Shaw Trust boot camp.

<> wrote in message news:15d57242-6664-4c09-87e6-> -
Show quoted text -

I throw up several times a week, constant headache for almost 7 years,
nausea, dizziness and walking is hard.
That sort of ill. Plus the good old fashioned risk of my allergy
flaring up outside the home, something I always have to be aware of.
I can sit at home and not work, with low quality of life but fairly
safe from allergic reaction.
Or I can get out, do things, go to work, study, do activities, run a
few businesses - and have a much higher quality of life.

Martin <><

++++++++++++++++++
Once again there is a vast difference between what you are doing, which is
pleasing yourself, and people who are on benefits being ordered to attend
boot camp when they are not well enough to work.

On 9 Feb, 08:50, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Robbie" <ngrobbi...@hotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
>
> news:...
>
>
>
>
>
> > mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On 8 Feb, 22:41, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>> "Robbie" <ngrobbi...@hotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>> David Lloyd George (if you know your history!) used to get his
> >>>> ministers
> >>>> to sign their resignation letters when he appointed them, all he hadto
> >>>> do
> >>>> was date them when he wanted to sack them. You seem to do the same
> >>>> thing
> >>>> with GL24's, the DWP and appeal tribunals!
> >>> You can always rely on the boot camp brigade to keep chasing you because
> >>> they get paid 200 + a week to put your arse on a chair, to do nothing
> >>> except listen to some idiot telling you about how employers are crying
> >>> out
> >>> to hire people who can potentially be off work sick every other day and
> >>> not
> >>> able to much work if they ever manage to get to there in the first
> >>> place, or
> >>> not able to work at all because an old injury or illness keeps playing
> >>> up.
>
> >>> These employers will NOT hire people in perfect health, in case they
> >>> live
> >>> until retirement age and the company has to pay them a pension. Healthy
> >>> people are a serious risk, they could injure themselves quite easily at
> >>> work
> >>> and sue for damages, you dont have any problems like that with sick
> >>> people,
> >>> they are too ****ed to move around much, let alone work, so that rules
> >>> out
> >>> work related injury. The other danger is, there's you with a full cupof
> >>> tea
> >>> in
> >>> your hand, and some healthy bastard who never takes a tea break, mows
> >>> you
> >>> down because you are to slow to react. So you see why Shaw Trust needs
> >>> people like me, companies cannot afford to risk hiring healthy staff.
>
> >>> When you are up against a system like that, you might as well fill the
> >>> forms
> >>> in, well in advance. You are going to need them for a long time to come.
>
> >> Those employers will still hire people. Its harder for disabled to get
> >> a job, but its by no means impossible.
> >> If anything, the disabled and sick get a lot more help to get into
> >> work. Unequal perhaps, but practical.
> >> Healthy staff are preferred but some companies do seem to have quotas
> >> for 'non-healthy' staff.
> >> I've been ill for over 2,000 days continuous now, I've got the lowest
> >> sick record in my workplace for days off sick.
> >> Being ill doesn't mean unable to work.
>
> >> Martin *<><
>
> > What do you mean by "ill" though Martin? It can have subjective meanings.
> > To me it means "ill" as in "ill, not at work". I assume you're using a
> > descriptive term of "having an illness", which is not the same thing.
>
> He is talking about the disabled, there is a vast difference between people
> who are ill and those that are crippled in some way. I knew a bloke who had
> polio as a child, it left him a bit knackered in the leg dept, but he
> recovered from the illness, although he couldnt walk very well, he could get
> about and work with his hands.
>
> This is where Martin and his Shaw Trust cronies are getting confused, they
> are looking at the disabled, and people who are ill, and saying if they can
> work, so can you, which is total bullshit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Many ill people are disabled. Don't have to be missing limbs to be
classed legally as disabled.
And what Shaw Trust cronies? I don't deal with the Shaw Trust.

Martin <><

On 9 Feb, 08:59, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <mart2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:15d57242-6664-4c09-87e6-> -
>
> Show quoted text -
>
> I throw up several times a week, constant headache for almost 7 years,
> nausea, dizziness and walking is hard.
> That sort of ill. Plus the good old fashioned risk of my allergy
> flaring up outside the home, something I always have to be aware of.
> I can sit at home and not work, with low quality of life but fairly
> safe from allergic reaction.
> Or I can get out, do things, go to work, study, do activities, run a
> few businesses - and have a much higher quality of life.
>
> Martin *<><
>
> ++++++++++++++++++
> Once again there is a vast difference between what you are doing, which is
> pleasing yourself, and people who are on benefits being ordered to attend
> boot camp when they are not well enough to work.

But are they well enough to work with help?
Government thinks some are. You say you are not. Doesn't change the
government idea that some are able, with help, to work.

Martin <><

<> wrote in message
news:baaaa4bd-796b-4458-a053-...
On 9 Feb, 08:59, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <mart2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:15d57242-6664-4c09-87e6-> -
>
> Show quoted text -
>
> I throw up several times a week, constant headache for almost 7 years,
> nausea, dizziness and walking is hard.
> That sort of ill. Plus the good old fashioned risk of my allergy
> flaring up outside the home, something I always have to be aware of.
> I can sit at home and not work, with low quality of life but fairly
> safe from allergic reaction.
> Or I can get out, do things, go to work, study, do activities, run a
> few businesses - and have a much higher quality of life.
>
> Martin <><
>
> ++++++++++++++++++
> Once again there is a vast difference between what you are doing, which is
> pleasing yourself, and people who are on benefits being ordered to attend
> boot camp when they are not well enough to work.

But are they well enough to work with help?
Government thinks some are. You say you are not. Doesn't change the
government idea that some are able, with help, to work.

Martin <><

+++++++++++++++++++

You can offer to help. Once you start forcing people to do something they do
not want to do, that is not help. Can you see the difference here? By your
definition, you could say the Germans were helping the Jews.

<> wrote in message
news:6938a446-5ae7-42fa-b129-...
On 9 Feb, 08:50, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Robbie" <ngrobbi...@hotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
>
> news:...
>
>
>
>
>
> > mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On 8 Feb, 22:41, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>> "Robbie" <ngrobbi...@hotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>> David Lloyd George (if you know your history!) used to get his
> >>>> ministers
> >>>> to sign their resignation letters when he appointed them, all he had
> >>>> to
> >>>> do
> >>>> was date them when he wanted to sack them. You seem to do the same
> >>>> thing
> >>>> with GL24's, the DWP and appeal tribunals!
> >>> You can always rely on the boot camp brigade to keep chasing you
> >>> because
> >>> they get paid 200 + a week to put your arse on a chair, to do nothing
> >>> except listen to some idiot telling you about how employers are crying
> >>> out
> >>> to hire people who can potentially be off work sick every other day
> >>> and
> >>> not
> >>> able to much work if they ever manage to get to there in the first
> >>> place, or
> >>> not able to work at all because an old injury or illness keeps playing
> >>> up.
>
> >>> These employers will NOT hire people in perfect health, in case they
> >>> live
> >>> until retirement age and the company has to pay them a pension.
> >>> Healthy
> >>> people are a serious risk, they could injure themselves quite easily
> >>> at
> >>> work
> >>> and sue for damages, you dont have any problems like that with sick
> >>> people,
> >>> they are too ****ed to move around much, let alone work, so that rules
> >>> out
> >>> work related injury. The other danger is, there's you with a full cup
> >>> of
> >>> tea
> >>> in
> >>> your hand, and some healthy bastard who never takes a tea break, mows
> >>> you
> >>> down because you are to slow to react. So you see why Shaw Trust needs
> >>> people like me, companies cannot afford to risk hiring healthy staff.
>
> >>> When you are up against a system like that, you might as well fill the
> >>> forms
> >>> in, well in advance. You are going to need them for a long time to
> >>> come.
>
> >> Those employers will still hire people. Its harder for disabled to get
> >> a job, but its by no means impossible.
> >> If anything, the disabled and sick get a lot more help to get into
> >> work. Unequal perhaps, but practical.
> >> Healthy staff are preferred but some companies do seem to have quotas
> >> for 'non-healthy' staff.
> >> I've been ill for over 2,000 days continuous now, I've got the lowest
> >> sick record in my workplace for days off sick.
> >> Being ill doesn't mean unable to work.
>
> >> Martin <><
>
> > What do you mean by "ill" though Martin? It can have subjective
> > meanings.
> > To me it means "ill" as in "ill, not at work". I assume you're using a
> > descriptive term of "having an illness", which is not the same thing.
>
> He is talking about the disabled, there is a vast difference between
> people
> who are ill and those that are crippled in some way. I knew a bloke who
> had
> polio as a child, it left him a bit knackered in the leg dept, but he
> recovered from the illness, although he couldnt walk very well, he could
> get
> about and work with his hands.
>
> This is where Martin and his Shaw Trust cronies are getting confused, they
> are looking at the disabled, and people who are ill, and saying if they
> can
> work, so can you, which is total bullshit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Many ill people are disabled. Don't have to be missing limbs to be
classed legally as disabled.
And what Shaw Trust cronies? I don't deal with the Shaw Trust.

Martin <><

+++++++++++++++++++++
You admit to being a course provider of some sort, that makes you the same
as them IMO.

On 9 Feb, 11:58, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
<snipped>
> > This is where Martin and his Shaw Trust cronies are getting confused, they
> > are looking at the disabled, and people who are ill, and saying if they
> > can
> > work, so can you, which is total bullshit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Many ill people are disabled. Don't have to be missing limbs to be
> classed legally as disabled.
> And what Shaw Trust cronies? I don't deal with the Shaw Trust.
>
> Martin *<><
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++
> You admit to being a course provider of some sort, that makes you the same
> as them IMO.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh good, so you think my organisation can share the reputation of the
likes of the Shaw Trust.
That, I'll happily accept. Their reputation in helping people is
pretty good. And I know what we have provided has made a difference.
Unlike you, some people want to work, want to have a life.

Martin <><

On 9 Feb, 11:58, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <mart2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:baaaa4bd-796b-4458-a053-...
> On 9 Feb, 08:59, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <mart2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:15d57242-6664-4c09-87e6-> -
>
> > Show quoted text -
>
> > I throw up several times a week, constant headache for almost 7 years,
> > nausea, dizziness and walking is hard.
> > That sort of ill. Plus the good old fashioned risk of my allergy
> > flaring up outside the home, something I always have to be aware of.
> > I can sit at home and not work, with low quality of life but fairly
> > safe from allergic reaction.
> > Or I can get out, do things, go to work, study, do activities, run a
> > few businesses - and have a much higher quality of life.
>
> > Martin <><
>
> > ++++++++++++++++++
> > Once again there is a vast difference between what you are doing, whichis
> > pleasing yourself, and people who are on benefits being ordered to attend
> > boot camp when they are not well enough to work.
>
> But are they well enough to work with help?
> Government thinks some are. You say you are not. Doesn't change the
> government idea that some are able, with help, to work.
>
> Martin *<><
>
> +++++++++++++++++++
>
> You can offer to help. Once you start forcing people to do something theydo
> not want to do, that is not help. Can you see the difference here? By your
> definition, you could say the Germans were helping the Jews.- Hide quotedtext -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So you'd rather people be left alone on benefits regardless of the
cost to the economy?
You are often forced to do something you do not want to do. Leave a
pub or a shop by a particular time, not drive on pavements, wear
clothes while outside, attend school until a certain age and so on


As for the Germans, you do realise that the Jews weren't the only
victims? Everyone concentrates on the single largest group, not the
other groups (and I'll be called a holocaust denier for saying that).
Look at Action T4 (look it up) - you would have been killed.

Martin <><

<> wrote in message
news:ce56fbb8-8e3d-4bdc-8ade-...
On 9 Feb, 11:58, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
<snipped>
> > This is where Martin and his Shaw Trust cronies are getting confused,
> > they
> > are looking at the disabled, and people who are ill, and saying if they
> > can
> > work, so can you, which is total bullshit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Many ill people are disabled. Don't have to be missing limbs to be
> classed legally as disabled.
> And what Shaw Trust cronies? I don't deal with the Shaw Trust.
>
> Martin <><
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++
> You admit to being a course provider of some sort, that makes you the same
> as them IMO.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh good, so you think my organisation can share the reputation of the
likes of the Shaw Trust.
That, I'll happily accept. Their reputation in helping people is
pretty good. And I know what we have provided has made a difference.
Unlike you, some people want to work, want to have a life.

Martin <><

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Delusional as usual I see. You only have so called customers because they
are forced to attend. You would be out on your arse if you had to compete on
the open market. Any **** can do what you do when the government is paying
them for **** all, you are no different to me in that respect, more money,
thats about it. If I went to your office, I couldnt tell you apart from the
rest of the inmates wandering around aimlessly. All you silly bastards do is
fill in forms to get paid for each prisoner that lands in your lap.

<> wrote in message
news:51123138-591d-473d-9767-...
On 9 Feb, 11:58, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <mart2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:baaaa4bd-796b-4458-a053-...
> On 9 Feb, 08:59, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <mart2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:15d57242-6664-4c09-87e6-> -
>
> > Show quoted text -
>
> > I throw up several times a week, constant headache for almost 7 years,
> > nausea, dizziness and walking is hard.
> > That sort of ill. Plus the good old fashioned risk of my allergy
> > flaring up outside the home, something I always have to be aware of.
> > I can sit at home and not work, with low quality of life but fairly
> > safe from allergic reaction.
> > Or I can get out, do things, go to work, study, do activities, run a
> > few businesses - and have a much higher quality of life.
>
> > Martin <><
>
> > ++++++++++++++++++
> > Once again there is a vast difference between what you are doing, which
> > is
> > pleasing yourself, and people who are on benefits being ordered to
> > attend
> > boot camp when they are not well enough to work.
>
> But are they well enough to work with help?
> Government thinks some are. You say you are not. Doesn't change the
> government idea that some are able, with help, to work.
>
> Martin <><
>
> +++++++++++++++++++
>
> You can offer to help. Once you start forcing people to do something they
> do
> not want to do, that is not help. Can you see the difference here? By your
> definition, you could say the Germans were helping the Jews.- Hide quoted
> text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So you'd rather people be left alone on benefits regardless of the
cost to the economy?
You are often forced to do something you do not want to do. Leave a
pub or a shop by a particular time, not drive on pavements, wear
clothes while outside, attend school until a certain age and so on


As for the Germans, you do realise that the Jews weren't the only
victims? Everyone concentrates on the single largest group, not the
other groups (and I'll be called a holocaust denier for saying that).
Look at Action T4 (look it up) - you would have been killed.

Martin <><

++++++++++++++++++++++++
Again you are being delusional, the cost of unemployment to the economy
would be next to nothing if the government stopped wasting billions on
mandatory sham courses. If they paid you lot by results, you would end up on
the dole the same as the rest of us, sham courses would cease to exist. Its
jobs the government needs to create, not ****in scam boot camps for clowns
like you to run.

On 9 Feb, 13:53, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <mart2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ce56fbb8-8e3d-4bdc-8ade-...
> On 9 Feb, 11:58, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <snipped>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > This is where Martin and his Shaw Trust cronies are getting confused,
> > > they
> > > are looking at the disabled, and people who are ill, and saying if they
> > > can
> > > work, so can you, which is total bullshit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Many ill people are disabled. Don't have to be missing limbs to be
> > classed legally as disabled.
> > And what Shaw Trust cronies? I don't deal with the Shaw Trust.
>
> > Martin <><
>
> > +++++++++++++++++++++
> > You admit to being a course provider of some sort, that makes you the same
> > as them IMO.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Oh good, so you think my organisation can share the reputation of the
> likes of the Shaw Trust.
> That, I'll happily accept. Their reputation in helping people is
> pretty good. And I know what we have provided has made a difference.
> Unlike you, some people want to work, want to have a life.
>
> Martin *<><
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Delusional as usual I see. You only have so called customers because they
> are forced to attend. You would be out on your arse if you had to competeon
> the open market. Any **** can do what you do when the government is paying
> them for **** all, you are no different to me in that respect, more money,
> thats about it. If I went to your office, I couldnt tell you apart from the
> rest of the inmates wandering around aimlessly. All you silly bastards dois
> fill in forms to get paid for each prisoner that lands in your lap.- Hidequoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

ROFLOL.
You simply haven't a clue do you?

Thanks for the laugh, best laugh all week.

Martin <><