Jobcentre harrassment

Vejovis

KiKi wrote: »

Your first post: "doesn't your wife have spare glasses in case her contacts break, if her eyes are that bad?" was to do with the OP, so I was continuing along the conversation, despite the fact that what I quoted wasn't in a direct response to the OP. But then I'm sure you knew that.

My reply was perfectly polite, so no need to be so defensive.
KiKi

not being defensive, but the conversation had moved on so there was no need to go backwards with an irrelevant point. the reply you quoted was to a specific post only and nothing else.

tomjonesrules

t0rt0ise wrote: »

I wear glasses and I don't have a spare pair. I also only have one eye and don't have a spare eye. My bad then.

As you only have one eye, surely it is imperative to have a spare pair of glasses to protect/ maintain the sight that you do have?

KiKi

Vejovis wrote: »

not being defensive, but the conversation had moved on so there was no need to go backwards with an irrelevant point. the reply you quoted was to a specific post only and nothing else.

Just because the conversation had moved on, the question you posed to the OP hadn't (and still hasn't) been answered. I was simply pointing out a reason why she may not have glasses, therefore it wasn't irrelevant to the question you originally asked nor, perhaps, the OP.

I would also add that just because you might feel it's irrelevant, it doesn't make it irrelevant to others.

Yes, I only quoted the most recent post in that conversation but I'm sure it was quite clear why I was saying what I did. If it wasn't clear to you, then fair enough. But you seem intelligent enough to have followed that conversation, whether I replied to your first post on that matter or the one that I did.

KiKi

Vejovis

KiKi wrote: »

Just because the conversation had moved on, the question you posed to the OP hadn't (and still hasn't) been answered. I was simply pointing out a reason why she may not have glasses, therefore it wasn't irrelevant to the question you originally asked nor, perhaps, the OP.

I would also add that just because you might feel it's irrelevant, it doesn't make it irrelevant to others.

Yes, I only quoted the most recent post in that conversation but I'm sure it was quite clear why I was saying what I did. If it wasn't clear to you, then fair enough. But you seem intelligent enough to have followed that conversation, whether I replied to your first post on that matter or the one that I did.

KiKi

the op replied almost straight away. therefore any further mention was irrelevant

dark_lady

So claire h if she has to arrange her appointments around the JC then i suppose she should be speaking to the undertaker about changing the time of her aunts funeral and our understaffed overstretched NHS would im sure be only too happy to deal with having to chop and change the hospital appointments of unemployed people to satisfy the whims of JCs and Work programme providers!

KiKi

Vejovis wrote: »

the op replied almost straight away. therefore any further mention was irrelevant

Ah, apologies, I missed that.

KiKi

dark_lady

tremour are you and your wife the ones who did workfare in a pub with the bleach with no gloves or am i mixing you up with someone else.

marywooyeah

WhiteHorse wrote: »

They are required by law to supply the information within 40 days.

See their own website:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/privacy-policy/data-protection/

out of interest, does anyone know what the penalty, if any, there is for not supplying the info in 40 days?

Tremour-88

dark_lady wrote: »

tremour are you and your wife the ones who did workfare in a pub with the bleach with no gloves or am i mixing you up with someone else.

Yup thats us... that was Community Task force with TNG about 6 months ago the Jobcentre just love screwing us about.

I'm hoping to go Self-employed but the jobcentres advice on that was wait untill i'm 25 for Working tax credit (i'm 23 now)

dark_lady

Sorry but i think you and your wife have been treated !!!!ing appallingly. Excuse the swearing.