universal credit sanctions.

lovinituk

mattcanary wrote: »

What is your point then?

It's there in black and white on the first page!! It's not my fault if you don't understand it and would rather make up your own version! Read it all in context with the rest of the thread and it's really not rocket science.

Or continue to bash me for your version of what you think I meant if you like. As I said, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it either way.

mattcanary

lovinituk wrote: »

It's there in black and white on the first page!! It's not my fault if you don't understand it and would rather make up your own version! Read it all in context with the rest of the thread and it's really not rocket science.

Or continue to bash me for your version of what you think I meant if you like. As I said, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it either way.

So you own;t clarify your point then?

Worried about losing your argument?

PS: you accuse me of putitng aspin on your post. What were you dojng to Mac's post that you replied to then?

mattcanary

bloolagoon wrote: »

You do realise that 35 hours a week is part time. If no disabilities or young children why not look for more hours?

What do you classify as full-time ours then - 60 hours, 100 hours per week?

35 hous is 5 full days of seven hours. Fullt-time hours then.

lovinituk

mattcanary wrote: »

So you own;t clarify your point then?

Worried about losing your argument?

No not all. If it's too hard for you and you can't work it out, just stick with your own version. Then you're happy and I really don't care and everything's peachy!

mattcanary

lovinituk wrote: »

No not all. If it's too hard for you and you can't work it out, just stick with your own version. Then you're happy and I really don't care and everything's peachy!

Hmm - more likely you don't want to expan upon your point because you suspect it will be blown to smithereens

lovinituk

mattcanary wrote: »

Hmm - more likely you don't want to expan upon your point because you suspect it will be blown to smithereens

Ok, if that's what makes you happy lets go with that theory. At least it's a new one!

mattcanary

Avoidng answering the point, I see

cattermole

Does no one question why the DWP as a department (not the Government) make things so complicated and all the costs involved in that?

lovinituk

mattcanary wrote: »

Avoidng answering the point, I see

I think it's better that way. I don't want you getting any more excited than you already are. You'll do yourself a mischief! There will be shouts for compensation and think of the children if we're not careful.

mattcanary

lovinituk wrote: »

I think it's better that way. I don't want you getting any more excited than you already are. You'll do yourself a mischief!

Grow up. Answer the pointas requested, butt out or admit you are wrong