Current Affairs 2024

[towny44]

So was Rachel Reeves really an economist working for Halifax Bank of Scotland or just a junior in customer services as reported in The National, Scotland?

Didn't B of S go bust and have to be bailed out by Lloyds, I think in her shoes I would have left that off my CV.

[david63]

So was Rachel Reeves really an economist working for Halifax Bank of Scotland or just a junior in customer services as reported in The National, Scotland?

Is anyone interested?

[oldbluefox]

Yes. .

[oldbluefox]

Or is it now considered acceptable to lie on your CV?

[Onelife]

I’ve always been of the opinion that if you lie once you will have to lie again to cover your first lie …that’s why I avoid telling lies.

Do I approve of what she has done, no I don’t, do I think it is acceptable to embellish your CV with mistruths, probably yes, “in certain working environments”. The market place for top jobs has become a dog-eat-dog environment and because of this most, if not all candidates will exaggerate/adapt their CVs to meet the job requirements, especially for those competing for high profile jobs.

Its not what you put on paper, its how you put it that helps you climb the ladder…indeed you don’t have to look too far or deep to find many past and present politicians who have told porkies to get where they are today.

Foxy…I’m starting to think your disdain for Racheal and the Labour party is comparable to that of mine for Charlie and his freeloading family

[towny44]

Foxy…I’m starting to think your disdain for Racheal and the Labour party is comparable to that of mine for Charlie and his freeloading family

Not really, Rachel has chosen to be Chancellor, poor Charlie had no option.

[david63]

most, if not all candidates will exaggerate/adapt their CVs to meet the job requirements, especially for those competing for high profile jobs.

Anyone that is looking for a high profile job will, in all probability, have been head hunted and everything on their CV will have been gone through with a fine tooth comb so at that level there is little point in lying.

What somebody puts up on a social media site about themselves is a totally different matter and is of little interest/concern to me.

I would hazard a guess that the Labour Party grandees will be fully aware of Ms Reeves achievements, or lack of them.

[Onelife]

Foxy…I’m starting to think your disdain for Racheal and the Labour party is comparable to that of mine for Charlie and his freeloading family

Not really, Rachel has chosen to be Chancellor, poor Charlie had no option.

Stop it John…you’ll have me in tears…. of laughter

[Onelife]

most, if not all candidates will exaggerate/adapt their CVs to meet the job requirements, especially for those competing for high profile jobs.

Anyone that is looking for a high profile job will, in all probability, have been head hunted and everything on their CV will have been gone through with a fine tooth comb so at that level there is little point in lying.

What somebody puts up on a social media site about themselves is a totally different matter and is of little interest/concern to me.

I would hazard a guess that the Labour Party grandees will be fully aware of Ms Reeves achievements, or lack of them.

It was her first step on the workplace ladder.

Four As in politics, economics, mathematics and further mathematics and further studies in economics and mathematics at Oxford probably makes her better qualified than most previous chancellors, so with that resume I’m willing to overlook a couple of mistruth that took place 20+ years ago.

[Happydays]

I'm not willing to over look anything she has said on her CV liar,liar knickers on fire!

[david63]

Well according to Kier Starmer I am "relatively wealthy" - a little less so now that fuel prices are going up!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyrxxg67y3o

[oldbluefox]

I'm not willing to over look anything she has said on her CV liar,liar knickers on fire!

Me neither. Can't stand liars in any shape or form.

[Onelife]

I'm not willing to over look anything she has said on her CV liar,liar knickers on fire!

Me neither. Can't stand liars in any shape or form.

I don’t like liars either but where do you draw the line…. embellishing your CV with words that you know will improve your chances of getting past the filter stage is par for the course in most occupations...I wouldn’t mind betting that a large percentage of candidates have done so in their career moves.

So, In both situations you could be accused of being evasive with the truth.

It’s just a good job there are still people like you, me and Happydays around Foxy.

[Stephen]

I always thought a CV was a little French car.

[david63]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp35r0v7q95o

Whilst I am all in favour of stopping benefits to fraudsters and the idle young is the government shooting itself in the foot over this? They have just announced an increase in employers NI which many companies are saying will result in job losses. So where are those on benefits going to find all these jobs?

Perhaps this government have been planting some more trees to go with the magic money trees - this time magic jobs trees!

[Mervyn and Trish]

I'm all in favour of targeting the idle youth, but seems odd. Aren't they core Labour voters?

[Stephen]

Obscene amount he hasn’t got. How will he manage.

Musk's record $56bn pay deal rejected for second time https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyv3pzm4178o

[oldbluefox]

Scary Dispatches programme on BBC1 last night about our benefits system showing how people get trapped and it becomes financially unsustainable work.
One woman would need to earn £35k otherwise she would be out of pocket. A company was offering a job at £26k but claimants could get £24k for sitting at home. It's a system which is defeating itself.

[Onelife]

Scary Dispatches programme on BBC1 last night about our benefits system showing how people get trapped and it becomes financially unsustainable work.
One woman would need to earn £35k otherwise she would be out of pocket. A company was offering a job at £26k but claimants could get £24k for sitting at home. It's a system which is defeating itself.

I didn’t watch the program but reading what you have posted it does sound ludicrous that we are living with a system that allows choice of working for a living or living off the system. I suppose the question is however… how do you break away from this vicious circle? I think the Conservative party has done a lot in trying to close the “who should, who shouldn’t get benefits entitlement” but clearly there is still a long way to go…I would add that the way they introduced the WCA (Work Capability Assessments) was very unfair with the majority of claimants having little to no chance of meeting the “not fit for work” criteria set out by the WPD.

That being said, we do spend £billions on benefits and we need to find a solution to stop the system from repeating its self…So how do we do that Foxy?

My way of thinking is to look at the areas where bennift claimants are at the highest and invest significantly in theses areas…whilst it could be argued that living off benefits has become a way of life for some, others like myself would argue that the lack of jobs, poor housing and lack of investment in these areas is a major factor as to why the benefit system will always be kept in work.

[oldbluefox]

I am pretty scathing about those who choose benefits as a chosen lifestyle and there are far too many who are milking the system for all its worth. However it seems it is the system itself which traps those who are willing to work but cannot get away from the benefits they receive.
One man had been receiving benefits but was now fit and able to work but needed an assessment before benefits would be stopped. That was three years ago, he is still waiting for his assessment and consequently still receiving benefit. You cannot make it up!!!
Watch the progamme, it will make your hair curl (perhaps not Stephen's though )

[Stephen]

Ba*tard

[Onelife]

I am pretty scathing about those who choose benefits as a chosen lifestyle and there are far too many who are milking the system for all its worth. However it seems it is the system itself which traps those who are willing to work but cannot get away from the benefits they receive.
One man had been receiving benefits but was now fit and able to work but needed an assessment before benefits would be stopped. That was three years ago, he is still waiting for his assessment and consequently still receiving benefit. You cannot make it up!!!
Watch the progamme, it will make your hair curl (perhaps not Stephen's though )

That’s fifteen minutes of my life I won’t get back…tried BBC1, TWO and THREE but still can’t get it on… Channel 4 which I believe screened the program? Wake up Foxy!

[Onelife]

Ba*tard

“Keep your hair on" Stephen", Oop’s sorry, I wasn’t thinking when I said that

[david63]

The problem around benefits is that basically it is a no win situation all round.

Unless there are "jobs for everyone" then there will always be some out of work and the question is how do these survive?

There are five groups (possibly more) that do not work:

• Those who are unable to work on medical grounds.
• Those who are unable to work on medical grounds but because the bar is set too low allows some with less serious conditions to qualify.
• Those who have decided that living off benefits is a lifestyle choice and have never contributed to the system.
• Those who have worked for some/many years and then found themselves out of work and there are no jobs available.
• Those who have become eligible to join the workplace but there are no jobs available to them (school leavers)

There will inevitably be some that cross over these groups but as I have said before the level of benefits should be based on what you have contributed, so as long as you have contributed the whole time that you have been able then you receive benefits.

As a society we have a moral duty to support those who are physically able to work, wish to work but find that there are no jobs available that provide a sufficient level of pay to support them. However as a society we have no requirement to support those who would rather not work but milk the system.

Rather than pay benefits to those willing to work the government should pay an employer to take these people on - even if it means creating a job for them. Those unwilling to work should be given vouchers for housing, food, clothing, utilities, bus fares and nothing else - no car, no tv, no mobile phone.

[towny44]

I think the problem is that the 'taper' system seems to cut in too soon, and the reduction is too steep. Allowing some of the benefits to be retained longer could improve the numbers willing to return to work.
Of course it may be that the benefits are too generous in many instances, but since I have never claimed any I don't really know how 'generous' they are.