Bad experience with job

[floppybootstomp]

lol grow up.

Ya try and help somebody.....

And I am growed up, I'm a big boy now

[togoodtobetrue]

I am very grateful for every single reply to this thread even the one's i disagree with. It's not my intention to just plain offend anyone i feel everything i have typed has a valid point to it, that's all.

[togoodtobetrue]

Ya try and help somebody.....

And I am growed up, I'm a big boy now

Good now chill out, sit back maybe smoke a spliff ;-)

[Blitzen]

There is absolutely no chance not even for the world that you would ever even consider committing any type of criminal act whatsoever even if your life depended on it. And if someone eats food then you could never even consider letting them work at your fruit shop because the fact that they clearly show they have an addiction to eating makes them a liability and their is a high risk that they will eat everything in your shop.

You clearly have a chip on your shoulder, no one said they expect employers to be social workers
Like what does that even mean anyway, not only should we not give crims a job but they also need social workers now ? just about everything you have said on this thread makes very little sense.
Your ignorant im glad you wouldn't employ me because of my record because your mentality would annoy me and i would leave anyway.

What is this almighty good that you do for the world anyway, as you seem to think your better than everyone else.

Listen to youself will you:
1. Criminal acts vary, i agree. This is your thread though and my comment was clearly at the kind of crime you committed. If you werre the boss of a company would you employ yourself???? I seriously doubt it.
2. I dont think for one second i am better than anyone else, and you are the only person ever to accuse me of that. However, i DO NOT grow drugs to sell to people.
3. To call me ignorant because i stated i wouldnt employ you is your opinion. Once again, if ignorance is telling you the truth that you have made yourself unemployable then i can live with that.
4. I am not the one fishing for sympathy because i was caught growing drugs to sell.
5. Glad i wont employ you??? You wouldnt even get past the interview with your 'everyone is picking on me attitude'.
This 'CHIP' you seem to think i have on my shoulder is all in your mind. (too many drugs maybe)
You came here asking why you cannot get employed and i stated the facts. If you dont like the answer then dont ask the question.


You argument for the fruit shop and fat bloke just goes to show how out of touch you are with the reasons no-one will employ you. You are getting yourself confused with your won argument (or lack of).
The reason being you are convicted of a drug offense and by YOUR OWN admission had a view to sell it aswell. Therefore, ESPECIALLY because you the view to sell your drugs (if you hadn't already started), i am quite comfortable with the fact you are struggling.
MANY people struggle for years with very little but they dont resort to your tactics and THEY are the ones that deserve the break!

None of things you question me of being (ignorant, chip on shoulder, better than anyone else), are stopping you getting a job.

This thread is now going nowhere fast as you cant seem to grasp what people have said in response to your opening post.
Give me ONE good reason why anone should give you a break because so far, your argument si not convincing.
Before you continue to whine about your self inflicted predicament remember that just making an effort doesnt cut it.
You took an easy option and got caught. I bet if you hadnt you would still be flogging your gear in some grubby little pub now.

[togoodtobetrue]

:shakes head:

[TheAnimus]

You have to accept its something that really works against you, most good jobs, are oversubscribed, and with more great politics from the guys in red, its only going to get MUCH worse for people who want jobs.

So they have to dismiss a lot of people based on their CV alone. ANYTHING negative, will mean you go onto the bad pile. I found that having only 5 GCSEs excluded me from all the graduate schemes i applied for, these where running to almost 500 candidates to every 1 place. Guess what? I do the same thing now when sifting through CVs, by saying you must have all As at a-level, and Oxbridge degree, i save myself a LOT of time.

Now, this is something you have to accept, i'm not some neo-conservative who just thinks drugs are bad mmmkay. But after seeing how something like weed ruined a friend of mine, it became her way of coming to terms with daddy doesn't love me. Anyone who tries to justify helping her in destroying her life, because they where short of cash. Very bad sign of judgement. Why should i REFUSE other candidates, for someone who has proved themselfs to make judgements i disagree with. Yes they might of turned over a new leaf, but why turn down the other candidates for them?

As such you've got to really prove your the best candidate for the job, that your far above average for the job your applying for. Not an easy task, just have to keep applying.

[Blitzen]

Thankyou Animus. Good post

What is this almighty good that you do for the world anyway, as you seem to think your better than everyone else.

I dont do 'almighty good' and haven't claimed to............. but i have worked hard legally to look after my family like the vast majority of others here have i'll bet.

:shakes head:

Exactly what i have been doing as you trot out your hard luck story.

Maybe you do deserve a second chance to prove yourself. You may well be a top bloke and very employable.
Thing is, you will need to find an employer that is ready to literally take a punt on you. With getting on for 2 million unemployed, and many people going for the same job, you aren't going to stand out (in a good way).
In this economic climate and the 'im a victim' tactic which you have used so badly in this thread it just reinforces the fact.

[jamin]

togoodtobetrue. This is a sensitive and important issue to you, and we have done our best to offer advice and have spent time discussiing your situation. Take the time to re-read the posts that seem to have upset you as nothing derogatory is aimed your way.

And do remember that you aren't going to like all the advice and opinions offered when you post a personal issue to an audience of 45,000 people on a public internet forum. And when you start chucking insults at members of this forum, who have spent their own time offering advice you are just out of order mate. Goodbye.

[Blitzen]

More like 45,000

[togoodtobetrue]

Unbelievable

[Robscure]

I think, for me at least, and some other people, with the way things are going, the only way to get a job is to get a criminal record... Get arrested, get sent to prison, and cook prison food for £0.01 an hour.

lol joking of course, but it's tough

[Saracen]

Saracen.
You have inadvertently hit the nail right on the head with this statement.

If someone had felt under enough pressure to commit a criminal act, then that is precisely the reason i dont want them working for me.
In this case, they are immediately a liability and at a higher risk of disturbing the operation of the business.

I think we all agree that most people (though not all imho), deserve a second chance. Umfortunately for some that need this 'break', they often think that employers are somehow social workers or a charity organisation.

It wasn't inadvertent, Blitzen. It's perspective, and what the point being addressed was about.

From the point of view if the person that committed a given offence, why they did it will be important and probably relevant to whether they'll do it again. And, having committed one offence, once, having made one mistake doesn't mean they're evil or will necessarily do so again. Which was the specific perspective I was remarking on.

But .... as I said earlier, many employers won't care why it was committed, just that it was. I said earlier that the friend I discussed with with a few months ago remarked that he wasn't an arm of social services or some kind of rehabilitation facility. He runs a business. And, I've also said that for many employers, the aversion to employing people with a record is sheer pragmatism. It isn't that they think anyone with a record is irredeemably evil, it's just that it's clear evidence of a risk factor and it's a risk they just don't have to take.

I'd guess (though you may say I'm wrong) that, as an employer, that's how you'd see it. I'd guess you wouldn't be interested in why someone did something that ended them up with a record - merely that they did. It might indicate that they're more likely to do it again, but if you've got two potential employees and one has a record and the other doesn't, the absence of the record doesn't necessarily indicate that that person is either more honest or less likely to commit an offence or be unreliable. But it does certainly suggest it.

Either way, it's a value judgement. And, of course, it isn't just about criminal records. The person with the record might be reformed and highly reliable. The person without might be unreliable, a hypochondriac that's be off sick at the drop of a hat, or an awkward and abrasive personality that'll tear your smooth-working existing team to shreds .... but at least they haven't got a record.

Which is why I said any new employee is a gamble. No matter how good they look on paper, unless you know them or have strong personal recommendations, it's a bit of a pig in a poke. And it's therefore a judgement call as to how you weigh the record against other factors. But a lot of the time, the record will be the quickest and easiest way to whittle a long list of applicants down to a shortlist. It's pragmatic, and what a lot of employers will do.

[Saracen]

I'm not an expert but I heard about someone who was charged with assault for gently pushing their stepdaughter out of the doorway, and the police told him that even touching someone with a fingertip can be classified as assault.

Technically, assault doesn't even require that fingertip touch. It's the credible and immediate fear of (illegal) violence. If they actually touched you, it'd be assault and battery.

Suppose you're standing at the bar and someone smashed a glass and waves it under your nose, screaming that they're going to carve your face off. It'd be assault even if they never touched you (though harder to prove).

But suppose they're standing one side of a wide river, with no bridge for miles and they threaten you with that glass .... is that "credible"? Would you have the same level of fear, or indeed, any?

In practical terms, though, it's hard to think of circumstances where a normal fingertip touch (i.e. ignoring things like sexual assault) might actually lead to assault charges being brought, even if technically, it was.



To put it in official language

An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.

The bold emphasis is mine. But note, nothing in there requires force, illegal or otherwise, to be used, merely "apprehended".

Going on a stage, ....

A battery is committed when a person intentionally and recklessly applies unlawful force to another.

Hence, combining the two, "assault and battery".

And, depending on the extent of any injuries inflicted, it might then escalate to ABH, GBH, wounding, etc.

[Will404]

in fairness to togoodtobetrue, wasnt there that thing about almost half of the cabinent (MPs) owning up to having taken illegial drugs in their lives

[Robscure]

Technically, assault doesn't even require that fingertip touch. It's the credible and immediate fear of (illegal) violence. If they actually touched you, it'd be assault and battery.

Suppose you're standing at the bar and someone smashed a glass and waves it under your nose, screaming that they're going to carve your face off. It'd be assault even if they never touched you (though harder to prove).

But suppose they're standing one side of a wide river, with no bridge for miles and they threaten you with that glass .... is that "credible"? Would you have the same level of fear, or indeed, any?

In practical terms, though, it's hard to think of circumstances where a normal fingertip touch (i.e. ignoring things like sexual assault) might actually lead to assault charges being brought, even if technically, it was.



To put it in official language


The bold emphasis is mine. But note, nothing in there requires force, illegal or otherwise, to be used, merely "apprehended".

Going on a stage, ....



Hence, combining the two, "assault and battery".

And, depending on the extent of any injuries inflicted, it might then escalate to ABH, GBH, wounding, etc.

Thanks, I was sure of that, but didn't feel like looking it up.