Please point out where I’ve called anyone a scrounger for working and saving?

Unfortunately not everyone can get a job and some people just don’t understand this concept whatsoever. For example an old mate of my mine struggled to find a job (an entry level one so he could try and make his own way in the world) until his dad took him on at his firm (he’s now earning loads – lives in an apartment with a Jacuzzi). Not everyone is as ‘lucky’ as my old mate so they have to find another way of getting by in the world. Some people even have to turn to crime because no one else will help them thrive in the legitimate world. Other people have rot on the dole and take off of jobworths once a fortnight.

Now Ben wants to go to Brazil and work and he needs a bit of help to achieve that goal. He’s not got a job but he volunteers and has helped a lot over the years. Now he needs a bit of help people around here are going to help him – it’s called helping each other. I judge people by their actions. I’ve given Ben a tenner so he can achieve his goal dream and advertised the cause on here and on twitter. Some people on the other hand have just tried to belittle what he’s doing and stigmatise it which is fine because it’s a forum. But I think you’ll find I’m morally right here.

Finally the word that has been popping up a lot on this thread is ‘everyone’. I think some people need to stop abusing that word because the world will never become a utopia of tads. It’ll never become a utopia of people rotting away on the dole either. Life is full of ups and downs. Unfortunately some people seem to have more back luck than others.

There are jobs out. It's all about what you're prepared to do to earn a living. Far too many lazy ds who would rather do feck all than work for minimum wage.

Want to back up that point?

Or do you just write these things to suit your own narrow view of unemployed people in this country?

No one HAS TO turn to crime Damo!

@ Damo - no-one has to turn to crime. There are reasons why people do, due to upbringing/culture etc but simple lack of a job is not an adequate reason as evidenced by the vast majority who do not turn to crime. Also just because this lad volunteers a bit doesn't mean that people are morally wrong to oppose handing over their earned cash to him simply because he fancies volunteering in a hotter country. As mentioned already on this thread by other people, plenty of people volunteer. I volunteer roughly 10 hours per week and I'm sure other people on this board do. Volunteering doesn't necessarily mark out this lad as a special case who deserves charity. I'd far rather money I donated go toward helping with real issues in this country (or abroad) like those struggling with poverty or drug addiction. I don't think that classes me or anyone else who doesn't want to give to or like the idea of this lad receiving charity as morally wrong or put you necessarily in the right.

@ Sherbert Dip - According to the ONS there are 2.67 million people unemployed plus a further 1.38 million under-employed. There are 473,000 vacancies. To say there are jobs out there it's just a matter of applying yourself is simplistic and a bit silly. It's akin to saying drug addicts just need a bit of willpower to kick their habit.

I agree with you that a vast majority don’t turn to crime in the example you've cited. Still some people need to turn to crime and a lot do.



I never said it was morally wrong for people to oppose handing over their hard earned cash. What I said was morally wrong is the way them two and others on this thread have gone about not donating. I was not tarring everyone with the same brush and if it looked like that then I apologise.

I agree that volunteering doesn’t make him a special case. However he is suffering from some forms of poverty if he has to raise funds like this to get to Brazil. It might not be the worst kind of poverty but poverty isn’t simplistic.

Anyhow if people don’t want to donate then I’m fine with that. However if people want to stigmatise and demonise what he does then I think it’s wrong. On the other hand I do think that this has opened up a good debate. I’m not going to badger people to donate and hence why I haven’t asked for donations since the opening post. But I will defend what he’s doing.

If some people want to have a go at Ben for what he’s doing then have a go at the people who’ve donated to his cause too. Demonise them for wanting the best for him. Don’t be cowards and pick what you see as the easiest target.

The phase "don't rain on someone's parade" comes to mind here.

I'd bet you any money you like you could be down washing cars at any of the numerous car wash sites around Leeds, within a few days, and earning money.
I know someone who had a little 'cash flow' problem, so spent a week or so washing cars. He said it's one of the hardest things he's done.....but he earned £300!

The issue isn't that there are few jobs about....it's about the jobless being selective.

Damo why do people [ineed[/i to turn to crime?

Its damo's world

Double post

I only have a levels and never went to uni. I don't buy the fact that it's impossible to get a job either. Yes, in the last few years I have gone a month or so here and there without work, but as soon as I have applied for things I have had interviews and got a job in no time. I do believe people who use the excuses they do either don't want a job for £6+ an hour or just simply can't be bothered working.

I know a lot of people who are/have turned down jobs because they think the pay is rubbish. Well what do they expect, a generous starting salary straight away. I started at work on about 5 and half pound an hour, not exactly great. But through working my backside off I'm now up around £11 in 6 years time with another decent pay rise due within the next 6 months. I've seen plenty of young lads like me arrive at my work doing the same role I did for same pay and instead of busting their balls they took the approach 'i'm getting paid little I'll work little'. Last year 2 lads turned down the opportunity of jobs with the other company are owner owns in favour of going on the dole.
From my experience i know more people preferred taking dole over working and its annoys me that the government get all the blame for someone's situation. Sure they aren't perfect but in most cases neither is the individual but of course people don't like looking in the mirror.

2.67 million unemployed. 473,000 vacancies. Where do the 2.2 million who are left go to find a job?

Well as are company is being taken over ATM and relocating some people are taking redundancy even though its only an extra 2-3 miles to travel. Why? Because they see the easy opportunity of getting around £10,000 without having to work for it. So like I said, a lot of those 2.2 million won't really be devastated at not having to work even if they like to claim they do. How many of those are honest individuals and how many have 'Jeremy Kyle' potential?

What does their potential or attitude matter? If there are 2.7 million people without jobs and only 470,000 of them could possibly get a job what does it matter what the other 2.2 million are like? They couldn't get a job anyway because there arent enough. I sympathise with your argument in that, yes there are some who don't want a job, but comments like "people just don't want to work" are just lazy stereotypes simply based simply upon your/Harrigans anecdotal evidence.

I started work at £940.








A year

And surely banding about numbers like the 2.2 million left unemployed is equally lazy just to create newspaper/tv news headlines that will grab peoples attention. From 2000 -2006 well before recession become a buzz word the unemployment averaged around 1.5 million, so really the headlines could read '700,000 extra left unemployed during the UK's financial crisis'. But then 2.2 million grabs peoples attention much more than 700,000 now doesn't it.

How is that relevant other than in proving its harder than it used to be to find a job?
How is quoting the official unemployment and vacancy figures when describing the amount of unemployed people compared to vacancies, lazy?

Because figures don't show how many want work and how many are happy to accept dole.

All I am saying is that I have never had any problems, and i'm not qualified for much. If you want to work, you will find it.

So are you saying that at least 2.2 million out of those 2.67 million who are unemployed don't want to work? Because if it's less than that, then it wouldn't matter how much they wanted to work, would it?

But you have A-Levels, that's more than a lot of people have. You presumably, have a decent work history with no significant gaps. You, I assume, are fairly young. You might have better self-esteem/confidence than other people. You might have a better support network around you. You might know how to tailor your CV/applications/interviews compared to other people. There are plenty of reasons why employers don't employ people and it's not always down to lack of effort.
Plus, as I said to The Printer, even if all available vacancies were filled it would leave 2.2 million without a job, regardless of their skills, abilities or willingness to work.

I'm confused...

There are 2.7 million people unemployed - right?

...and 473,000 vacant jobs?

Why..????

I could understand if there were 2.2 million unemployed and no vacancies but why aren't the 473,000 being filled by the current unemployed populous?

I can only think of two reasons

1) The employers that hold these 473,000 vacant positions feel that none of the 2.7 million currently unemployed have the skills, attitude and ability to fill these potions.

2) The 2.7 million unemployed can't be ar[size=100s[/sizeed apply for said vacancies.

Could someone explain for a simpleton like me?

I would imagine its because there is a gap in between a job becoming vacant/being advertised as vacant and that job being filled. It generally takes a few weeks from advertising the job, getting all the applications/CV's in, holding interviews, then making a decision. So the vacancies stat will be a snapshot or an average of how many vacancies were out there. In this case for the 3 months up to February 2012.
Im not an expert in these stats but I would imagine that the majority of these 400k vacancies would be filled but then different job vacancies fill the gap for the next set of 3 month stats.
On the ONS website there is a graph which shows the number of vacancies has stayed pretty similar over the last 2 years. Fluctuating between around 450k & 500k.