Luke Rainbird Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 But if all you get offered is zero hour contracts, then you may very well end up with no money coming in at all. I'm not going to post after this one as we could go on all day I'm sure, but if all you get offered is zero hour contracts, perhaps it's time to stop waiting for the work to come to you? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pashley26 Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) I'm not going to post after this one as we could go on all day I'm sure, but if all you get offered is zero hour contracts, perhaps it's time to stop waiting for the work to come to you? f**king right. If you can't get a job, you're a thicko. Don't give a f**k who that offends; the entire country is looking out for good quality, reliable and enthusiastic workers. Not our problem if your doll dossing jobless mates are worried about signing up for zero hour contracts incase they lose their benefits; they should have tried harder at school, got a job and started working for a living earlier. Because that's what they'll have to do now. Makes my f**king blood boil. I'm 24, earn 100K a year +, didn't come from a privileged background, was excluded from primary school twice, never went to secondary school, haven't got a useful qualification to my name. But I want to work, I want to earn, and I want things in life. If I can do that, these c**ts on benefits and zero hour contracts can get off their lazy arses and go do some f**king work. Because clearly having the time to do it isn't the issue. Literally, f**k them. Let them starve to death in their shitty council bedsits, they'll soon find a way to go and earn some money then. I had this exact discussion at work the other day, when I had the right arse ache because the GM had bought us all Domino's for lunch, on a Saturday. And I tried explaining to him that all he was doing was rewarding the people who WEREN'T actually working by buying them pizza, because those lazy fat c**ts went and ate all the pizza, and the people like me who were working their arse off and selling loads of cars and had probably earned a slice of pizza didn't actually have time to eat the treat that was bought for them because they were too busy earning it for the c**ts that hadn't earned it. And that's how I feel about paying taxes to be handed out to thick people on benefits. And don't even get me started on these super rich families who 'gift' all their assets to their children and family before they retire so they get their retirement and care paid for by the government. I'd happily go round and kill them all myself. Edited April 19, 2015 by Pashley26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnthebiker Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) Begging for someone to ask I'll be that guy what's up??Lol. Here it is This is essentially a summary of why I rarely hang out with people my age. So my friend(a girl my age, I've known her since we were 4) has this friend... She is the best looking, coolest, funniest, smartest, and nicest girl I've ever met. I met her once about 1.5 years ago and really liked her, but never thought much about it. A few weeks ago, I had a dream about her out of nowhere. Then, I had another. So anyway, one night I was dumb enough to go on her ask.fm and tell her I was in love with her. Stupidest thing I've ever done... So I talked to my friend about getting us both over to her house sometime so that I could meet the girl again. So, last week I got a message from my friend, saying that that girl and all her friends are coming over Saturday(yesterday), and I'm invited and they'd love to have me over. So of course, I go. Before I go on, I'll give some background. My friend's brother is my best friend. He's a really cool guy, but has some temper issues. So him and his sister argue a lot, and aren't too cool with each other. I got there, and as I didn't know most of the girls well, I hung out with the brother last night. Then my friend said her and the girls were gonna hang out/have lots of fun late last night in the woods, and the brother and should come. Then, she said they had decided they weren't gonna, and were just going to be in the little cabin, so the brother and I decide not to go out there, cause my friend says we won't want to. we're cool with that, and go watch a movie and go to bed. So before bed, I told him I was gonna spend this morning with the girls, because I wanted to get to know that one better. He said that was just fine, and he'd occupy himself. This morning, we get up and he's all sulky cause I woke up before him and was hanging out with the girls. Then, after breakfast, he thought it would be funny/vengeful to take my phone and hide it. After him hiding it for half an hour, I told him it wasn't cool with me and to give it back. He flipped out, and started yelling at me. Then, he got my phone(which happened to not be in the case) and threw it across the entire house, onto the hardwood floor. I got VERY lucky, and it ended up being fine. As if that wasn't stupid enough, he blamed it on me. I think he's jealous that I was hanging out with the girls and not him. Then he threatened to knock me out, and went back to his room. So, I decided I'd hang out with the girls as planned. Except for the fact that my friend (his sister) had gotten pissed by him yelling and locked me out. I finally convinced her to let me in, so I went in, to find the girls SHARING SELFIES FROM WHEN THEY WERE IN THE WOODS WITHOUT ME! I kept my mouth shut, and acted like nothing happened. So it turns out that my friend just invited me over as a way of keeping her brother out of her hands well they were all hanging out. She totally used me. Then she seemed to be trying to subtly keep me away from her friend. Then after I had left I texted her and asked her if I could have the girls number so that I could text her. She said of course not and that she had read that text to the girl and a bunch of other stuff that I think is a complete lie. In the end I barely even got to talk to the girl, and had a terrible and boring weekend. Edited April 20, 2015 by jnthebiker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 And that's as bad as your days get? You're in for a disappointing adulthood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnthebiker Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 And that's as bad as your days get? You're in for a disappointing adulthood I'm sure it'll be terrible hahaha ;p The bad part wasn't the girl thing, I can live with it and sort that out easily. It was the fact that my best friend turned on me and isn't speaking to me because I didn't like him throwing my phone across the house and told him unless he got it together I wasn't going hang out with him any more, and then my next best friend(his sister) used me. He just thinks he can push me around and do whatever he wants, and has no respect for me. He will never be doing that to me again. If he tries, I'm just going to have to end our friendship... Me going and spending an hour not hanging out with him is no excuse for him acting like a whiny 5 year old about it. We've all(me and the 2 of them) known each other for 10 years and are like siblings, it's seriously a bit messed up to pull that kind of stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 So he's not speaking to you? Why are you even trying to talk to him? Get new friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnthebiker Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 So he's not speaking to you? Why are you even trying to talk to him? Get new friends. I'm no longer trying to. I gave it one shot, he ignored me. If in some miracle he comes around that would be amazing, I doubt it.. I plan on finding some responsible and mature friends. I've got some, but they mostly live far away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 I'm quite sure he'll come round, sounds like a high maintenance girl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_seamons Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 I'm 24, earn 100K a year +, f**k. Off. No you don't. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMike Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 £8,333.33 a month before tax? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_seamons Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 Basing that on you working a 40 hour week (although I dare say you probably work more), that works out at just over £48 an hour. No chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_travis Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 Maybe he's told 3 or more Tinder lassies this, and started to believe it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew62 Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 Commission ain't it! 94k's worth after basic, seems pretty standard practice for most car salesmen….pull your finger(s) out lads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 There will always be someone better/worse off no matter who's in power, but if you can make yourself a valuable asset then you'll reap the benefit (not benefitS). At least if the government keeps cutting spending on the Royal Navy and your job disappears you should be able to walk right into a position on the Daily Mail I think JD's counter point was more that people need to think about these things themselves and improve their own situation rather than expecting the government to do it for them. Don't get me wrong, I agree that there are a huge number of ridiculous policies/legislation that screw people over left, right and centre, but it's all about working out how to work things out within that system as best possible or (as I'm sure you'll understand) find another system that suits better. To put it another way: if people didn't sign up to zero hours contacts then they wouldn't be in a position to be screwed over by them. Nobody taking the positions would mean the employers would have to find a way to entice people in and the situation starts to improve. Obviously for some people the zero hours contacts are appealing enough to sign up for, so this doesn't happen. One of the central tenets of government is to help people who need help in society though, and simple changes to legislation could alleviate many, many problems that people currently face. That's not a case of "expecting the government to do it for them", it's a case of expecting the government to not allow companies to exploit loopholes in hastily devised legislation. Out of interest, if you think people shouldn't expect to help them out, what's your take on the government giving RBS £46billion in bail-out money whilst allowing the banking sector to still pretty much do whatever they want, however they want to do it? Bearing in mind that they've gone on to post significant losses year-on-year whilst they're still churning out huge bonuses to the people running the company (note: well aware the "oh boo hoo, look at the bonuses" thing is played out), and the fact that - as will be mentioned later - the annual spend on JSA is 10% of what they gave to RBS... That last bit is pretty redundant - there are well over a million people on zero hours contracts now so it's not like it's possible for everyone to suddenly drop them and for no-one else to pick them up, especially bearing in mind the previous chat of the link between ZHC job placements and the people most desperate for work in society/on JSA... Not completely lose-lose though, they'll have something to put on a CV at least. Money and something to talk about in an interview is definitely something gained even if else where there's more to gain. There's no guarantee of that money you're speaking of there, which is the whole point about zero hours contracts being shit/exploitative. The government is not responsible for your decisions, good or bad. Luke's assumed correctly on my supply and demand thoughts, so there's no point in me expanding on it. It's not that I don't care about other people Mark, and I assume you just said that to be needlessly harsh. It's that I care about people caring for themselves. It was largely a joke, hence the " " at the end. You guys are all entitled to think what you want to think about it, I'm not going to unfriend you on FB and all that jazz just because we've got a difference of opinion on something like this I've got much love for you and Rainbird irrespective of all this stuff The thing you, Luke and Jardo seem to be massively missing here is that we're at the tail end of a brutal recession that led to wide-spread job losses (not the fault of the people losing their jobs, I'm pretty sure you'd agree?) which was followed up by an austerity package that's been proven to be deeply flawed and has led to significantly more people being f**ked over as a result (again, not their fault/their decision). Low-income earners (who are primarily the people we're talking about here) have suffered most from long-term wage regression meaning that what little they may/may not be able to earn is effectively worth less than it would have been previously in terms of being able to afford to live - this is also why, as well as having the lowest rate of social mobility in the developed world we also have the only wealth divide in the G7 that's actually growing (wealth inequality has grown 4 times faster in the years since the financial crash than it did in the same period before it). This is largely the point I was initially getting at in that first post. I'm not saying whether the benefits system is right or wrong, but what I am saying is that the government should - in general - be trying to help prevent people being needlessly f**ked over. Seeing as it's been the sticking point here, let's talk zero hours contracts - these have become significantly more popular since the 2008 crash, because it allows companies to hire workers without having to give them any of the rights/protections associated with being an employee of a company. Because there were widespread job losses and more people looking for work at the lower end of the pay scale, it meant they could essentially make things as cheap for them as they wanted (so although they wouldn't, say, have to go below minimum wage they can avoid having to potentially give people sick pay, etc.). Another bonus for the companies involved (but a negative thing for the rest of the country) is that they don't have to pay NI contributions for these workers to the government, meaning the treasury loses out but the companies involved cash in). This is basically an exploitation of a system that was designed to help workers in entirely different fields/circumstances, but as it proved to be very profitable for the companies who started using these contracts in this way they've now stuck with it and we're at a point where 1 in 10 employers now use zero hours contracts in one way or another. For people signed up to these contracts in the short term it means constant lack of job security and stress about lack of income, but in the long term it also effectively means you're carrying over that insecurity and also held under a glass ceiling in terms of any potential pay rises or career progression in future (as you're just a cheap worker they've got to fill a space, so why would they waste their money paying you more and having to pay for training or any other associated costs with your change in status?). By which I mean if - say - you're working in a supermarket as a shelf stacker (as I covered earlier on, probably also having to receive some form of benefit to supplement your minimum wage job which is underneath the living wage...), why would a supermarket then want to spend money on training you up to become a duty manager and then have to pay you more when they could just hire someone with those qualifications already but put them on a zero hours contract too? It just leads to job stratification which in turn leads to social stratification - something which has already been proven to happen thanks to those social mobility and wealth divide statistics. It means that if you're actually in a job, you can't necessarily work your way out of being on some form of benefits because you simply don't have the option to. This is all pretty avoidable though as if the companies are able to offer work under ZHC's, surely they could - if the government stepped in - offer it as part time or full time employment instead, with the associated benefits that would bring to the people working for them? It benefits the workers involved and it benefits the government from increased revenue through tax/NI (and would also theoretically reduce any reliance on JSA/other benefits if people are able to get into sustainable, secure work). The only people to really lose out would be the companies involved, but in that some of the biggest abusers of ZHC's are some of the larger companies out there I'm pretty sure that it's not going to bring them crashing down - to put it in some form of context, for 2013 Tesco (one of the companies that were/are renowned for their use of them) made profits of £3.3billion, while the government's spending on Job Seeker's Allowance was £4.9billion. In any case, I'd argue that the government was there to help people who are most at risk in society (so those people who are struggling to find employment and make ends meet) rather than those earning the most. ...if all you get offered is zero hour contracts, perhaps it's time to stop waiting for the work to come to you? Care to expand on that last bit? Just wanted to be 100% sure where you were coming from/going with that before replying... If I can do that, these c**ts on benefits and zero hour contracts can get off their lazy arses and go do some f**king work. Because clearly having the time to do it isn't the issue. Literally, f**k them. Let them starve to death in their shitty council bedsits, they'll soon find a way to go and earn some money then. And that's how I feel about paying taxes to be handed out to thick people on benefits. "I don't smoke, so I'm significantly less at risk of developing a whole variety of life-threatening diseases and cancers. There's decades of evidence to prove that smoking drastically shortens your life span and leads to a whole array of health problems yet these thick people keep puffing away. Literally, f**k them. Let them choke to death on their own blood through their tar-coated lungs. Let them slowly feel their life draining away as they lie there requiring expensive treatments taking up valuable NHS beds, they'll soon find a way to breath harder. And that's how I feel about paying taxes/NI to be handed out to thick people who decide to smoke." But seriously, to suggest that it's just "thick people" who are on or might find themselves on benefits is pretty naive even for you. If we look a short flight away from here at somewhere like Spain, during their recession people throughout society got totally f**ked over. Highly educated/skilled people in the middle classes were squeezed out too, and were part of the influx of people who became reliant on food banks and hand-outs to survive (from an article I read talking about the situation in Greece which was comparable to Spain: ""The truth is, if I didn't come here I wouldn't have the means to feed my children," said the recently widowed father-of-three, his eyes fixed on the floor. "Three years ago, when I was the boss and had two employees, the idea of going anywhere to collect food would have been inconceivable. Back then, I was earning €3,000 (£2,600) a month and the fridge was always full."). The problem those people had was that the positions they'd previously occupied no longer existed, but they were also in a position where they were 'overqualified' for lower paid work so consequently weren't able to find any source of income. This has also been partially true in the UK where it was revealed that job centre advisers were telling people to 'dumb down' their CVs in the hope of actually getting work (I'd link you to articles but it seems a waste of Ctrl C/Ctrl V time), and were telling people that being highly skilled/qualified was actually a deterrent to employers in lower paid jobs (which tend to be fall back positions people go to, hence them being deemed "survival jobs"). Regarding the whole "Look at me, I've got no qualifications and earn a £1gazillion a year" schtick, it's just as flawed as when Alan Sugar bleats on about it all the f**king time. EDIT: Just to tie all this up a bit, we're coming up to a general election now where we have what's effectively our only chance to try and impose any sort of will we might have on the government which is why it f**ked me off all the more that they'd massaged the figures in the way they did. I haven't voted before, but registered to do so this time because even though it's just my one vote, I know that in the future if this government is allowed to remain as-is and they continue to f**k everything/everyone over for personal gain that I'd be even more annoyed if I didn't take advantage of the one opportunity I had to try and do something 'official' about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 I'm certainly not willing to put as much effort into a reply as you are, because clearly you care about it for reasons I can't understand. My belief is still exactly the same though – people who take a zero hour contract, for whatever reason, then have to deal with the pros and cons of that. Pro: Employment, Con: Potentially exploitative. If they decide that the cons outweigh the pros, they should seriously consider not signing the f**king contract. I fancied having a bet on the Grand National last week. I knew that the pros were that I might win some cash, and I'd care about the race more than if I had no money on it. The cons were that I could have lost my stake. I did lose my stake, but I'm not whinging to the bookmakers or the race organisers or the competitors that they shouldn't have exploited my decision making process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMike Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 I'm not going to get deep into this debate, but I thought I'd share my experience of benefits. Rewind back to Hastings, 2007. I'm customer service manager for a small online retailer (Myself and two directors, running a drop ship machine). All is going well, we get over £1m in sales in the first year and have a great laugh doing it. Suddenly, all those credit terms catch up with us and before you know it someone has to go - out of two directors and one employee, you can guess where I'm going with this. So I find myself unemployed, in a small town that has zero prospects - hence the reason I'm no longer there. I tried to start up a little IT biz to keep myself afloat while hunting for jobs, but without money it's very difficult to start an empire. After two months (And being thrown out by my parents) I had to admit defeat and sign on for benefits whilst the hunt continued. I was on benefits for two months until I got a job. Without benefits I'd have been completely f**ked. What I got was barely enough to live on, so I certainly wasn't doing it because it was the easy option... I guess what I'm trying to say is that I found the benefits system vital (Even if the staff that dealt with me were complete and utter c**ts). The lady who used to abuse me every time I went in was slapped down nicely when I got my job, I had to go back there to do my "final signing" and I made a point of rubbing it in that I was now earning more than her. No doubt there's a lot of people abusing the system, but to scrap it entirely would ruin a lot of people! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 There was an Ipsos MORI poll recently where they were seeing what public perception was compared to the realities of the situation. They found that people believed there was 34 times the amount of money being fraudulently claimed through the benefits system than is actually the case it's less than 0.7% of the government spend on benefits compared to the 24% people thought it was (the main cause of which seems to be the way that it's portrayed by the media as being a huge deal). I'm certainly not willing to put as much effort into a reply as you are, because clearly you care about it for reasons I can't understand. My belief is still exactly the same though – people who take a zero hour contract, for whatever reason, then have to deal with the pros and cons of that. Pro: Employment, Con: Potentially exploitative. If they decide that the cons outweigh the pros, they should seriously consider not signing the f**king contract. So to use the previous example of someone on JSA being offered a job with a ZHC, they decide (along with many other people including the current Business Secretary in our government who described the use of ZHC's as "exploitative" and wants them to be banned...) they don't want to sign it. Consequently they then lose their ability to claim JSA, so no longer receive the benefits that they presumably required to live - hence them signing on in the first place. You think it's right that people can be put in that situation despite the fact it's a 'problem' that could easily be solved by the government if they just re-wrote/tidied up the legislation they drew up in 2008? If you've got the same problem with people claiming benefits that it seems Luke and Jardo have, surely you should be against the whole concept of ZHCs as it effectively promotes the long term reliance on in-work benefits claims, as well as prolonging people's attempts to get into the job market in the first place thus requiring more people to claim JSA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 Care to expand on that last bit? Just wanted to be 100% sure where you were coming from/going with that before replying... If funding to the RN continues to drop, to the extent that I'm out of a job then I've spent the last XX years putting myself in a position where I should be able to find reasonable employment elsewhere. That said, I'd take it upon myself to find available work/make work for myself. As much as I'd love to think that everyone else would subsidise me whilst I was out of work, I certainly wouldn't expect it and I suppose I'm one of few people who doesn't feel like the counrty owes me that. In a purely business sense, the Government should be providing for everyone. As you rightly mention, most of the time the demographic that they are failing to serve is the low-income bracket, but I don't see why these people should be seen in any different light to any other group. Unfortunately much like the RN, "we the people" aren't all that great about putting a quality contract in place and getting our moneys worth. The system is very much a broken one from almost all angles, but I see the loopholes more as the fault of the people who created/haven't closed them than the people who (morally or otherwise) take advantage of them. Much like JD, I'm not going to put up a long post on the subject, partly as I don't care to the same extent but largely, as I'll openly admit, because I don't know as much of the ins and outs as I'm sure I should. I understand that benefits can and are a good thing to many people in many circumstances (like Mike above), however I think the difference of opinion comes from people expecting it to the case rather than it being a handy tool. Don't get me wrong, the government are there to work for the people and all but I (and likely a fair few others) have basically come to expect nothing and anything else is a bonus (which I guess is sort of the point I am failing to make throughout...) Edit; You posted while I was replying, Mark. I think the difference of opinion is failry null and can be summed up in your ending line: I totally think that the legislation needs to be rewritten/fixed, and that would solve a pretty dire situation. My thoughts above/previously are more on the fact that ZHCs aren't the only solution that many people seem to clain they are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 If funding to the RN continues to drop, to the extent that I'm out of a job then I've spent the last XX years putting myself in a position where I should be able to find reasonable employment elsewhere. That said, I'd take it upon myself to find available work/make work for myself. So what about if you find yourself in the situation that you're being turned down because you're deemed to be overqualified? That's kind of the issue here as well in that a lot of the newer jobs being created are at the lower end of the pay scale, and many of them now feature ZHC's too. That's why in, say, Greece they've found that there's been an exodus of young, qualified workers from there (which in the long-term will f**k Greece as a whole over), and in Spain there are highly skilled/educated workers unable to find employment and becoming more and more reliant on aid in various forms. In a purely business sense, the Government should be providing for everyone. As you rightly mention, most of the time the demographic that they are failing to serve is the low-income bracket, but I don't see why these people should be seen in any different light to any other group. Unfortunately much like the RN, "we the people" aren't all that great about putting a quality contract in place and getting our moneys worth. The system is very much a broken one from almost all angles, but I see the loopholes more as the fault of the people who created/haven't closed them than the people who (morally or otherwise) take advantage of them. The people who created these particular loopholes are the people who still aren't closing them, which is again why it annoys me. It also relates back to my point about the government needing to do things to stop vulnerable people being exploited needlessly. The people in the low-income bracket are treated differently, and throughout the last term of government is has tended to be worse than the top-income bracket (hence that wealth divide I mentioned before). In terms of how you're phrasing it though, the reason that people on low-income should be treated differently is that - in an ideal world - they would be supported when they needed support, then be able to look after themselves and consequently contribute to everyone else. By not allowing low-income workers to be done over it should mean they can become less reliant on the state, and as they earn more start contributing more (hence the whole thing of "those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest load" quote Cameron dropped out before). That's a fairly fundamental principle of our society, hence having the NHS rather than a system like that in the US where people die because they can't afford to pay for their medical care. The NHS is fairly analogous to this in the sense that when you're not ill/requiring treatment you're still contributing money to it, but if you suddenly found yourself with an illness that required extensive/expensive treatment then you'd be in a position where that was available to you. The financial crash in 2008 disproportionately affected the people who had the least control over what was going on, and who consequently found their previously secure position in life was now totally compromised. I'd again refer you to that quote I mentioned in reply to JD: ""The truth is, if I didn't come here I wouldn't have the means to feed my children," said the recently widowed father-of-three, his eyes fixed on the floor. "Three years ago, when I was the boss and had two employees, the idea of going anywhere to collect food would have been inconceivable. Back then, I was earning €3,000 (£2,600) a month and the fridge was always full."" In the space of 2 years that guy went from being a contributor to the government and society to requiring contributions from the government and society. Things won't always remain the same and people will go from being stable and secure to requiring help. That's where the government steps in (or should step in). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnthebiker Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 I'm quite sure he'll come round, sounds like a high maintenance girl. Yeah, but I'm not going to hang out with him again unless I get a full apology, and he really seems to understand why what he did wasn't right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 Plenty of ways to avoid signing a ZHC and still claim JSA, mainly by being the best candidate for a job which doesn't have a ZHC. You deserve a longer reply than I can be arsed to give, so I'm going to do my Duncan Bannatyne impression on this one and agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewEH1 Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 Yeah, but I'm not going to hang out with him again unless I get a full apology, and he really seems to understand why what he did wasn't right. Maybe he was just annoyed because you wanted to go into the woods and get to see his sisters tits? Unless I've read your first post wrong... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pashley26 Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 f**k. Off. No you don't. Yawn... Take it up with HMRC, I'm sure they'd love you telling them that they're wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamR28 Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 Get that tax code sorted out! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_seamons Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 And you drive around in a shitty mk2 golf? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.