Ranting job applicant with law degree on Sky TV now. She is claiming that she has being applying for 16-17 jobs per day from her base in Luton.
Given the opportunity of a nationwide broadcast of her predicament on a news channel, I would have thought she would have made some effort to sound employable. Instead she comes across as the kind of person no one would want to share an office with.
Had she got the tone right and made people sympathise with her she would now be receiving tens of job offers.
These 'long term unemployed' are going to very hard to place in work.
I applied for six jobs starting after I graduate in law and they took me days each. At least a day, if I'd really knuckled down (although I accept they may have had longer application processes than hers). 16-17 jobs per day is an astounding number, it really is. It would take me longer than that to write as much as a covering letter for each one, even if they were CV+covering letter.
If you write one out in a fair amount of detail and then basically cut and paste it for the rest you could probably put 16 a day out without two much trouble. You probably wouldn't get hired that way (but then she hasn't been...), but you could certainly boost your output.
"She is claiming that she has being applying for 16-17 jobs per day from her base in Luton."
So she is only spending between 30 mins and an hour on each one...Maybe if she took longer filling in the application forms....or maybe she is just bulls##ting! I know which of the two I believe.
She also apparently has a law degree - how she can claim to have applied unsuccessfully for several thousand jobs is beyond me - my local BP garage would pay her about £8ph right now for the night shift.
"As someone who has lurked here regularly since about three months before the last election, but with little time to get involved, could I just say what a delight this site has been in recent days without the presence of the poster known as Tim"
If you have been lurking for three years and your first post is to criticize a long time poster then I suggest you go back to lurking.
There are enough glove puppets and trolls without another one.
Incidentally, if you want to get rid of Ad's (Mike probably won't think much to me posting this, because no doubt the ad's are paying for PB) Download this;
That way you can visit whatever website's you want without Google following your every movement through Cookie's served by their ad's.
You will also find page down load times become much quicker because your not waiting for ad's to appear.
It's also much safter to have something like this if you visit a lot of, er, "dodgy" website's, because it's usually through ad's on dodgy website's that you pick up malware, trojens and other nasty viruses
I installed this for my mother when she got a lap-top last year and she was stuggling to navigate her way around web pages - With the ad's gone you get far more "white space" which is good for anybody not computer savvy.
Anyway, I was surprised how much quicker pages downloaded with the ad's gone, so I installed it on my own computer and have never looked back.
Ranting job applicant with law degree on Sky TV now. She is claiming that she has being applying for 16-17 jobs per day from her base in Luton.
Given the opportunity of a nationwide broadcast of her predicament on a news channel, I would have thought she would have made some effort to sound employable. Instead she comes across as the kind of person no one would want to share an office with.
Had she got the tone right and made people sympathise with her she would now be receiving tens of job offers.
These 'long term unemployed' are going to very hard to place in work.
I applied for six jobs starting after I graduate in law and they took me days each. At least a day, if I'd really knuckled down (although I accept they may have had longer application processes than hers). 16-17 jobs per day is an astounding number, it really is. It would take me longer than that to write as much as a covering letter for each one, even if they were CV+covering letter.
If you write one out in a fair amount of detail and then basically cut and paste it for the rest you could probably put 16 a day out without two much trouble. You probably wouldn't get hired that way (but then she hasn't been...), but you could certainly boost your output.
I'm sure I could boost your output Random! Surely at some point which at 16 or 17 a day must surely come quickly, you realise your approach to job seeking isn't working?
I wonder if she gets interviews (presumably not many because it would take up too much time).
"I wonder if she gets interviews (presumably not many because it would take up too much time)."
She hasn't got time for interviews...she is too busy filling in application forms....
Why do these people just come on and talk utter nonsense.
If she came on and said something rational and believable like,
"I have been spent the past 2 years applying on a consistent basis for jobs, both related to my degree and more widely. I have applied for several hundred positions and unfortunately haven't been able to secure full time employment."
You never know who might have been watching.
Instead what firm wants to take on somebody who is either a bit of a stranger to the truth or completely slap-dash with applications?
If you're going to tell a fib make it a big one has met its match here
RT @Mancman10: Lady on #skynews says been out of work for 2yrs,applies for 20 jobs a day&says tory party stigmatising her #cpc13
So that over 7000 jobs then. Liar liar pants on fire!
To be fair, let's say 5,000 (250 working days x 20). But still unlikely.
She could have applied to almost every law firm of any size in the UK so far at that rate. And the legal depts of every major employer...
I can't think they are law firms she's applying to. If you apply to do a training contract (to go on to be a solicitor) it's about 10 pages of forms for each. Same old stuff, mostly (certainly would be by the 50th application!) but it takes time to physically enter it.
As someone who has lurked here regularly since about three months before the last election, but with little time to get involved, could I just say what a delight this site has been in recent days without the presence of the poster known as Tim. The last I saw, he was challenged to come up with a truly meaningful post for his 10,000th post but either it was of such stupendous moment that it got him instantly banned or he finally realised that he never could produce anything of the required quality and probably never had done so. The result is as if the sun has come out from behind the clouds and this site is immeasurably improved by his absence. I had come to think of Tim and his unhealthy obsessions with horses, Osborne, Cameron, etc as being "The One True FOP", FOP, of course, being an acronym for Frantically Obsessive Poster, though I'm sure others may have their own versions as to what at least the first two letters might stand for. Here's praying for more Tim-free days. Keep up the good work!
Incidentally, if you want to get rid of Ad's (Mike probably won't think much to me posting this, because no doubt the ad's are paying for PB) Download this;
That way you can visit whatever website's you want without Google following your every movement through Cookie's served by their ad's.
You will also find page down load times become much quicker because your not waiting for ad's to appear.
I installed this for my mother when she got a lap-top last year and she was stuggling to navigate her way around web pages - With the ad's gone you get far more "white space" which is good for anybody not computer savvy.
Anyway, I was surprised how much quicker pages downloaded with the ad's gone, so I installed it on my own computer and have never looked back.
It's also much safter to have something like this if you visit a lot of, er, "dodgy" website's, because it's usually through ad's that you pick up malware, trojens and other nasty viruses.
I run a couple of websites for fun, and get a small amount of pin money from running ads on them. My websites are genuine, and people seem to find them useful. I don't charge, or even have a donate button. That's my choice, because they're not a professional effort - it isn't my main job.
Please don't use adblockers. If people have gone to the bother of creating useful content, at least reward them for that effort. And ads are often an unobtrusive way of doing exactly that.
I was just making the observation that her claim to have applied for so many jobs if they were associated with her degree was absurd - and that she could get dozens of jobs in other sectors even using the monkeys typing Hamlet notion at that rate.
Even with a serious chip on one's shoulder - it's an amazing miss rate that I've never seen even with convicts.
If you're going to tell a fib make it a big one has met its match here
RT @Mancman10: Lady on #skynews says been out of work for 2yrs,applies for 20 jobs a day&says tory party stigmatising her #cpc13
So that over 7000 jobs then. Liar liar pants on fire!
To be fair, let's say 5,000 (250 working days x 20). But still unlikely.
She could have applied to almost every law firm of any size in the UK so far at that rate. And the legal depts of every major employer...
I can't think they are law firms she's applying to. If you apply to do a training contract (to go on to be a solicitor) it's about 10 pages of forms for each. Same old stuff, mostly (certainly would be by the 50th application!) but it takes time to physically enter it.
I was just making the observation that her claim to have applied for so many jobs if they were associated with her degree was absurd - and that she could get dozens of jobs in other sectors even using the monkeys typing Hamlet notion at that rate.
Even with a serious chip on one's shoulder - it's an amazing miss rate that I've never seen even with convicts.
If you're going to tell a fib make it a big one has met its match here
RT @Mancman10: Lady on #skynews says been out of work for 2yrs,applies for 20 jobs a day&says tory party stigmatising her #cpc13
So that over 7000 jobs then. Liar liar pants on fire!
To be fair, let's say 5,000 (250 working days x 20). But still unlikely.
She could have applied to almost every law firm of any size in the UK so far at that rate. And the legal depts of every major employer...
I can't think they are law firms she's applying to. If you apply to do a training contract (to go on to be a solicitor) it's about 10 pages of forms for each. Same old stuff, mostly (certainly would be by the 50th application!) but it takes time to physically enter it.
I'm sure the truth is unexciting. Probably fewer applications, probably including speculatively emailing your CV to someone, for any type of job, with little result.
Osborne has laid down a humdinger of a challenge to Balls (and to the LibDems), by pledging to run a budget surplus. Will Balls now match this pledge?
As political traps go this is quite a goody, but more importantly it is of course absolutely what needs to be done. Once we get through the long slog of actually getting rid of the huge deficit, we're going to need to start getting the absolute level of debt down as well (the alternative strategy, of letting it inflate away, is I think not practical given the starting level, which is unprecedented in peacetime).
It's hard to follow the logic there, Life, probably because it is flawed in so many places.
The simple fact is however that if the USA wants to get its gun-murder rates to the kind of levels which most free and prosperous countries consider normal, it will have to tighten its gun control laws.
In fact it probably wouldn't have to tighten them much in order to attain a substantial drop from the 7,000 or so it currently suffers. The figure is so absurdly high on any sensible international comparison that you'd have to think that a few common-sense measures - banning assault weapons for example - would make an immediate and significant impact.
I doubt it would ever get down to UK levels under any circumstances, but the failure of its legislators to attempt even modest improvements does in a very real sense amount to a slaughter of the innocents.
You can call who and what you like. I meant what I wrote and wrote what I meant.
It may be useful in some circumstances to distinguish between gun-murder and gun-homicide but in the context of a difference between about 7,000 cases per year in the USA and 30 or so in the UK, it is hairsplitting.
Are you seriously suggesting that a significant proportion of the 7,000 or so US cases are down to some form of justifiable self-defence? Pull the other one.
The most obvious explanation is the different gun control laws. Anybody trying to persuade people otherwise is probably a rogue, or a fool, and likely both.
Comments
Warned you Dimi! Heretic!!!
https://adblockplus.org/en/firefox
That way you can visit whatever website's you want without Google following your every movement through Cookie's served by their ad's.
You will also find page down load times become much quicker because your not waiting for ad's to appear.
It's also much safter to have something like this if you visit a lot of, er, "dodgy" website's, because it's usually through ad's on dodgy website's that you pick up malware, trojens and other nasty viruses
I installed this for my mother when she got a lap-top last year and she was stuggling to navigate her way around web pages - With the ad's gone you get far more "white space" which is good for anybody not computer savvy.
Anyway, I was surprised how much quicker pages downloaded with the ad's gone, so I installed it on my own computer and have never looked back.
Bill Cash: 'I've never regarded Ukip as fruitcakes and loonies'. The olive branch of friendship is extended... #cpc13
Not needing to extend that far from Mr. Christmas Cake Cash.
I'm sure I could boost your output Random! Surely at some point which at 16 or 17 a day must surely come quickly, you realise your approach to job seeking isn't working?
I wonder if she gets interviews (presumably not many because it would take up too much time).
She hasn't got time for interviews...she is too busy filling in application forms....
Why do these people just come on and talk utter nonsense.
If she came on and said something rational and believable like,
"I have been spent the past 2 years applying on a consistent basis for jobs, both related to my degree and more widely. I have applied for several hundred positions and unfortunately haven't been able to secure full time employment."
You never know who might have been watching.
Instead what firm wants to take on somebody who is either a bit of a stranger to the truth or completely slap-dash with applications?
Игнорировать Роджером. Он старый дурак.
Но Тим вернется домой. Хорошая вещь.
Please don't use adblockers. If people have gone to the bother of creating useful content, at least reward them for that effort. And ads are often an unobtrusive way of doing exactly that.
Even with a serious chip on one's shoulder - it's an amazing miss rate that I've never seen even with convicts.
(what the hell – kitchen appliances and gadgets – it’s my only vice. Cough! )
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1
Farage biffs Bill Cash: 'you are a hopelessly out of date, tribal politician'
As political traps go this is quite a goody, but more importantly it is of course absolutely what needs to be done. Once we get through the long slog of actually getting rid of the huge deficit, we're going to need to start getting the absolute level of debt down as well (the alternative strategy, of letting it inflate away, is I think not practical given the starting level, which is unprecedented in peacetime).
To get the debt down in absolute £££s, he would need to run a surplus greater than interests payments.
Anyhow, I pledge to work towards having a body like the guy on the front cover of Men's health, but not until 2020 mind.
It's hard to follow the logic there, Life, probably because it is flawed in so many places.
The simple fact is however that if the USA wants to get its gun-murder rates to the kind of levels which most free and prosperous countries consider normal, it will have to tighten its gun control laws.
In fact it probably wouldn't have to tighten them much in order to attain a substantial drop from the 7,000 or so it currently suffers. The figure is so absurdly high on any sensible international comparison that you'd have to think that a few common-sense measures - banning assault weapons for example - would make an immediate and significant impact.
I doubt it would ever get down to UK levels under any circumstances, but the failure of its legislators to attempt even modest improvements does in a very real sense amount to a slaughter of the innocents.
You can call who and what you like. I meant what I wrote and wrote what I meant.
It may be useful in some circumstances to distinguish between gun-murder and gun-homicide but in the context of a difference between about 7,000 cases per year in the USA and 30 or so in the UK, it is hairsplitting.
Are you seriously suggesting that a significant proportion of the 7,000 or so US cases are down to some form of justifiable self-defence? Pull the other one.
The most obvious explanation is the different gun control laws. Anybody trying to persuade people otherwise is probably a rogue, or a fool, and likely both.