What is "Pound for pound basis"?

[Lieutenant Scott]

What is "Pound for pound basis"? With respect to money.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Save the whales. Collect the whole set.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 19:21:07 +0100, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com>
wrote:

>What is "Pound for pound basis"? With respect to money.

"pound for pound" is often used in connection with raising money for
charity. It refers to an arrangement in which a charity will raise money
from donations and have this "matched pound for pound" for government or
a large business.

For every pound raised by the charity it will be given another pound.

Examples:
http://www.loppingtonvillagehall.co.uk/Barclays%20Pound%20For%20Pound.htm

Barclays 'Pound For Pound' scheme

Barclays Bank operate a scheme known as 'Matched Fundraising'
whereby for every pound one of their employees raises for a selected
charity, Barclays will also donate a pound, up to GBP750. Loppington
Village Hall is fortunate to have a Barclays employee as one of
their committee members and has been able to take advantage of this
initiative.

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/News/Press-releases/2011/British-Government-to-boost-public-support-to-charity-appeals/


British Government to boost public support to charity appeals

15 August 2011


Public support for charity appeals will be matched pound for pound
under a new scheme recently launched by the Government. The first
appeal to receive support from the scheme is Save the Children’s
‘Born to Shine’ fundraiser on ITV1.

The UK Aid Match scheme will see the Government double money donated
by the public to appeals for charity projects in developing
countries, thereby giving the British public a say in how part of
the aid budget is spent.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Lieutenant Scott]

How does it apply with respect to deductions? I'm thinking of unemployment benefit. Apparently if you do a very small amount of part time work (earning less than the benefits), after the first £5 of wages which you get to keep, they take money off your benefits on a pound for pound basis.

Now looking at the examples you gave above, I would take this to mean they remove 50% of your wages, but most of what I've read says they remove all of it.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

"So it was the first fuckin' leave in six fuckin' months. I dropped off my fuckin' uniform at the fuckin' Y, went to a fuckin' bar, and picked up a fuckin' broad. I took her to a fuckin' hotel, laid her out on the fuckin' bed, and had sexual intercourse."

[Donna Richoux]

Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:


> How does it apply with respect to deductions? I'm thinking of
>unemployment benefit. Apparently if you do a very small amount of part
>time work (earning less than the benefits), after the first £5 of wages
>which you get to keep, they take money off your benefits on a pound for
>pound basis.
>
> Now looking at the examples you gave above, I would take this to mean they
>remove 50% of your wages, but most of what I've read says they remove
>all of it.

Neither. Let's suppose the formula you report above is correct. Suppose
you earn €50 in a period of time where you would otherwise have
qualified for €80 in benefits.

As you say, subtract the first €5 of wages. 50-5=45.

Subtract that answer from the total possible benefit. 80-45=35. That
step is the "pound for pound" deduction. €35 is the new adjusted benefit
you will get.

In total, for that period, you have 50 (wages) plus 35 (benefits). That
makes €85 in total.

A little algebra shows that your formula you gave will always result in
€5 more in your pocket (wages plus benefit) than the previous benefit
alone. Unless you start earning more than the original benefit.

--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:13:33 +0100, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com>

Yes. In that situation they reduce the unemployment benefit by one pound
for every pound of earned income above the threshhold.

The principle is the same in both cases. Its just that in one case a
pound is given for each pound of income, in the other a pound is taken
away.

[Lieutenant Scott]

So it's the second sentence I said (except I omitted the £5 for brevity). They take all your wages away apart from a fiver. Nice way to encourage people to work.

Why can't this be written more clearly on their web pages? Like "you get to keep the first £5 of your wages, then we get the rest, until your benefit is covered". They also fail to mention at all what happens with council tax benefits, mortgage assistance, etc.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

TEACHER: Millie, give me a sentence starting with "I"
MILLIE: I is..
TEACHER: No, Millie ..... Always say, "I am"
MILLIE: All right... "I am the ninth letter of the alphabet"

[Lieutenant Scott]

Except in the first instance, you double it. In the second instance, you don't halve it.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:31:56 +0100, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com>

That is indeed the effect.

In the first case a pound is added, in the second a pound is subtracted.

[Lieutenant Scott]

And like the government always does, they help a little, and hinder a lot.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Please do not look into laser with remaining eye.

[James Silverton]

In the US we'd say "dollar for dollar". However, you have to be cautious
about these alleged matches, which often really involve shifting already
collected funds around. The otherwise admirable Planned Parenthood did
it a couple of years ago.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

[Lieutenant Scott]

Explain.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

I am sorry I offended you - I should have lied.

[Arcadian Rises]

On Oct 26, 6:29 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 23:02:39 +0100, James Silverton <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On 10/26/2012 4:15 PM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> >> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:13:33 +0100, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com>
> >> wrote:
>

> >>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:06:31 +0100, Peter Duncanson [BrE] <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 19:21:07 +0100, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> What is "Pound for pound basis"?  With respect to money.
>
> >>>> "pound for pound" is often used in connection with raising money for
> >>>> charity. It refers to an arrangement in which a charity will raise money
> >>>> from donations and have this "matched pound for pound" for government or
> >>>> a large business.
>
> >>>> For every pound raised by the charity it will be given another pound.
>
> >>>> Examples:

> >>>>http://www.loppingtonvillagehall.co.uk/Barclays%20Pound%20For%20Pound...

>
> >>>>      Barclays 'Pound For Pound' scheme
>
> >>>>      Barclays Bank operate a scheme known as 'Matched Fundraising'
> >>>>      whereby for every pound one of their employees raises for a selected
> >>>>      charity, Barclays will also donate a pound, up to GBP750. Loppington
> >>>>      Village Hall is fortunate to have a Barclays employee as one of
> >>>>      their committee members and has been able to take advantage of this
> >>>>      initiative.
>

> >>>>http://www.dfid.gov.uk/News/Press-releases/2011/British-Government-to...

>
> >>>>     British Government to boost public support to charity appeals
> >>>>     15 August 2011
> >>>>     Public support for charity appeals will be matched pound for pound
> >>>>      under a new scheme recently launched by the Government. The first
> >>>>      appeal to receive support from the scheme is Save the Children’s
> >>>>      ‘Born to Shine’ fundraiser on ITV1.
> >>>>     The UK Aid Match scheme will see the Government double money donated
> >>>>      by the public to appeals for charity projects in developing
> >>>>      countries, thereby giving the British public a say in how part of
> >>>>      the aid budget is spent.
>
> >>> How does it apply with respect to deductions?  I'm thinking of unemployment benefit.  Apparently if you do a very small amount of part time work (earning less than the benefits), after the first £5 of wages which you get to keep, they take money off your benefits on a pound for pound basis.
>
> >>> Now looking at the examples you gave above, I would take this to mean they remove 50% of your wages, but most of what I've read says they remove all of it.
>
> >> Yes. In that situation they reduce the unemployment benefit by one pound
> >> for every pound of earned income above the threshhold.
>
> >> The principle is the same in both cases. Its just that in one case a
> >> pound is given for each pound of income, in the other a pound is taken
> >> away.
>
> > In the US we'd say "dollar for dollar". However, you have to be cautious
> > about these alleged matches, which often really involve shifting already
> > collected funds around. The otherwise admirable Planned Parenthood did
> > it a couple of years ago.
>
> Explain.
>

> --http://petersparrots.comhttp://petersphotos.com
>
> I am sorry I offended you - I should have lied.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Honestly, I have nothing to add, explain, or comment, but I hope you
will answer my non-input too because I'm looking forward your
signatutre jokes.

[Guy Barry]

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wmsvovceytk5n5@i7-940...

> How does it apply with respect to deductions? I'm thinking of
> unemployment benefit. Apparently if you do a very small amount of part
> time work (earning less than the benefits), after the first £5 of wages >
> which you get to keep, they take money off your benefits on a pound for
> pound basis.

Correct. I'm currently on Jobseeker's Allowance of £71 a week. Let's
suppose I did some part-time work and earned £50 in one week. The Benefits
Agency would let me keep the first £5, but they would deduct the remaining
£45 from my benefit and give me £26 - so I'd have a total of £76. That
means I'd only be £5 better off despite having earned £50, which means in
practice there's little financial incentive to do part-time work when you're
on benefit.

The new Universal Credit coming in next year is supposed to address this
problem, by letting you keep around 30% of what you earn on top of your
benefit. I don't know how it'll work in detail.

> Now looking at the examples you gave above, I would take this to mean they
> remove 50% of your wages, but most of what I've read says they remove all
> of it.

No, "pound for pound" means that for each pound you earn, they deduct a
pound of your benefit. It's a 100% deduction.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wmsysvktytk5n5@i7-940...

> So it's the second sentence I said (except I omitted the ￜ5 for brevity).

> They take all your wages away apart from a fiver. Nice way to encourage
> people to work.

> Why can't this be written more clearly on their web pages? Like "you get

> to keep the first ￜ5 of your wages, then we get the rest, until your

> benefit is covered". They also fail to mention at all what happens with
> council tax benefits, mortgage assistance, etc.

Currently, 100% of council tax is paid if you're on Jobseeker's Allowance.
However this will change in April when local councils bring in their own
scheme called Council Tax Support. There's going to be a 20% reduction in
government funding and it'll be up to local councils to decide how to
implement it. The letter I received says "it's likely that everyone of
working age will have to pay something towards their Council Tax bill", and
suggests that the amount of help I get will go down by around ￜ1-ￜ5 per
week.

I'm not so well up on mortgage assistance since I'm a social housing tenant
and my rent is covered by Housing Benefit. There's some information here:

https://www.gov.uk/support-for-mortgage-interest/overview

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Guy Barry" wrote in message news:pDKis.86622$Tf3....@fx12.am4...

> Currently, 100% of council tax is paid if you're on Jobseeker's Allowance.

I should add that council tax benefit is administered by local authorities,
so you need to make a separate claim for it - it's not paid automatically.
The Jobcentre may give you the relevant forms but in practice it's quicker
and easier to go direct to your local council. My council is very efficient
and usually does the assessment on the spot - in fact last time they
actually did it *before* I made the claim for JSA (I told them I had a claim
pending, and they gave me an interim award until it came though).

Incidentally you don't need to be on any other benefits to claim CTB -
anyone can claim if they're on a low income. They will take into account
income from capital but as long as you're below a certain limit (which I
can't offhand remember) it doesn't affect benefits.

--
Guy Barry

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 06:42:36 +0100, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> "Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wmsvovceytk5n5@i7-940...
>
>> How does it apply with respect to deductions? I'm thinking of
>> unemployment benefit. Apparently if you do a very small amount of part
>> time work (earning less than the benefits), after the first £5 of wages >
>> which you get to keep, they take money off your benefits on a pound for
>> pound basis.
>
> Correct. I'm currently on Jobseeker's Allowance of £71 a week. Let's
> suppose I did some part-time work and earned £50 in one week. The Benefits
> Agency would let me keep the first £5, but they would deduct the remaining
> £45 from my benefit and give me £26 - so I'd have a total of £76. That
> means I'd only be £5 better off despite having earned £50, which means in
> practice there's little financial incentive to do part-time work when you're
> on benefit.
>
> The new Universal Credit coming in next year is supposed to address this
> problem, by letting you keep around 30% of what you earn on top of your
> benefit. I don't know how it'll work in detail.

Good news.

What I'm very interested in is what happens to mortgage assistance and council tax rebates.

Say you did the above but earned £76 a week. You'd get no benefit. But if they removed your mortgage assistance and council tax rebates aswell you'd be a lot worse off.

>> Now looking at the examples you gave above, I would take this to mean they
>> remove 50% of your wages, but most of what I've read says they remove all
>> of it.
>
> No, "pound for pound" means that for each pound you earn, they deduct a
> pound of your benefit. It's a 100% deduction.

I wish they'd just said that.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

How do you embarrass an archeologist?
Give him a used tampon and ask him which period it came from.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 06:51:22 +0100, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> "Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wmsysvktytk5n5@i7-940...
>

>> So it's the second sentence I said (except I omitted the £5 for brevity).

>> They take all your wages away apart from a fiver. Nice way to encourage
>> people to work.
>
>> Why can't this be written more clearly on their web pages? Like "you get

>> to keep the first £5 of your wages, then we get the rest, until your

>> benefit is covered". They also fail to mention at all what happens with
>> council tax benefits, mortgage assistance, etc.
>
> Currently, 100% of council tax is paid if you're on Jobseeker's Allowance.
> However this will change in April when local councils bring in their own
> scheme called Council Tax Support. There's going to be a 20% reduction in
> government funding and it'll be up to local councils to decide how to
> implement it. The letter I received says "it's likely that everyone of
> working age will have to pay something towards their Council Tax bill", and

> suggests that the amount of help I get will go down by around £1-£5 per

> week.
>
> I'm not so well up on mortgage assistance since I'm a social housing tenant
> and my rent is covered by Housing Benefit. There's some information here:
>
> https://www.gov.uk/support-for-mortgage-interest/overview

They don't give me much anyway, they pay £110 a month, I have to pay the other £170. This is because they don't pay the capital, and because I re-mortgaged to pay off a credit card a while back, and they say I can't have that portion. Last time I was on benefits, I froze the mortgage capital repayments (Nationwide). This time I'm with Virgin and they refuse to do so.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Hiroshima '45 Chernobyl '86 Windows '95

[Lieutenant Scott]

> Honestly, I have nothing to add, explain, or comment, but I hope you
> will answer my non-input too because I'm looking forward your
> signatutre jokes.

They often seem to coincide with what's being discussed, and I have no idea why, as they're supposed to be random.

Now I've said that, the one below isn't relevant.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A Muslim was sitting next to Paddy on a plane.
Paddy ordered a whisky.
The stewardess asked the Muslim if he'd like a drink.
He replied in disgust "I'd rather be raped by a dozen whores than let liquor touch my lips!"
Paddy handed his drink back and said
"Me too, I didn't know we had a choice!"

[Don Phillipson]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.wmss9hjoytk5n5@i7-940...

> What is "Pound for pound basis"? With respect to money.

. . . Thus confirmed different from the classic Americanism that
the black bass is "ounce for ounce and pound for pound, the
gamest fish that swims" (James Henshall, Book of the Black
Bass (1881).) This is it usual or normal meaning, claiming in
this example that a hooked three-pound bass would fight harder
than any three-pound fish of any other species. The original
coinage may have been for prize fighters (boxers), who were
from the 19th century (but not earlier) classified by weight.

"Matching dollars" is the usual Americanism for equal
contributions. When a charity announces that donations
will be doubled by some commercial sponsor, they say the
XYZ corporation will match any dollar donated by the public.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Lieutenant Scott]

The Americans often make English a little more sensible.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

The dot over the letter i is called a tittle.

[Guy Barry]

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wmt9qbleytk5n5@i7-940...

> What I'm very interested in is what happens to mortgage assistance and
> council tax rebates.

> Say you did the above but earned £76 a week. You'd get no benefit. But
> if they removed your mortgage assistance and council tax rebates aswell
> you'd be a lot worse off.

Council tax benefit is currently worked out in the following fashion. There
is a figure called the "applicable amount" that depends on your
circumstances. For me, a single person between 25 and pension age, it's £71
(the same amount as I receive in Jobseeker's Allowance).

They take your weekly income and disregard £5 of it. If the resulting
figure is below the "applicable amount", you receive full council tax
benefit.

If the figure is above the "applicable amount", then council tax benefit is
withdrawn at the rate of 20p for every pound of income. In other words, you
have to pay 20% of your excess income towards the council tax. They don't
withdraw it all at once. If 20% of your excess earnings is more than your
weekly council tax, then you don't get any benefit at all.

Housing benefit (assistance with rent) is worked out in a similar fashion,
but with a 65% taper instead of 20%. As a tenant, it means that a total of
85% of my income over £76 is withdrawn if I do part-time work that
disqualifies me from Jobseeker's Allowance. I don't know the formula for
mortgage interest relief.

The gov.uk website doesn't seem to go into detail about the method of
calculation. I'll look up some welfare rights websites and get back to you.
There's plenty of information available about this.

--
Guy Barry

[Lieutenant Scott]

At least the above shows that I will never be worse off by taking a small job (that's if I can find one!)

I know someone who managed to get a small part time job, and I don't know the amounts (apart from he does under 16 hours a week), but he said he gets Jobseekers Allowance as long as he does voluntary work too. Not sure what that's all about.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Peter is listening to "DJ Markski - Ski Mix Volume 51"

[Guy Barry]

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wmt9u2mlytk5n5@i7-940...

> They don't give me much anyway, they pay ￜ110 a month, I have to pay the
> other ￜ170. This is because they don't pay the capital, and because I

> re-mortgaged to pay off a credit card a while back, and they > say I can't
> have that portion. Last time I was on benefits, I froze the mortgage
> capital repayments (Nationwide). This time I'm with Virgin and they
> refuse to do so.

Yes, I'm pretty certain the government can't help with capital repayments.
I'm really not sure what to suggest if your lender won't accept payments of
interest only. Your local Citizens' Advice Bureau should be able to help.
I'll browse round some welfare rights sites and see if I can get any further
information.

--
Guy Barry

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 15:21:17 +0100, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> "Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wmt9u2mlytk5n5@i7-940...
>

>> They don't give me much anyway, they pay £110 a month, I have to pay the
>> other £170. This is because they don't pay the capital, and because I

>> re-mortgaged to pay off a credit card a while back, and they > say I can't
>> have that portion. Last time I was on benefits, I froze the mortgage
>> capital repayments (Nationwide). This time I'm with Virgin and they
>> refuse to do so.
>
> Yes, I'm pretty certain the government can't help with capital repayments.
> I'm really not sure what to suggest if your lender won't accept payments of
> interest only. Your local Citizens' Advice Bureau should be able to help.
> I'll browse round some welfare rights sites and see if I can get any further
> information.

When they said no I accepted it. I can't remember why but I think I had decided that it was up to the mortgage company and they didn't have to by law. I've had a good search on the net but I can't find anything about the capital, only the interest.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

How do you confuse a blonde?
You don't. They're born that way.

[THE COLONEL]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.wmss9hjoytk5n5@i7-940...

> What is "Pound for pound basis"?
>

> --
> http://petersparrots.com
> http://petersphotos.com
>
> Save the whales. Collect the whole set.

About three inches on the english scale.

[Guy Barry]

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wmucs8fjytk5n5@i7-940...

> At least the above shows that I will never be worse off by taking a small
> job (that's if I can find one!)

In theory you shouldn't be worse off by taking a job. In practice there are
the costs of travel to work, meals at work, clothes and so on which can't
easily be met out of £5 a week.

> I know someone who managed to get a small part time job, and I don't know
> the amounts (apart from he does under 16 hours a week), but he said he
> gets Jobseekers Allowance as long as he does voluntary work too. Not sure
> what that's all about.

You can do unlimited amounts of voluntary work, as long as you tell the
Jobcentre, and it won't affect your benefit. You can do up to 16 hours a
week paid work but you have to declare it, and they'll deduct the money
pound for pound beyond the first £5 (as already discussed). However they
don't deduct the money until you get paid. I've benefited a couple of times
by doing part-time work while I was claiming and making sure I didn't get
paid until I was off benefit. They can't touch you once your claim ends.

--
Guy Barry

[Cheryl]

And another disincentive, the way they do it here, is that you report
your income, and get the deduction from your unemployment benefits on
their payment schedule, which is naturally not that of any random
employer of casual labour, which is probably all you can find and which
you hope to convert into something more long-term.

The result is that your already meagre financial resources are reduced
even more for a week (or two or three) between your employment insurance
payout and your employer's payout.


--
Cheryl

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 15:51:13 +0100, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> "Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wmucs8fjytk5n5@i7-940...
>
>> At least the above shows that I will never be worse off by taking a small
>> job (that's if I can find one!)
>
> In theory you shouldn't be worse off by taking a job. In practice there are
> the costs of travel to work,

I would only take very low hours if it was local (eg the town 2 miles away). I'm applying for full time work within driving distance.

> meals at work, clothes and so on which can't easily be met out of £5 a week.

Meals cost the same wherever they're eaten, I buy food in a supermarket.

Clothes?!? Charity shop, 99p each. Already got them from my last job anyway.

>> I know someone who managed to get a small part time job, and I don't know
>> the amounts (apart from he does under 16 hours a week), but he said he
>> gets Jobseekers Allowance as long as he does voluntary work too. Not sure
>> what that's all about.
>
> You can do unlimited amounts of voluntary work, as long as you tell the
> Jobcentre, and it won't affect your benefit. You can do up to 16 hours a
> week paid work but you have to declare it, and they'll deduct the money
> pound for pound beyond the first £5 (as already discussed). However they
> don't deduct the money until you get paid.

He was doing voluntary work because he had to, or they would remove all his benefits.

> I've benefited a couple of times
> by doing part-time work while I was claiming and making sure I didn't get
> paid until I was off benefit. They can't touch you once your claim ends.

You mean do part time work and tell them not to pay you for a few months, by which time you are in full time employment? I guess you need to have a nice boss.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Is it just a coincidence that Christianity and insanity end with the same letters?

[Lieutenant Scott]

Or in my case credit card debt increased.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

An e-mail computer virus has swept across the globe that automatically opens pornographic websites on the victim's screen.
Authorities intend to track down the hackers responsible for the virus just as soon as somebody complains.

[Cheryl]

Wouldn't work in my part of the world, unless they've changed the rules
since I last needed the service. You report any earnings as they are
earned, not as they are paid, and lose part of your benefit before you
get your pay.

It was still worth doing, in my opinion. The pay you were allowed to
keep was pretty small and the complications in reporting it irritating,
but it kept me in the job market and in hopes of being remembered when
long-term contracts or permanent positions might be available.

--
Cheryl

[Lieutenant Scott]

If you had to report it, this implies they wouldn't find out if you didn't.....

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Due to financial constraints, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off until further notice.

[Guy Barry]

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wmue01o4ytk5n5@i7-940...

> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 15:51:13 +0100, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:

> > You can do unlimited amounts of voluntary work, as long as you tell the
> > Jobcentre, and it won't affect your benefit. You can do up to 16 hours
> > a
> > week paid work but you have to declare it, and they'll deduct the money
> > pound for pound beyond the first £5 (as already discussed). However
> > they
> > don't deduct the money until you get paid.

> He was doing voluntary work because he had to, or they would remove all
> his benefits.

I'm pretty certain the Jobcentre can't force you to do voluntary work. Was
he on the Work Programme or a similar employment programme? They can
require you to take part in such things. I had to do compulsory "voluntary"
work when I was on New Deal a few years ago. Work Programme providers can
pretty much ask you to do what they like. There are a lot of things that
they can make mandatory if they want to. (I'm currently on the Work
Programme, but I'm quite good at volunteering for things so that I'm not
compelled to do them.)

> > I've benefited a couple of times
> > by doing part-time work while I was claiming and making sure I didn't
> > get
> > paid until I was off benefit. They can't touch you once your claim
> > ends.

> You mean do part time work and tell them not to pay you for a few months,
> by which time you are in full time employment? I guess you need to have a
> nice boss.

It's happened to me a couple of times - more by luck than judgement.
Usually an employer takes me on part-time for a while, and by the time the
job becomes full-time I'm off benefit. But you could try asking an employer
to delay payment. They're hardly likely to say no.

--
Guy Barry

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:56:19 +0100, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> "Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wmue01o4ytk5n5@i7-940...
>
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 15:51:13 +0100, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>> > You can do unlimited amounts of voluntary work, as long as you tell the
>> > Jobcentre, and it won't affect your benefit. You can do up to 16 hours
>> > a
>> > week paid work but you have to declare it, and they'll deduct the money
>> > pound for pound beyond the first £5 (as already discussed). However
>> > they
>> > don't deduct the money until you get paid.
>
>> He was doing voluntary work because he had to, or they would remove all
>> his benefits.
>
> I'm pretty certain the Jobcentre can't force you to do voluntary work.

Yes they can, as you've stated below. If you've been unemployed for at least 6 months, they can make you volunteer. This applies to him as much as it does to us, as he still works less than 16 hours a week and is still claiming benefits.

> Was he on the Work Programme or a similar employment programme? They can
> require you to take part in such things. I had to do compulsory "voluntary"
> work when I was on New Deal a few years ago. Work Programme providers can
> pretty much ask you to do what they like. There are a lot of things that
> they can make mandatory if they want to. (I'm currently on the Work
> Programme, but I'm quite good at volunteering for things so that I'm not
> compelled to do them.)

I don't mind volunteer work too much, I'm currently in a charity shop. It's just annoying they don't pay anything, apart from getting first pick of stuff that comes in.

>> > I've benefited a couple of times
>> > by doing part-time work while I was claiming and making sure I didn't
>> > get
>> > paid until I was off benefit. They can't touch you once your claim
>> > ends.
>
>> You mean do part time work and tell them not to pay you for a few months,
>> by which time you are in full time employment? I guess you need to have a
>> nice boss.
>
> It's happened to me a couple of times - more by luck than judgement.
> Usually an employer takes me on part-time for a while, and by the time the
> job becomes full-time I'm off benefit. But you could try asking an employer
> to delay payment. They're hardly likely to say no.

Wouldn't it involve a lot of paperwork (especially if it's a big company) and also possibly some explanation to the tax office / job centre as to why the payment is delayed.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Women are like dog shit, the older they get the easier they are to pick up.

[Guy Barry]

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wmuheok0ytk5n5@i7-940...

> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:56:19 +0100, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:

> > I'm pretty certain the Jobcentre can't force you to do voluntary work.

> Yes they can, as you've stated below. If you've been unemployed for at
> least 6 months, they can make you volunteer. This applies to him as much
> as it does to us, as he still works less than 16 hours a week and is still
> claiming benefits.

I don't think the Jobcentre can do that. If they refer you to a programme,
the programme provider might require you to do that. If you're required to
do something by a programme provider then it can affect your benefits. My
current information from the Jobcentre says:

"you could lose your benefit for 13 weeks, 26 weeks or 156 weeks (three
years), if you:

- leave a job voluntarily or lose a job due to misconduct on your part
- fail to take part in a mandatory work activity programme
- fail to take on a suitable employment opportunity or
- refuse or fail to apply for a job which your adviser has notified to you

Essentially, once you're referred to a programme, you have to take part in
any activities that the programme provider requires you to take part in.

> I don't mind volunteer work too much, I'm currently in a charity shop.
> It's just annoying they don't pay anything, apart from getting first pick
> of stuff that comes in.

Yes, I did charity shop work when I was on New Deal. Good fun. I've still
got one or two bits and pieces that I picked up then.

> > It's happened to me a couple of times - more by luck than judgement.
> > Usually an employer takes me on part-time for a while, and by the time
> > the
> > job becomes full-time I'm off benefit. But you could try asking an
> > employer
> > to delay payment. They're hardly likely to say no.

> Wouldn't it involve a lot of paperwork (especially if it's a big company)
> and also possibly some explanation to the tax office / job centre as to
> why the payment is delayed.

Quite possibly, although the tax office won't care (tax is assessed on an
annual basis). I suppose the jobcentre might want to know why you're doing
all this work and not being paid for it. It's never happened to me for more
than a week or so, so it's never been an issue. You need to be a bit
sneaky.

Email me privately if you want to know more. I know quite a few (completely
legal) tricks, but I probably shouldn't reveal them!

--
Guy Barry

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:33:07 +0100, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> "Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wmuheok0ytk5n5@i7-940...
>
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:56:19 +0100, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>> > I'm pretty certain the Jobcentre can't force you to do voluntary work.
>
>> Yes they can, as you've stated below. If you've been unemployed for at
>> least 6 months, they can make you volunteer. This applies to him as much
>> as it does to us, as he still works less than 16 hours a week and is still
>> claiming benefits.
>
> I don't think the Jobcentre can do that. If they refer you to a programme,
> the programme provider might require you to do that. If you're required to
> do something by a programme provider then it can affect your benefits. My
> current information from the Jobcentre says:
>
> "you could lose your benefit for 13 weeks, 26 weeks or 156 weeks (three
> years), if you:
>
> - leave a job voluntarily or lose a job due to misconduct on your part
> - fail to take part in a mandatory work activity programme
> - fail to take on a suitable employment opportunity or
> - refuse or fail to apply for a job which your adviser has notified to you
>
> Essentially, once you're referred to a programme, you have to take part in
> any activities that the programme provider requires you to take part in.

Maybe what's happened is he found a low hours job, and is getting the top up money from the benefits. They have agreed that he doesn't have to actively look for work if he does some volunteer work on the side (he's doing a small number of hours at the charity shop I'm in). The job he's in MIGHT give more hours later on, but he's not sure.

>> I don't mind volunteer work too much, I'm currently in a charity shop.
>> It's just annoying they don't pay anything, apart from getting first pick
>> of stuff that comes in.
>
> Yes, I did charity shop work when I was on New Deal. Good fun. I've still
> got one or two bits and pieces that I picked up then.

I'm wearing them.

Also the staff are very happy (if a little strange) folk and don't take things seriously like in a private company. We have a right laugh.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

When a woman wears leather clothing, a man's heart beats quicker, his throat gets dry, he goes weak in the knees, and he begins to think irrationally.
Ever wonder why?
She smells like a new truck!

[David]

okay

[Cheryl]

In theory, no, but in practice, people did get charged for fraud for
doing stuff like that. I strongly suspect that the only way to avoid a
fraud conviction would be to take under-the-table jobs with no
record-keeping by either the employer or employee - and that wouldn't
have fit with my aim to find a long-term job with benefits and everything.

Beside, I don't do fraud. I was also scared that I might inadvertently
appear to be committing a fraud because I didn't understand the
reporting requirements.
--
Cheryl

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 00:07:51 +0100, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:

> On 27/10/2012 12:50 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:16:40 +0100, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/10/2012 12:38 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 15:51:13 +0100, Guy Barry
>>>> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wmucs8fjytk5n5@i7-940...
>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> In theory you shouldn't be worse off by taking a job. In practice
>>>>> there are
>>>>> the costs of travel to work,
>>>>
>>>> I would only take very low hours if it was local (eg the town 2 miles
>>>> away). I'm applying for full time work within driving distance.
>>>>
>>>>> meals at work, clothes and so on which can't easily be met out of £5 a
>>>>> week.
>>>>
>>>> Meals cost the same wherever they're eaten, I buy food in a supermarket.
>>>>
>>>> Clothes?!? Charity shop, 99p each. Already got them from my last job
>>>> anyway.
>>>>

>>>>>

Maybe they deliberately make it complicated to catch people out and fine innocent people to make more money?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

The children were lined up in the cafeteria of a Catholic elementary school for lunch. At the head of the table was a large pile of apples. The nun made a note, and posted on the apple tray: "Take only ONE. god is watching."
Moving further along the lunch line, at the other end of the table was a large pile of chocolate chip cookies. A child had written a note, "Take all you want. god is watching the apples."

[Harrison Hill]

On 27 Oct, 16:33, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Lieutenant Scott"  wrote in messagenews:op.wmuheok0ytk5n5@i7-940...
> > On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:56:19 +0100, Guy Barry <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk>

I have a brand new business just starting up, having been dropped by
my publisher after a year, which might appeal to a wordsmith such as
yourself. It skim-reads every planning application in the UK on a
daily basis, and then lists out the conservatories, the car lifts, the
green roofs, and the other 1001 products as "sales leads" for sales
departments across the UK.

At least it will do... In its present format (which I can manage
single-handedly) it skim-reads these Boroughs:

Epsom & Ewell;Spelthorne;Kingston upon Thames;Merton;Richmond upon
Thames;Wandsworth;Woking;Mole Valley;Reigate &
Banstead;Sutton;Elmbridge;Guildford;Surrey Heath;Hounslow

...so SW London, NE Surrey (where I live). All I need are people who
can get sales departments in that area to get used to using it, and
then (when they are hooked) charge them a commission for doing so. You
can already get this information (google "Barbour ABI") and they have
the market "sewn up", but Barbour are eye-wateringly expensive. My
info costs nothing except a bit of my time.

If you (or anyone else) are interested give me an email address and
I'll send you the various magazines. When you are looking up
"conservatory" you can search for that word and just a few others -
"garden room", "extension" etc. But when you are looking for a "new
build" there are hundreds of ways of expressing it - "build",
"construct", "erect, "replace" but then also "Two blocks of 15 flats",
so a multitude of patterns and planning terms to search through. My
program counts the flats and the houses, and lists them out. The most
obscure has been: "Out new det" - how many houses in "Out new det" ? :)

[Guy Barry]

"Cheryl" wrote in message news:af37pt...@mid.individual.net...

> On 27/10/2012 12:50 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:16:40 +0100, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:

> >> Wouldn't work in my part of the world, unless they've changed the rules
> >> since I last needed the service. You report any earnings as they are
> >> earned, not as they are paid, and lose part of your benefit before you
> >> get your pay.

You lose part of your benefit *before* you're paid? What are you supposed
to live on in the meantime?

Here, you have to report the hours of part-time work when you do them, and
declare when you're going to be paid for it. Then, when you get paid, you
submit your payslip and they make the necessary deduction from your benefit.
Deducting money from benefits before people have received it as wages seems
a horrible idea. Doesn't that mean there are some weeks when you receive no
money at all?

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wmu1dqpmytk5n5@i7-940...

> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 00:07:51 +0100, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:

> > Beside, I don't do fraud. I was also scared that I might inadvertently
> > appear to be committing a fraud because I didn't understand the
> > reporting requirements.

> Maybe they deliberately make it complicated to catch people out and fine
> innocent people to make more money?

I don't think any government has ever made money out of the benefits system.
What would be the point of fining people who have very little to live on in
the first place?

--
Guy Barry

[Cheryl]

On 28/10/2012 6:08 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>
> "Cheryl" wrote in message news:af37pt...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> On 27/10/2012 12:50 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> > On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:16:40 +0100, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
>
>> >> Wouldn't work in my part of the world, unless they've changed the
>> rules
>> >> since I last needed the service. You report any earnings as they are
>> >> earned, not as they are paid, and lose part of your benefit before you
>> >> get your pay.
>
> You lose part of your benefit *before* you're paid? What are you
> supposed to live on in the meantime?

I don't think that was anyone's concern but mine. The general idea
seemed to be that it's not the government's business when the employer
gets around to paying you; you still have to report every two weeks on
how long you worked and what you expected to get.

> Here, you have to report the hours of part-time work when you do them,
> and declare when you're going to be paid for it. Then, when you get
> paid, you submit your payslip and they make the necessary deduction from
> your benefit. Deducting money from benefits before people have received
> it as wages seems a horrible idea. Doesn't that mean there are some
> weeks when you receive no money at all?
>

That didn't happen to me, but I wasn't earning much to count against the
payments anyway.

They change the rules periodically, too, and someone like me who has
very rarely needed to make a claim isn't always up on the nuances.

But I do distinctly remember getting less in my claim before I got the
actual payment for my work - legitimate work too, trying my best to
follow the rules.


--
Cheryl

[Guy Barry]

"Cheryl" wrote in message news:af4d8s...@mid.individual.net...

> On 28/10/2012 6:08 AM, Guy Barry wrote:

> > You lose part of your benefit *before* you're paid? What are you
> > supposed to live on in the meantime?

> I don't think that was anyone's concern but mine. The general idea seemed
> to be that it's not the government's business when the employer gets
> around to paying you; you still have to report every two weeks on how long
> you worked and what you expected to get.

Wow. That would strike me as even more of a disincentive to doing part-time
work while claiming. I would have thought that in some cases you wouldn't
even know how much you were going to get until your payslip came in, so how
could you possibly declare it?

> But I do distinctly remember getting less in my claim before I got the
> actual payment for my work - legitimate work too, trying my best to follow
> the rules.

I can't see it working here under the current rules, where benefits are paid
fortnightly in arrears and many people's wages are paid monthly in arrears,
so you'd be deprived of the money for two weeks in some cases. The plan
under the new system coming in next year is that benefits will be paid
monthly, so maybe it won't make so much difference then.

--
Guy Barry

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 06:34:00 -0000, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <op.wmt9qbleytk5n5@i7-940>
> Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:

>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 06:42:36 +0100, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> No, "pound for pound" means that for each pound you earn, they deduct a
>>> pound of your benefit. It's a 100% deduction.
>

>> I wish they'd just said that.
>
> They did. What do you think "pound for pound" means?

It's ambiguous. It could for example mean: one pound for me, one for them, one for me, one for them, etc. Ie. I earn £100 and they get £50 of it.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Mary had a little lamb, it walked into a pylon. 10,000 volts went up its arse, and turned its wool to nylon.

[Lieutenant Scott]

The more you follow the rules, the worse off you are. It's like they're trying to make you be naughty!

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

In the 1400's a law was set forth that a man was not allowed to beat his wife with a stick thicker than his thumb. Hence we have the "rule of thumb".

[Lieutenant Scott]

You're thinking too logically. The government don't do things logically.

For example, currently they are trying to force people to work instead of claiming benefits. But there are no jobs. How stupid is that?

Why not reduce the number of hours that all the employed people do? Even by 1 hour each? The average person wouldn't notice 1/38th decrease in pay, but all those spare hours would employ a huge quantity of people.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Women like silent men, they think they're listening.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:04:24 -0000, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <op.wmv66uy9ytk5n5@i7-940>

> Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 06:34:00 -0000, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>> In message <op.wmt9qbleytk5n5@i7-940>
>>> Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 06:42:36 +0100, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> No, "pound for pound" means that for each pound you earn, they deduct a
>>>>> pound of your benefit. It's a 100% deduction.
>>>
>>>> I wish they'd just said that.
>>>
>>> They did. What do you think "pound for pound" means?
>
>> It's ambiguous. It could for example mean: one pound for me, one for
>> them, one for me, one for them, etc. Ie. I earn £100 and they get £50
>> of it.
>

> How is that different than you earn £100 and they don't give you £100?
>
> Let's say you get £50 a week. Let's say you earn £10 sweeping the front
> of the local chipshop..
>
> You give them half (£5) and they give you £50 so you end up with £45 +
> £5 (your half of the £10) = £50. Or, they reduce your benefit by £10
> and you end up with £40 + £10 (you earned) = £50.

My brain hurts trying to read your riddle, so I'll ignore it and answer your first line:

What I thought pound for pound meant was...... I get £71 benefits. We'll forget the £5 freebie for now. I take a job earning £40 a week. I get eveyr other pound from that job. I make £20 extra. Total £71 + £20 = £91.

It actually means...... I get £71 benefits. I take a job earning £40 a week. They take every pound. I make £0 extra. Total £71 + £0 = £71.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be "meetings."

[Guy Barry]

"Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnk8rav8....@mbp55.local...

> Let's say you get £50 a week. Let's say you earn £10 sweeping the front
> of the local chipshop..

> You give them half (£5) and they give you £50 so you end up with £45 +
> £5 (your half of the £10) = £50.

If that was the way it worked, you'd end up with £55, not £50.

> Or, they reduce your benefit by £10
> and you end up with £40 + £10 (you earned) = £50.

What they actually do is to reduce your benefit by £5 less than the amount
you earned. So in this case they reduce it by (£10-£5), which is £5, and
give you £45. You keep the £10 you earned, so you get £55 in total. You
will always be exactly £5 better off (unless you earn less than £5).

--
Guy Barry

[Snidely]

On Friday, Guy Barry quipped:
> "Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.#####

>> Now looking at the examples you gave above, I would take this to mean they
>> remove 50% of your wages, but most of what I've read says they remove all
>> of it.
>

> No, "pound for pound" means that for each pound you earn, they deduct a pound
> of your benefit. It's a 100% deduction.

Lt Scott says, "they remove 50% of your wages", but I think Guy's
wording is more appropriate ... you keep all your wages, but your
benefit is reduced.

(The short-term financial incentive may be tiny, but sometimes the
long-term incentive is much larger ... showing some work history even
in a down time can be a positive with employers looking for a full-time
new hire. Doesn't always work, though.)

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 08:08:59 -0000, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, Guy Barry quipped:
>> "Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.#####
>
>>> Now looking at the examples you gave above, I would take this to mean they
>>> remove 50% of your wages, but most of what I've read says they remove all
>>> of it.
>>
>> No, "pound for pound" means that for each pound you earn, they deduct a pound
>> of your benefit. It's a 100% deduction.
>
> Lt Scott says, "they remove 50% of your wages", but I think Guy's
> wording is more appropriate ... you keep all your wages, but your
> benefit is reduced.

Same difference in monetary terms. Depends how annoyed you are with them for doing so.

> (The short-term financial incentive may be tiny, but sometimes the
> long-term incentive is much larger ... showing some work history even
> in a down time can be a positive with employers looking for a full-time
> new hire. Doesn't always work, though.)

They've given me volunteer work which is nothing to do with my experience. Really helpful for my CV.....

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

I took my Biology exam last Friday. I was asked to name two things commonly found in cells. Apparently "Blacks" and "Scousers" were not the correct answers.

[Guy Barry]

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wm1u88c4ytk5n5@i7-940...

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 08:08:59 -0000, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Lt Scott says, "they remove 50% of your wages", but I think Guy's
> > wording is more appropriate ... you keep all your wages, but your
> > benefit is reduced.

> Same difference in monetary terms. Depends how annoyed you are with them
> for doing so.

True, but the Benefits Agency isn't in a position to take money out of your
wages! Only HMRC can do that

> They've given me volunteer work which is nothing to do with my experience.
> Really helpful for my CV.....

Volunteer work is always helpful for your CV in my view. It shows you're
keeping yourself busy and are ready to apply yourself to new tasks. I've
got quite a bit of volunteer work on my CV (and may be starting some again
soon).

Had I not spent some time working in a charity shop in 2003, for instance, I
might not have got the retail manager's job that I got in 2005. I had no
previous retail experience beyond that. I think it's good to get as many
strings to your bow as you possibly can.

--
Guy Barry

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:15:56 -0000, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> "Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wm1u88c4ytk5n5@i7-940...
>
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 08:08:59 -0000, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Lt Scott says, "they remove 50% of your wages", but I think Guy's
>> > wording is more appropriate ... you keep all your wages, but your
>> > benefit is reduced.
>
>> Same difference in monetary terms. Depends how annoyed you are with them
>> for doing so.
>
> True, but the Benefits Agency isn't in a position to take money out of your
> wages! Only HMRC can do that

It makes no difference to me. The amount of money I have in my pocket is identical.

>> They've given me volunteer work which is nothing to do with my experience.
>> Really helpful for my CV.....
>
> Volunteer work is always helpful for your CV in my view. It shows you're
> keeping yourself busy and are ready to apply yourself to new tasks. I've
> got quite a bit of volunteer work on my CV (and may be starting some again
> soon).
>
> Had I not spent some time working in a charity shop in 2003, for instance, I
> might not have got the retail manager's job that I got in 2005. I had no
> previous retail experience beyond that. I think it's good to get as many
> strings to your bow as you possibly can.

Hmmmm.... I've got experience in computers, and a degree in physics and electronics.

Serving customers in a shop is not really the same line of work! A managers job wouldn't use any of my degrees or experience, so I can't see how I'd get up there.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

President Bush was in South Dakota recently. There was an awkward moment at Mount Rushmore when President Bush said, "Hey, look, it's those guys on the money!"
- Conan Obrien

[Guy Barry]

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wm1xliwjytk5n5@i7-940...

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:15:56 -0000, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:

> > Had I not spent some time working in a charity shop in 2003, for
> > instance, I
> > might not have got the retail manager's job that I got in 2005. I had
> > no
> > previous retail experience beyond that. I think it's good to get as
> > many
> > strings to your bow as you possibly can.

> Hmmmm.... I've got experience in computers, and a degree in physics and
> electronics.

I've got an MSc in computing and experience in programming and teaching
computing.

> Serving customers in a shop is not really the same line of work!

So? It's good work experience. I learned a lot of things in retail that I
wouldn't have learned if I'd been sitting in front of a computer

> A managers job wouldn't use any of my degrees or experience, so I can't
> see how I'd get up there.

I had no special experience or qualifications for the job. I just applied
for it and got it. You'd be surprised how many jobs you can get that you're
seemingly unqualified for. It's a matter of how you present yourself on
your CV, how you come across at interview and similar factors.

The only thing that all my jobs have had in common is that they've been
completely unexpected. I'm hoping for another surprise soon.

--
Guy Barry

[Lieutenant Scott]

Someone did once tell me a degree is often just used by a company to check how clever you are.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

I like bagpipes. I also like violin music when played with hammer.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:49:10 -0000, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> "Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wm1xliwjytk5n5@i7-940...
>
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:15:56 -0000, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>> > Had I not spent some time working in a charity shop in 2003, for
>> > instance, I
>> > might not have got the retail manager's job that I got in 2005. I had
>> > no
>> > previous retail experience beyond that. I think it's good to get as
>> > many
>> > strings to your bow as you possibly can.
>
>> Hmmmm.... I've got experience in computers, and a degree in physics and
>> electronics.
>
> I've got an MSc in computing and experience in programming and teaching
> computing.

I thought programmers got lots of high paid work! I always wish I'd done some.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Yorkshire man takes his cat to the vet.
Yorkshireman: "Ayup, lad, I need to talk to thee about me cat."
Vet: "Is it a tom?"
Yorkshireman: "Nay, I've browt it wi' us."

[Guy Barry]

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wm1y3a1tytk5n5@i7-940...

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:49:10 -0000, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:

> > I've got an MSc in computing and experience in programming and teaching
> > computing.

> I thought programmers got lots of high paid work! I always wish I'd done
> some.

Well, you never know. I've recently completed a Java course so it might
lead to some work. I'd be competing with highly experienced programmers,
though, so I'm not holding my breath.

You need to be very dedicated and focused if you want a career in computer
programming (something that I'm not).

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:04:34 -0000, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com>
wrote:

Yes. Having a degree shows that the person is able to learn.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
news:78o298d75g847e5jh...@4ax.com...

You don't need a degree to demonstrate that.

--
Guy Barry

[Jerry Friedman]

On Oct 31, 11:10 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

[sig]

> Yorkshire man takes his cat to the vet.
> Yorkshireman: "Ayup,

Hm. Wikipedia says, "York is a town in York County, Maine..."

(In America, "ayup" is stereotypically Maine dialect.)

> lad, I need to talk to thee about me cat."
> Vet: "Is it a tom?"
> Yorkshireman: "Nay, I've browt it wi' us."

--
Jerry Friedman

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:43:54 -0000, Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 31, 11:10 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> [sig]
>
>> Yorkshire man takes his cat to the vet.
>> Yorkshireman: "Ayup,
>
> Hm. Wikipedia says, "York is a town in York County, Maine..."
>
> (In America, "ayup" is stereotypically Maine dialect.)

Cool!

>> lad, I need to talk to thee about me cat."
>> Vet: "Is it a tom?"
>> Yorkshireman: "Nay, I've browt it wi' us."

--

http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

In 1999 the creators of KY Jelly created a new product. It was called "Y2K Jelly." It allowed you to get four digits in your date instead of two.

[Lieutenant Scott]

I have a short temper, and when programs don't go according to plan, I get fustrated.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A sheet of sandpaper makes a cheap and effective substitute for costly maps when visiting the Sahara desert.

[Lieutenant Scott]

It appears that's all they're good for. I've never used anything learnt in my degree.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

[Cheryl]

I'm not at all sure employers see it that way. Quite often, they seem to
use degrees (and similar documents such as those proving high school
graduation) as a method to reduce unwieldy numbers of applicants to
something more manageable.

This doesn't apply to cases in which degrees or certificates are tied to
specific skills - bus drivers need to hold special drivers' licenses,
and doctors special degrees - but it often does for the kind of job that
doesn't really require that you remember what you learned in that
English Literature course. The skills you'll actually need can often be
picked up fairly readily by someone who's alert and halfway intelligent,
but they won't be guaranteed by your educational level.

--
Cheryl

[Guy Barry]

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wm11hbptytk5n5@i7-940...

> I've never used anything learnt in my degree.

Nor did I until recently. I had a job taking notes in university lectures
for students with disabilities. My degree is in maths, so they needed
someone who'd be able to follow the maths lectures.

It did seem a bit ridiculous, though. If the only advantage of doing a
degree is to help people doing a similar degree then it makes you question
the point of the whole thing.

--
Guy Barry

[Lieutenant Scott]

This reminds me of when I asked my Geography teacher at school what the course would be useful for. Her first example was "Geography Teacher". I couldn't keep a straight face and was sent out of the class.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A friend of mine suffers from verdigris. Goes green when looking down from a height!

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

I didn't intend to imply that possession of a degree is the only
indicator of the ability to learn.

I've met one oe rwo people with degrees and wondered how the <bleep>
they had managed to earn them. Any analytical intellectual ability they
may have had seemed to have deserted them the instant they were awarded
a degree.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

It used to be the case that for some jobs major employers would accept
any degree as an "entry qualification" for a job in which the employee
would receive managerial training provided by the employer.

That was before the days when colleges would provided teaching and
qualifications in "business administration/management".

>This doesn't apply to cases in which degrees or certificates are tied to
>specific skills - bus drivers need to hold special drivers' licenses,
>and doctors special degrees - but it often does for the kind of job that
>doesn't really require that you remember what you learned in that
>English Literature course. The skills you'll actually need can often be
>picked up fairly readily by someone who's alert and halfway intelligent,
>but they won't be guaranteed by your educational level.

--

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 10/31/2012 1:43 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Oct 31, 11:10 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> > Yorkshire man takes his cat to the vet.
>> > Yorkshireman: "Ayup,
> Hm. Wikipedia says, "York is a town in York County, Maine..."
> (In America, "ayup" is stereotypically Maine dialect.)

Different "ayup." The north England one is "ay up" (watch out, hello).
The New England one is "a-yep" (yes).

ŹR

[Lieutenant Scott]

It pays to know from context whether another driver is yelling "hello" or "watch out" :-)

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

My wife doesn't surf the net, she paddles.

[Lieutenant Scott]

Too much remembering facts and not enough problem solving in the degree.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Confucius say: "Foolish man give wife grand piano. Wise man give wife upright organ."

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 10/31/2012 4:15 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> It pays to know from context whether another driver is yelling "hello"
> or "watch out" :-)

If you can hear him yell "hello," he's close enough you'd better watch out.

¬R

[Lieutenant Scott]

The suffix "wazzock" may also be used.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

If it's zero degrees outside today and it's supposed to be twice as cold tomorrow, how cold is it going to be?

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message

news:qhv29892feukoa6ti...@4ax.com...

> I didn't intend to imply that possession of a degree is the only
> indicator of the ability to learn.

> I've met one oe rwo people with degrees and wondered how the <bleep>
> they had managed to earn them. Any analytical intellectual ability they
> may have had seemed to have deserted them the instant they were awarded
> a degree.

The only thing possession of any qualification indicates is that you were
able to fulfil the requirements of the course. Degree courses are very
different from each other, depending on the institution and the subject.
I've never really understood why possession of a degree - any degree - is a
requirement for entry to so many jobs. Obviously if it's a job that
requires specialist training in a particular field then a degree in that
field would be desirable, but the existence of so-called "graduate jobs"
that take no account of whether you studied maths or geography or English
literature or underwater horticulture has always struck me as a total
mystery.

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

In the 1960s, I think it was, the Shell Oil company in the UK announced
a graduate recruitment programme. What was different about this was that
they weren't looking for people with degrees in specific disciplines.
They were looking for people who could be trained to be managers. I
recall a spokesman saying that they didn't mind what subject a person's
degree was in. The company's attitude was that possession of a degree
showed that the person could be taught and could learn.

I don't know what the outcome of this was. It can't have been a total
disaster as Shell UK is still in business.

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message

news:psj498h3d45or3dj6...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 07:11:26 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > [...], but the existence of so-called "graduate jobs"

> > that take no account of whether you studied maths or geography or
> > English
> > literature or underwater horticulture has always struck me as a total
> > mystery.

> In the 1960s, I think it was, the Shell Oil company in the UK announced
> a graduate recruitment programme. What was different about this was that
> they weren't looking for people with degrees in specific disciplines.
> They were looking for people who could be trained to be managers. I
> recall a spokesman saying that they didn't mind what subject a person's
> degree was in. The company's attitude was that possession of a degree
> showed that the person could be taught and could learn.

> I don't know what the outcome of this was. It can't have been a total
> disaster as Shell UK is still in business.

How are Shell UK different from thousands of other UK employers in this
respect? Or are you saying that Shell was the first company to do this? A
quick Google search for "graduate recruitment programme" throws up employers
as diverse as HSBC, the Ministry of Defence, KPMG, Experian and the Wellcome
Trust. I would have thought that most large corporate employers ran schemes
of this type.

What I've never understood is why graduates are considered any more suitable
for the programmes than non-graduates. Non-graduates can learn things as
just as well as graduates. Obviously you need to have an ability to learn
in order to get into university, but there are many ways of demonstrating
learning ability other than an academic degree.

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 12:02:01 -0000, "Guy Barry"

<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
>news:psj498h3d45or3dj6...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 07:11:26 -0000, "Guy Barry"
>> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > [...], but the existence of so-called "graduate jobs"
>> > that take no account of whether you studied maths or geography or
>> > English
>> > literature or underwater horticulture has always struck me as a total
>> > mystery.
>
>> In the 1960s, I think it was, the Shell Oil company in the UK announced
>> a graduate recruitment programme. What was different about this was that
>> they weren't looking for people with degrees in specific disciplines.
>> They were looking for people who could be trained to be managers. I
>> recall a spokesman saying that they didn't mind what subject a person's
>> degree was in. The company's attitude was that possession of a degree
>> showed that the person could be taught and could learn.
>
>> I don't know what the outcome of this was. It can't have been a total
>> disaster as Shell UK is still in business.
>
>How are Shell UK different from thousands of other UK employers in this
>respect? Or are you saying that Shell was the first company to do this?

It was sufficiently unusual at the time to be reported in the press and
to have a spokesman explain why the company was ready to accept
applicants with a degree in anything.

(It might have been in the 1950s rather than to '60s.)

> A
>quick Google search for "graduate recruitment programme" throws up employers
>as diverse as HSBC, the Ministry of Defence, KPMG, Experian and the Wellcome
>Trust. I would have thought that most large corporate employers ran schemes
>of this type.
>
>What I've never understood is why graduates are considered any more suitable
>for the programmes than non-graduates. Non-graduates can learn things as
>just as well as graduates. Obviously you need to have an ability to learn
>in order to get into university, but there are many ways of demonstrating
>learning ability other than an academic degree.

That is certainly true. However, someone in their early-twenties or
late-teens without a degree would not yet have had much opportunity to
demonstrate learning ability in a manner that would have been acceptable
to recruiters.

[Cheryl]

A common 'official' reason (as opposed to my 'shorten the list of
applicants without actually considering them all' theory is that
completing a university degree in anything implies the ability to follow
instructions and finish what you've started, and makes it somewhat
likely that you'll have a certain level of literacy and numeracy. This
is not to imply that you'll be a brilliant writer or mathematician, just
that you're likely to have the basics.

The rather sad thing is that most people can reach this level of
performance at the end of high school, but since now that's not enough
education in some peoples' eyes, they go in for university degrees with
only the vaguest notion of what area they might be interested in.

--
Cheryl

[Guy Barry]

"Cheryl" wrote in message news:aff9rc...@mid.individual.net...

> A common 'official' reason (as opposed to my 'shorten the list of
> applicants without actually considering them all' theory is that
> completing a university degree in anything implies the ability to follow
> instructions and finish what you've started, and makes it somewhat likely
> that you'll have a certain level of literacy and numeracy.

Again, I thought it would be possible to demonstrate all of these without
completing an expensive university degree. As you say below, one might hope
that most people would finish school with all these abilities.

> The rather sad thing is that most people can reach this level of
> performance at the end of high school, but since now that's not enough
> education in some peoples' eyes, they go in for university degrees with
> only the vaguest notion of what area they might be interested in.

This is the paradox that I've never been able to fathom. One is expected to
specialize in a particular discipline or disciplines before selecting a
university degree course. This makes sense if one intends to continue
further within that specialism. But if you're just going to move on to a
"graduate recruitment scheme" that takes graduates of any discipline, what's
the purpose of specializing?

--
Guy Barry

[Cheryl]

On 2012-11-01 12:04 PM, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>
> "Cheryl" wrote in message news:aff9rc...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> A common 'official' reason (as opposed to my 'shorten the list of
>> applicants without actually considering them all' theory is that
>> completing a university degree in anything implies the ability to
>> follow instructions and finish what you've started, and makes it
>> somewhat likely that you'll have a certain level of literacy and
>> numeracy.
>
> Again, I thought it would be possible to demonstrate all of these
> without completing an expensive university degree. As you say below,
> one might hope that most people would finish school with all these
> abilities.

It takes time and money for an employer to determine competency levels.
For the kind of job which is plentiful and requires few specialized
skills, it's far cheaper to set an educational level, however
irrelevant, and just carefully check out whoever's left over.

>
>> The rather sad thing is that most people can reach this level of
>> performance at the end of high school, but since now that's not enough
>> education in some peoples' eyes, they go in for university degrees
>> with only the vaguest notion of what area they might be interested in.
>
> This is the paradox that I've never been able to fathom. One is
> expected to specialize in a particular discipline or disciplines before
> selecting a university degree course. This makes sense if one intends
> to continue further within that specialism. But if you're just going to
> move on to a "graduate recruitment scheme" that takes graduates of any
> discipline, what's the purpose of specializing?
>

Well, in North America, we don't usually specialize much at the high
school level, although it can be done to a limited degree by choosing
extra science classes, for example, rather than phys ed ones.

I think a lot of people go in for their first university degree because
they (or their parents) believe, probably correctly, that having one
will increase employability and income over a lifetime. Some do it
because everyone they know is doing it; it's the expected next step in
their circle. Some actually do have a passion for, say, English
Literature - and the lucky ones don't discover that their passion has
died halfway through the program.

--
Cheryl

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Perhaps the idea is that when studying a specialist subject one goes
deeper into it in a way that requires greater intellectual ability, and
develops that ability, than studying a general degree in which a number
of subjects are studied in less depth.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Nov 1, 8:34 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Cheryl"  wrote in messagenews:aff9rc...@mid.individual.net...

> > A common 'official' reason (as opposed to my 'shorten the list of
> > applicants without actually considering them all' theory is that
> > completing a university degree in anything implies the ability to follow
> > instructions and finish what you've started,

Despite the presence of beer and people of one's desired sex(es).

> > and makes it somewhat likely
> > that you'll have a certain level of literacy and numeracy.
>
> Again, I thought it would be possible to demonstrate all of these without
> completing an expensive university degree.  As you say below, one might hope
> that most people would finish school with all these abilities.

...

One might also hope that the level required to finish college would be
higher.

> > The rather sad thing is that most people can reach this level of
> > performance at the end of high school, but since now that's not enough
> > education in some peoples' eyes, they go in for university degrees with
> > only the vaguest notion of what area they might be interested in.
>
> This is the paradox that I've never been able to fathom.  One is expected to
> specialize in a particular discipline or disciplines before selecting a
> university degree course.  This makes sense if one intends to continue
> further within that specialism.  But if you're just going to move on to a
> "graduate recruitment scheme" that takes graduates of any discipline, what's
> the purpose of specializing?

It proves you can specialize and handle advanced material. And you
may not know you're not going to be hired in your specialty.

A good study of this (which would probably be performed at a
university) would look at the sometimes competing and sometimes
overlapping interests and traditions of academia, employers, and
students. For instance, there may be some vestiges of the idea that
gentlemen and ladies, not commoners, get degrees. But I think the
simple answers you've gotten are on the right track.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Lanarcam]

Le 01/11/2012 16:18, Jerry Friedman a �crit :

>
> A good study of this (which would probably be performed at a
> university) would look at the sometimes competing and sometimes
> overlapping interests and traditions of academia, employers, and
> students. For instance, there may be some vestiges of the idea that
> gentlemen and ladies, not commoners, get degrees. But I think the
> simple answers you've gotten are on the right track.
>

I think that an important fact is that it makes it
possible to select those that belong in the same
circle. Not exclusively, but...

[Guy Barry]

"Cheryl" wrote in message news:affgjq...@mid.individual.net...

> On 2012-11-01 12:04 PM, Guy Barry wrote:

> > Again, I thought it would be possible to demonstrate all of these
> > without completing an expensive university degree. As you say below,
> > one might hope that most people would finish school with all these
> > abilities.

> It takes time and money for an employer to determine competency levels.
> For the kind of job which is plentiful and requires few specialized
> skills, it's far cheaper to set an educational level, however irrelevant,
> and just carefully check out whoever's left over.

Most employers who operate graduate recruitment schemes run various
psychometric tests and other ways of determining competency levels. These
would seem to be a more effective way of screening candidates than by
educational level, which is often influenced by financial circumstances and
other external factors.

> I think a lot of people go in for their first university degree because
> they (or their parents) believe, probably correctly, that having one will
> increase employability and income over a lifetime.

Indeed they do; but that's largely because employers have a preference for
graduates to fill the more highly-paid roles. If they didn't, there'd be no
special value to a university degree.

--
Guy Barry

[Mike L]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 12:38:00 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 12:02:01 -0000, "Guy Barry"
><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

>>
>>What I've never understood is why graduates are considered any more suitable
>>for the programmes than non-graduates. Non-graduates can learn things as
>>just as well as graduates. Obviously you need to have an ability to learn
>>in order to get into university, but there are many ways of demonstrating
>>learning ability other than an academic degree.
>
>That is certainly true. However, someone in their early-twenties or
>late-teens without a degree would not yet have had much opportunity to
>demonstrate learning ability in a manner that would have been acceptable
>to recruiters.

And a degree is evidence of an ability to complete a three- or
four-year project.

--
Mike.

[Guy Barry]

"Mike L" wrote in message
news:suu598li3ln286g8d...@4ax.com...

> And a degree is evidence of an ability to complete a three- or
> four-year project.

A degree course might contain projects of various lengths, but I wouldn't
describe the whole course as a "project". Most degree courses are modular.

--
Guy Barry

[Robin Bignall]

They certainly weren't when I did mine (and possibly when Mike did his).
The major exams at the end of the second year covered all of the
two-years' work. If your results didn't look as though you might
achieve a pass degree with a third year, it was suggested that something
other than university might be better suited to your talents. About 30%
of my year fell by the wayside at that point.
This was in the 1960s, a college that would give anyone with three
A-levels a chance.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England

[Guy Barry]

"Robin Bignall" wrote in message
news:c2o798h9fug58th1c...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 04:52:55 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> >A degree course might contain projects of various lengths, but I wouldn't
> >describe the whole course as a "project". Most degree courses are
> >modular.

> They certainly weren't when I did mine (and possibly when Mike did his).

I think nowadays pretty much all degree courses are modular, aren't they?
Here's the description from the University of Durham, picked pretty much at
random:

http://www.dur.ac.uk/faculty.handbook/faqs/?faqno=548

"A Bachelors degree (BA or BSc, for example) usually lasts 3 years and is
360 credits. An integrated Masters degree (a four-year degree such as MSci
or MEng, offered in some science subjects) is 480 credits. These are Honours
degrees. If you leave the University without completing your degree you can
be awarded a Certificate or a Diploma or an Ordinary degree, depending on
how many credits you have gained and at what level. This usually only
happens if you have failed some of your modules. Your basic assumption
should be that you need to pass all your modules at 40% or above each year."

They had a similar system to that at the University of Bath, where I was
working recently. I don't know if there's a uniform system across all
universities but I get the impression that most of them operate a similar
system.

> The major exams at the end of the second year covered all of the
> two-years' work. If your results didn't look as though you might
> achieve a pass degree with a third year, it was suggested that something
> other than university might be better suited to your talents. About 30%
> of my year fell by the wayside at that point.
> This was in the 1960s, a college that would give anyone with three
> A-levels a chance.

I did my degree in the 1980s and we had to pass a set of exams at the end of
each academic year. That was Cambridge, though (which tends to operate by
its own rules).

--
Guy Barry

[Jerry Friedman]

Ah.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-10-31, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 20:50:54 -0000, Glenn Knickerbocker <No...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/31/2012 4:15 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>> It pays to know from context whether another driver is yelling "hello"
>>> or "watch out" :-)
>>
>> If you can hear him yell "hello," he's close enough you'd better watch out.

A man is blasting up a bendy mountain road in his sports car with the
top down. As he comes out of a hairpin bend, a woman coming the other
way shouts "Pig!" through her open window.

He shouts "Bitch!" back and keeps going. Around the next bend, he
hits a 400 pound razorback in the middle of the road, loses control,
and plunges to his fiery death.

If only men would listen.

> The suffix "wazzock" may also be used.

Or "numpty" --- I like that word too.


--
When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him
whose? --- Don Marquis

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 21:48:17 -0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> On 2012-10-31, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 20:50:54 -0000, Glenn Knickerbocker <No...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/31/2012 4:15 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> It pays to know from context whether another driver is yelling "hello"
>>>> or "watch out" :-)
>>>
>>> If you can hear him yell "hello," he's close enough you'd better watch out.
>
>
> A man is blasting up a bendy mountain road in his sports car with the
> top down. As he comes out of a hairpin bend, a woman coming the other
> way shouts "Pig!" through her open window.
>
> He shouts "Bitch!" back and keeps going. Around the next bend, he
> hits a 400 pound razorback in the middle of the road, loses control,
> and plunges to his fiery death.
>
> If only men would listen.

I was expecting the punchline to be something to do with a speed trap.

>> The suffix "wazzock" may also be used.
>
> Or "numpty" --- I like that word too.

Doesn't sound Northern enough. Flamin' clot is good though.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

The wife had a birthday and her husband wanted to know what she desired. She said she'd like to have a Jaguar.
He didn't think it was best for her.
But, she begged and begged until he gave in and got her one.
It ate her.

[Mike L]

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 21:48:17 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

>On 2012-10-31, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 20:50:54 -0000, Glenn Knickerbocker <No...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/31/2012 4:15 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> It pays to know from context whether another driver is yelling "hello"
>>>> or "watch out" :-)
>>>
>>> If you can hear him yell "hello," he's close enough you'd better watch out.
>
>
>A man is blasting up a bendy mountain road in his sports car with the
>top down. As he comes out of a hairpin bend, a woman coming the other
>way shouts "Pig!" through her open window.
>
>He shouts "Bitch!" back and keeps going. Around the next bend, he
>hits a 400 pound razorback in the middle of the road, loses control,
>and plunges to his fiery death.
>
>If only men would listen.

One of the earliest Latin translations ("Greet the unseen with a
cheer!") I was faced with told of a man hurtling down the Roman road
in his chariot, and causing a pedestrian to leap for safety in the
hedge. Enraged, the victim bawled "Sus viarie!" only to hear the
unsympathetic reply, "Erice!" The nifty thing here, of course, is that
it only works in English - and, curiously, I'd never actually heard
the story in English.

>
>
>> The suffix "wazzock" may also be used.
>
>Or "numpty" --- I like that word too.

--

Mike.

[Guy Barry]

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wm52cvzoytk5n5@i7-940...

> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 21:48:17 -0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:

> > On 2012-10-31, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

> >> The suffix "wazzock" may also be used.
>
> > Or "numpty" --- I like that word too.

> Doesn't sound Northern enough.

Scotland not Northern enough for you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6520353.stm

--
Guy Barry

[Ian Noble]

On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 06:09:39 -0000, "Guy Barry"
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wm52cvzoytk5n5@i7-940...
>
>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 21:48:17 -0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> > On 2012-10-31, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>
>> >> The suffix "wazzock" may also be used.
>>
>> > Or "numpty" --- I like that word too.
>
>> Doesn't sound Northern enough.
>
>Scotland not Northern enough for you?
>

Scotland is northern, not Northern.

Cheers - Ian
(BrE: Yorks., Hants.)

[Guy Barry]

"Ian Noble" wrote in message
news:tam998hi6c7g3r53q...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 06:09:39 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> >"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message news:op.wm52cvzoytk5n5@i7-940...
>
> >> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 21:48:17 -0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>

> >> > Or "numpty" --- I like that word too.
>
> >> Doesn't sound Northern enough.
>
> >Scotland not Northern enough for you?

> Scotland is northern, not Northern.

I take your point, but "numpty", a Scottish term, was being contrasted with
"wazzock", a usage from the north of England. So the issue of Northern
English via Southern English usage doesn't come into it - one term's
Scottish and the other is English. "Numpty" is undoubtedly the more
northerly usage. A Scot wouldn't describe Yorkshire or Lancashire as either
"northern" or "Northern".

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Guy Barry" wrote in message news:Oj5ls.171670$Bz2....@fx11.am4...

> So the issue of Northern English via Southern English usage doesn't come
> into it -

"Versus", not "via". Clearly my unconscious brain decided that any Latin
preposition beginning with "v" would do. There can't be too many others :-)

--
Guy Barry

[CDB]

On 02/11/2012 7:07 PM, Mike L wrote:
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:

>>> Glenn Knickerbocker <No...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>>>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:

>>>>> It pays to know from context whether another driver is yelling "hello"
>>>>> or "watch out" :-)

>>>> If you can hear him yell "hello," he's close enough you'd better watch out.

>> A man is blasting up a bendy mountain road in his sports car with the
>> top down. As he comes out of a hairpin bend, a woman coming the other
>> way shouts "Pig!" through her open window.

>> He shouts "Bitch!" back and keeps going. Around the next bend, he
>> hits a 400 pound razorback in the middle of the road, loses control,
>> and plunges to his fiery death.

>> If only men would listen.

> One of the earliest Latin translations ("Greet the unseen with a
> cheer!") I was faced with told of a man hurtling down the Roman road
> in his chariot, and causing a pedestrian to leap for safety in the
> hedge. Enraged, the victim bawled "Sus viarie!" only to hear the
> unsympathetic reply, "Erice!" The nifty thing here, of course, is that
> it only works in English - and, curiously, I'd never actually heard
> the story in English.

And around the next bend, the man's chariot was trampled into the
pavement by swine, and the woman's hedgehog was eaten by she-wolves.

[Lieutenant Scott]

I'm a Scot, and I take "Northern" to mean the North of England, the same as the rest of the UK does.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Before Murphy's Law, there was IPOIO, the innate perversity of inanimate objects. Inanimate objects move when nobody is looking.