNATA]

I'm not quite sure about that, to be honest. My guess is (and it's really a guess), the fact the social charter isn't "ratified" into U.K. law means you have to actually make a legal challenge and quote the E.U. regulation in question.

Take this:

 

"Everyone shall have the opportunity to earn his living in an occupation freely entered upon."

 

To my mind that regulation was designed to protect freedom of choice so I'd assume someone who's a trade engineer would have a right to refuse a Mc-job and object to forced choice of labour. This is significant because one of the clients alongside Cait Reilley is a trade mechanic who refused to polish furniture for 1 pound 50 an hour.

 

So, I imagine if the social charter was signed up to in principle by the last administration (contrary to the wishes of the Tories), it does have some legal basis. Just seems though as if it's a long, drawn out process and a bit confusing.

 

Here's another clause:

 

"All workers have the right to a fair remuneration sufficient for a decent standard of

living for themselves and their families."

 

 

 

I don't think we're signatories to the ESC; we signed up to ECSMA instead; it was either or IIRC... That's likely why Miss Reilly's solicitors (who I have worked quite closely with in times passed might I add; their being in the same building as my employer a few years ago) didn't choose to mention this.

 

 

 

No it isn'... and to put that in context...

 

Deviation from any charter or convention right is justified where it is "proportionate to it's aim and in the interests of public policy" (an oft chanted mantra, matched by "citizenship of the union is to become the fundamental status of all member state nationals").

 

I had an interesting case in my last job debating that proportionality in the context of article 7(1)( 2004/38/EU; it'll be interesting to see what the ECJ have to say when they finally get round to deciding it

 

For your reference I am currently a "Senior" practitioner in a top 50 law firm, specialising in Welfare Benefits with a special interest in EU freedom of movement issues... Part of my role is training solicitors in Welfare Benefit issues specific to their role.

 

There is a "permitted period"... period!

 

Not wanting to blow my own trumpet but I travelled all over parts of Russia and the Eastern block and worked my way around teqching English. Never at any time did I receive free housing or benefits from any of those countries. It was literally sink or swim. I even lost about 20 pounds at one stage.

Most immigrants to the U.K. have it far far easier and I met many of them from Ukraine, Poland, Baltics and so on. The majority were on income support at the time which, to be honest, makes relocation a piece of cake. Even the housing was paid.

I agree there are some immigrant who come to work but don't buy into the idea they have to do the whole thing unaided at the point of near starvation.

 

So true Carl. The best example I can think of is when we were travellling through Wales and stopped for coffee in a pub in the middle of nowhere. A young Kenyan man was behind the bar and we got chatting about why he was here etc, as we immigrants tend to do. He said that he was here to learn - he had found this job, which paid minimum wage, he decided to learn everything he could about catering businesses during his work visa. Instead of going to London like hs mates did, he chose to go to a rural area, nothing to spend his money on (accomodation was included) he spent his spare time in the kitchen, learning from the chef, had learned from the bar manager how to do the books and had saved his wages. His plan was to return to Mobassa and start his own resteraunt.

That is an example of how the colonials can benefit from the system here. Sadly many of them do just come for a jolly and spend all their money, but every now and again you find one who restores your faith in young immigrants. (I was an old immigrant so I dont count :-)

[kiki]

 

Not wanting to blow my own trumpet but I travelled all over parts of Russia and the Eastern block and worked my way around teqching English. Never at any time did I receive free housing or benefits from any of those countries. It was literally sink or swim. I even lost about 20 pounds at one stage.

Most immigrants to the U.K. have it far far easier and I met many of them from Ukraine, Poland, Baltics and so on. The majority were on income support at the time which, to be honest, makes relocation a piece of cake. Even the housing was paid.

I agree there are some immigrant who come to work but don't buy into the idea they have to do the whole thing unaided at the point of near starvation.

In this case I think Carl and I are referrring to ex colonials coming to the old mother country, not random east europeans. After all, when was the UK part of Russia or the Eastern block that you could expect anything for nothing. This particular person I am referring to, and I hope there are many more, use the commonwealth visa to either earn some pounds or learning a skill; some of them even stay

[Smelly]

(and it's really a guess),

 

 

obviously...

 

Considering the level of disdain that various members (me included) have expended on your threads based on said guesses then maybe, maybe, your time could be spent better dedicated to more constructive tasks such as jobseeking.

 

Please...

[Ange]

And Fortunata please ....

 

Look at the construction of Smelly's post - your quote is first, his reply is after, which makes it far easier to read than your responses where we have to scroll down past your reply to see what you're responding to.

 

Quote first, reply second - it makes life so much easier and isn't difficult!

[FORTUNATA]

And so it is. I do believe I now have a very good idea as to what job I'll hopefully be doing but it's secret. The difficulty has been coming up with a concrete idea as to what specifically to do after redundancy. Bear in mind this area has incredibly high unemployment so it could well be the case you're applying the situation in your own region to mine. Here it is no bed of roses and competition even for meagre jobs is still high. Even so, I have finally decided what I think I could do to get back into employment but it's still secret.

Now the "disdain" you refer to is neither here nor there. I don't think disdain impacts positively on any discussion so any disdain on this thread has certainly not been directed towards anyone else by myself. I don't "do disdain". As for being the object of disdain, well, that makes me feel a bit closer to my T.V. idol lieutenant Columbo who had so much success due to being underestimated (in his knackered up car and rain coat.)

 

obviously...

 

Considering the level of disdain that various members (me included) have expended on your threads based on said guesses then maybe, maybe, your time could be spent better dedicated to more constructive tasks such as jobseeking.

 

Please...

 

And Fortunata please ....

 

Look at the construction of Smelly's post - your quote is first, his reply is after, which makes it far easier to read than your responses where we have to scroll down past your reply to see what you're responding to.

 

Quote first, reply second - it makes life so much easier and isn't difficult!

This way seems a bit weird and pronbably you're using a mobile which does make it hard.

[carlt]

This way seems a bit weird and pronbably you're using a mobile which does make it hard.

Nothing to do with mobiles.

 

"Top posting" is one of the mildly irritating habits on forums and leads me to not bother reading peoples' musings because I'd rather read what you've quoted then your response to it.

 

You must find the vast majority of posts on CWDF weird, if you favour top posting.

[RLWP]

Richard:

 

In view of the huge resource that this forum is, why keep it a secret. In the 13,000 members there could be someone looking for someone with your skills and ambition

 

And so it is. I do believe I now have a very good idea as to what job I'll hopefully be doing but it's secret.

 

In view of the huge resource that this forum is, why keep it a secret. In the 13,000 members there could be someone looking for someone with your skills and ambition

 

Richard

[mayalld]

And so it is. I do believe I now have a very good idea as to what job I'll hopefully be doing but it's secret.

 

Have you ever considered that part of your problem is that you are fixated on what YOU want to do as a job (such as walking dogs), and when you find that there isn't actually any demand to pay you for what you want to do, you imagine that the state should keep you.

 

This way seems a bit weird and pronbably you're using a mobile which does make it hard.

 

Responding AFTER the text that you are responding to has been the convention for years.

[KevMc]

Responding AFTER the text that you are responding to has been the convention for years.

Unless you are replying to an email when it automatically puts the reply at the top ... but that's probably becuase its safe to assume the reader knows what has gone before

[carlt]

Well that has a certain symmetry to it.

Richard:

 

In view of the huge resource that this forum is, why keep it a secret. In the 13,000 members there could be someone looking for someone with your skills and ambition

 

 

 

In view of the huge resource that this forum is, why keep it a secret. In the 13,000 members there could be someone looking for someone with your skills and ambition

 

Richard

Well that has a certain symmetry to it.

[mayalld]

Unless you are replying to an email when it automatically puts the reply at the top ... but that's probably becuase its safe to assume the reader knows what has gone before

 

 

When "IT" puts the reply at the top?

 

What is "IT" that does this?

 

Just because Microsoft chooses to ignore RFCs when it "designs" software doesn't mean that what they do is right.

[FORTUNATA]

Have you ever considered that part of your problem is that you are fixated on what YOU want to do as a job (such as walking dogs), and when you find that there isn't actually any demand to pay you for what you want to do, you imagine that the state should keep you.

Responding AFTER the text that you are responding to has been the convention for years.

Let's challenge this conception. If the "State" ever becomes involved in a world war, who will the State expect to defend it? My grandad fought in 2 world wars, being WW1 and WW2. After that he was employed all his life in a hotel (where he once met The Beatles).

You can't have a situation where the State washes its hands over the welfare state. Well, it can if it chooses but that isn't a smart direction to take because history shows that inevitably leads to state erosion. It happened to the Romans.

The fact is there isn't enough jobs for everybody. You may choose to disagree with me but I think logic will show millions of people in this country are out of work. They may be pensioned off, on disability, students or unemployed.

It's the same in Europe too.

My view is un-negotiable. If the State expects people to fight and die in wars, then the State is also responsible (1) for creating employment as a priority or (2) protecting all citizens from poverty should they lose their job.

Thus unlike most people here I believe the welfare state should be protected. be careful what you wish for because if you do ever lose your job, you might find very little in the way of assistance by the time IDS and his cohorts have finished.

 

Richard:

 

In view of the huge resource that this forum is, why keep it a secret. In the 13,000 members there could be someone looking for someone with your skills and ambition

 

 

 

In view of the huge resource that this forum is, why keep it a secret. In the 13,000 members there could be someone looking for someone with your skills and ambition

 

Richard

Well, I don'ty waste my time. Rarely am I in the pub and also have plans to become involved in health issues (for now voluntarily). For actual employment, I think I do have an idea. It's alsways very hard to figure out what diorection to take, though.

[lexicon]

Let's challenge this conception. If the "State" ever becomes involved in a world war, who will the State expect to defend it? My grandad fought in 2 world wars, being WW1 and WW2. After that he was employed all his life in a hotel (where he once met The Beatles).

You can't have a situation where the State washes its hands over the welfare state. Well, it can if it chooses but that isn't a smart direction to take because history shows that inevitably leads to state erosion. It happened to the Romans.

The fact is there isn't enough jobs for everybody. You may choose to disagree with me but I think logic will show millions of people in this country are out of work. They may be pensioned off, on disability, students or unemployed.

It's the same in Europe too.

My view is un-negotiable. If the State expects people to fight and die in wars, then the State is also responsible (1) for creating employment as a priority or (2) protecting all citizens from poverty should they lose their job.

Thus unlike most people here I believe the welfare state should be protected. be careful what you wish for because if you do ever lose your job, you might find very little in the way of assistance by the time IDS and his cohorts have finished.

 

 

So just to see if i'm following the logic of your arguement if the state expects its citizens to defend it then it must provide a welfare state, or employment at a minimum standard of living pay level. yes?

 

So that being the situation is the reverse case true? should not the state demand serving at its pleasure in return for the provided welfare state?

be that national military service or work in exchange of benefits in another area?

[Guest]

When "IT" puts the reply at the top?

 

What is "IT" that does this?

 

Just because Microsoft chooses to ignore RFCs when it "designs" software doesn't mean that what they do is right.

Must be right if Microsoft do it...

[carlt]

My view is un-negotiable. If the State expects people to fight and die in wars, then the State is also responsible (1) for creating employment as a priority or (2) protecting all citizens from poverty should they lose their job.

The days of mass conscription to fight wars is over.

 

All future wars will be fought with professional soldiers and high technology. Conscripted grunts digging holes and shooting across no-man's land is a thing of the past.

 

It also has nothing to do with the employment situation as the war which killed the most conscripts was fought long before the welfare system was set up.

[Smelly]

I don't think disdain impacts positively on any discussion

 

 

I've noticed; you've managed to drag you solipsistic; self possessed, ill informed nonsense out for 24 pages now.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Smelly

[Guest]

I've noticed; you've managed to drag you solipsistic; self possessed, ill informed nonsense out for 24 pages now.

That is a word I haven't heard in a few years I wish I had remembered that word whilst having a row recently with a person who had leanings towards Narcissistic personality disorder.