Jobcentre Trauma.

[ViolentPanda]

Yes he did say there was an occasional ray of sunshine. I'm so sorry to have overlooked that.
There are always arseholes you have to deal with but I suspect half of JC staff who are difficult to deal with are just worn down by all the abuse.

I used to be terrified to go to the Benefits Agency when I was claiming because there was always fights and threats made on staff.

I am fully aware that giros are now not generally used but they are for emergency payments still I believe and Greebo was posting about an incident when giros were still used and having a go because they wouldn't reissue it.

The agency that enforces the jobsearch rules keeping someone waiting a whole working/jobseeking day doesn't strike you as out of order, especially when you have to provide ID to prove who you are, so that they have recourse to having you nicked if you try to con them?
Most I ever waited for a reissue was 2 hours.

When I was at college and claiming benefits the lads I lived with and their friends used to take it in turns to report their giros stolen so they could get it replaced and get some weed. This is I'm sure partly why they don't use them anymore and also why they couldn't just hand another one out immediately.

And no I wasn't particularly calm because I'm disgusted at some of the responses on this thread.

Giros aren't used any more for the entirely instrumental reason that using electronic transfer saves the paying depts about £400 million PA in fees to National Girobank and Post Office Counters Ltd, nothing to do with trimming fraud by ganjafied students.
As for being "disgusted", fair enough. Do bear in mind that the people you criticise are just as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours, though, and that their opinions are as much founded on their own experiences as your opinions are on your own experiences.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Christ I'm so fucking sorry...

Fibber.

...but what toby and others had written actually really upset me. Magic Sam used to work in a Job Centre and I've got colleagues who are old Benefits Agency staff and they care about their jobs and don't deserve the abuse or the shit attitudes that have been displayed in this thread.

So what you've actually done is taken valid criticisms of the system and of some of the people who staff that system, and personalised them, yes?

Tobyjug-To be brutally frank I have no sympathy for ANYONE who is involved in administering benefits. It is corrupt system now designed to not pay out using the slightest excuse.

That sounds like hate to me.

His first sentence expresses (quite literally) a complete lack of sympathy. The second sentence presents a fairly widespread opinion (among claimants and claimant advocates) that doesn't reflect on the "frontline" staff at all, but on the adjudication officers etc who decide claims, and who, in my own humble opinion and experience, do sometimes act as though their primary motivation is to avoid paying claims.
Doesn't sound like hate, doesn't even read like hate, at least to me.

 

[Looby]

The agency that enforces the jobsearch rules keeping someone waiting a whole working/jobseeking day doesn't strike you as out of order, especially when you have to provide ID to prove who you are, so that they have recourse to having you nicked if you try to con them?
Most I ever waited for a reissue was 2 hours.

Giros aren't used any more for the entirely instrumental reason that using electronic transfer saves the paying depts about £400 million PA in fees to National Girobank and Post Office Counters Ltd, nothing to do with trimming fraud by ganjafied students.
As for being "disgusted", fair enough. Do bear in mind that the people you criticise are just as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours, though, and that their opinions are as much founded on their own experiences as your opinions are on your own experiences.

I do think making him wait a whole day was tight but I've had to do the same. I had to wait 2 days for a crisis loan when I lost my purse but I didn't take out my frustration on the people at the desk and I am still sympathetic to hazyp for her awful experience which the other posters aren't.

A bad experience is not enough reason to be as nasty as they were being and I'm sorry but tobyjug is a professional moaner and whatever the thread is about he's had a bad experience related to it. He's just plain nasty.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

I don't think that any of the posters who've been unsympathetic have said any different.

Well, both greebo and chymaera have said that they would give very little sympathy to anyone receiving abuse working for a JC, ignoring the fact that there are going to be some who are more motivated to help however they can in a fundamentally crap system. Personally I don't think anyone apart from a cunt themselves deserves abuse.

"Hate"? What I've read on this thread is people who've been on the receiving end of the benefits system finding it difficult to sympathise with someone on the delivering end of the benefits system. The only hate in this thread, AFAICS, has come from sparklefish, who appears to be on a berserker kick.

I was thinking about the person who shouted at the OP. I'm sure this man was desperate, and you can feel empathy for him whilst also viewing his actions as wrong. However, some others posters have pretty much said that Hazyp has no right to be upset by this (fairly traumatic) incident because she choses to work for the system. I think that's rather unfair.

I don't have a long career of signing on, but I have done so, and in that time most JC workers seemed to do the bare minimum, some seemed to be sadistic, dehumanising fuckers, but then there were some who seemed to go out their way to help as much as they could in the circumstances, or at least be friendly to you. Admittedly claiming benefits short term as a white fairly well spoken woman is undoubtedly different to what it is like for the more longterm unemployed or people from oppressed groups, but generally, to assume all people who work in JCs are not worthy to be upset by such incidents seems a bit unfair. It's almost telling a psychiatric nurse that they have no right to be shaken after being smacked by a patient because they put themselves in that job, or that a soldier has no right to be upset when he loses a leg because he signed himself up for it. Of course there's an element of sense in both of those, there is a real risk of both things happening. But surely we should still allow people to express their distress when it happens without saying they deserve no sympathy?

 

[Looby]

Well, both greebo and chymaera have said that they would give very little sympathy to anyone receiving abuse working for a JC, ignoring the fact that there are going to be some who are more motivated to help however they can in a fundamentally crap system. Personally I don't think anyone apart from a cunt themselves deserves abuse.


I was thinking about the person who shouted at the OP. I'm sure this man was desperate, and you can feel empathy for him whilst also viewing his actions as wrong. However, some others posters have pretty much said that Hazyp has no right to be upset by this (fairly traumatic) incident because she choses to work for the system. I think that's rather unfair.

I don't have a long career of signing on, but I have done so, and in that time most JC workers seemed to do the bare minimum, some seemed to be sadistic, dehumanising fuckers, but then there were some who seemed to go out their way to help as much as they could in the circumstances, or at least be friendly to you. Admittedly claiming benefits short term as a white fairly well spoken woman is undoubtedly different to what it is like for the more longterm unemployed or people from oppressed groups, but generally, to assume all people who work in JCs are not worthy to be upset by such incidents seems a bit unfair. It's almost telling a psychiatric nurse that they have no right to be shaken after being smacked by a patient because they put themselves in that job.

You've put that much more eloquently than me because I was so angry.

 

[DrRingDing]

It kept a violent cunt off the streets for 6 years. Thats a partial success.

It also promotes that violent side of most personalities.

Locking violent prisoners up in a society based on fear does not solve the problem.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I do think making him wait a whole day was tight but I've had to do the same. I had to wait 2 days for a crisis loan when I lost my purse but I didn't take out my frustration on the people at the desk and I am still sympathetic to hazyp for her awful experience which the other posters aren't.

The two times I applied for a crisis loan (after being mugged, and after having my place robbed) I was turned down as the office had, supposedly, "run out of money".
As for sympathy, my point is that you may be more inclined to take the side of the benefits workers because of your friendships/relationship, just as the experiences that the other posters have had may make them more inclined to be oppositional.

A bad experience is not enough reason to be as nasty as they were being...

So we've gone from "hate" to "being nasty"?

and I'...m sorry but tobyjug is a professional moaner and whatever the thread is about he's had a bad experience related to it. He's just plain nasty.

He's also contributed some fantastic and substantive posts about disability benefits, how to claim them, and how "the system" operates against you.
I don't "like" his manner, but I respect his knowledge in the field of disability benefits.

 

[Looby]

The two times I applied for a crisis loan (after being mugged, and after having my place robbed) I was turned down as the office had, supposedly, "run out of money".
As for sympathy, my point is that you may be more inclined to take the side of the benefits workers because of your friendships/relationship, just as the experiences that the other posters have had may make them more inclined to be oppositional.
QUOTE]

No I would feel the same.

 

[Looby]

So we've gone from "hate" to "being nasty"?

Nitpicker.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well, both greebo and chymaera have said that they would give very little sympathy to anyone receiving abuse working for a JC, ignoring the fact that there are going to be some who are more motivated to help however they can in a fundamentally crap system. Personally I don't think anyone apart from a cunt themselves deserves abuse.

Actually, chymaera stated a complete lack of sympathy, and Greebo stated that they try to sympathise but find it difficult, due to the person's own agency in taking such a job in the first place.
The problem is, of course, that there is little or no incentive for the DWP or JCP to remove those workers whose antics "lower the tone". Often the "cunts" stay while the decent folk burn out and leave.

I was thinking about the person who shouted at the OP. I'm sure this man was desperate, and you can feel empathy for him whilst also viewing his actions as wrong.

I'd find it hard to feel empathy for him as the OP makes plain that this person had previously attempted to use violent intimidatory behaviour outside the workplace. The person's probation officer should have been informed and the probation licence revoked.

However, some others posters have pretty much said that Hazyp has no right to be upset by this (fairly traumatic) incident because she choses to work for the system. I think that's rather unfair.

By "pretty much said", I take it that you mean "you can choose to interpret that other posters have said"?
When it comes down to it, when we take jobs we usually do so knowing what we can expect. I personally wouldn't take a job on the frontline of benefits provision purely because I doubt I''d be able to keep my temper if someone abused me as happened in the OP. We shouldn't have to put up with that sort of thing, but it's an unfortunate fact of life.

I don't have a long career of signing on, but I have done so, and in that time most JC workers seemed to do the bare minimum, some seemed to be sadistic, dehumanising fuckers, but then there were some who seemed to go out their way to help as much as they could in the circumstances, or at least be friendly to you. Admittedly claiming benefits short term as a white fairly well spoken woman is undoubtedly different to what it is like for the more longterm unemployed or people from oppressed groups, but generally, to assume all people who work in JCs are not worthy to be upset by such incidents seems a bit unfair. It's almost telling a psychiatric nurse that they have no right to be shaken after being smacked by a patient because they put themselves in that job, or that a soldier has no right to be upset when he loses a leg because he signed himself up for it. Of course there's an element of sense in both of those, there is a real risk of both things happening. But surely we should still allow people to express their distress when it happens without saying they deserve no sympathy?

Has anyone actually said that besides chymaera? I think not.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The two times I applied for a crisis loan (after being mugged, and after having my place robbed) I was turned down as the office had, supposedly, "run out of money".
As for sympathy, my point is that you may be more inclined to take the side of the benefits workers because of your friendships/relationship, just as the experiences that the other posters have had may make them more inclined to be oppositional.
QUOTE]

No I would feel the same.

Fair enough.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Nitpicker.

Nah, they're nowhere near comparable.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Has anyone actually said that besides chymaera? I think not.

It is my interpretation that is what Greebo said, and I think it's an easy way to interpret his post. It would seem hazyp and sparklefish did likewise. However, if Greebo comes back on and says that they didn't mean that, and that he feels hazyp is entitled to feel shit for her distressing experience, then obviously it's a matter of interpretation and I shall accept that his post was meant in a different way and apologise/retract. Nevertheless, when 3 people interpret a post in one way, then it's likely that there is a common way to interpret it even if that is not how it was meant, which surely is the poster's responsibility for not being totally clear.

As for anyone else on the thread, well, I was only referred to those two so I don't see how that's relevant. There is of course XR75's post, although that's too short to really comment on. Fwiw, I think YouSir's post is balanced, and I appreciate that he/she is able to feel sympathy on both sides, even if it is more weighted on one side than the other.

Frankly, I don't like seeing someone post about a distressing experience and then being told without compassion that it's their own fault for putting themselves in that situation. I understand this blanket statement probably has many caveats, but in the case of somebody who has been intimidated and shouted at, well, even if you're made of sterner stuff surely you can see how that would be really distressing for many people.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It is my interpretation that is what Greebo said, and I think it's an easy way to interpret his post...

"An easy way", I entirely agree.

It would seem hazyp and sparklefish did likewise. However, if Greebo comes back on and says that they didn't mean that, and that he feels hazyp is entitled to feel shit for her distressing experience, then obviously it's a matter of interpretation and I shall accept that his post was meant in a different way and apologise/retract. Nevertheless, when 3 people interpret a post in one way, then it's likely that there is a common way to interpret it even if that is not how it was meant, which surely is the poster's responsibility for not being totally clear.

Hazyp's reaction (post 15) to Greebo's first post makes generalised assumptions about Greebo and XR75 "thinking it's okay to abuse staff", to which Greebo replies, that you makes your bed and has to lie in it; that the job itself entails a certain amount of "making people unhappy"; that they'd rather go on the game than work for the DWP themselves, and that when treated with decency by DWP staff, they've always treated the staff decently in return. Greebo hasn't, anywhere, even implied that "it's okay to abuse staff".
Interpretation indeed.

As for anyone else on the thread, well, I was only referred to those two so I don't see how that's relevant. There is of course XR75's post, although that's too short to really comment on. Fwiw, I think YouSir's post is balanced, and I appreciate that he/she is able to feel sympathy on both sides, even if it is more weighted on one side than the other.

Frankly, I don't like seeing someone post about a distressing experience and then being told without compassion that it's their own fault for putting themselves in that situation. I understand this blanket statement probably has many caveats, but in the case of somebody who has been intimidated and shouted at, well, even if you're made of sterner stuff surely you can see how that would be really distressing for many people.

Of course, but unfortunately such strife comes with the territory. It isn't nice, in fact it's horrible, but it's a "fact of life" of the job.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Hazyp's reaction (post 15) to Greebo's first post makes generalised assumptions about Greebo and XR75 "thinking it's okay to abuse staff", to which Greebo replies, that you makes your bed and has to lie in it; that the job itself entails a certain amount of "making people unhappy"; that they'd rather go on the game than work for the DWP themselves, and that when treated with decency by DWP staff, they've always treated the staff decently in return. Greebo hasn't, anywhere, even implied that "it's okay to abuse staff".
Interpretation indeed.

Tbf I think that by saying "I have little sympathy" you are not exactly condemning the abuse, and you're hardly acknowledging people's real reactions to it. It may be a surprise to some, but people who work for the JC are people too. Well, some of them.

If you can find the bit where they condemn such abusive behaviour, aside from just "not being worth it", that would be good.

Of course, but unfortunately such strife comes with the territory. It isn't nice, in fact it's horrible, but it's a "fact of life" of the job.

So what's wrong with trying to be more empathetic, e.g. "that's shit that you feel bad and it's a distressing experience I can see. However, if you consider x, y and z, then unfortunately it's something that comes with the job". If you don't feel like that, why post on a thread where someone is obviously distressed? There are plenty of threads to make points on - plenty in the everyday life of urban. I certainly don't post on certain threads where I think my (equally valid but not so emotionally charged at the time) opinion will distress someone who at that point in time, is in a worse emotional place to me.

I've been shouted at in jobs before by men much bigger than me. It's intimidating and scary. If I posted on here and got told that I shouldn't complain because I went in for a line of work where there's a risk it would happen, I wouldn't be too chuffed either! As I said, yes there is a basis of truth to people in certain jobs being at risk, and there's no harm pointing that out with sympathy or compassion to balance it. But when it's just "I have little sympathy", really, was it worth it on this particular thread?

 

[1927]

This is an example of the evil which comes from a society revolving around money, and totally forgetting that humans are people. In this case, jobcentre staff are doing their best within the strict and very restricting varying limitations they have to abide by. Also, the gentleman (possibly he is ill, rather than just extemely angry, or at the end of his tether, given the extreme nature of his aggression)

So long as we put money before people, sadly, this is what will happen.

Good idea. lets do away with the benefit system full stop, then he'd have to get his arse together and earn a living instead of thinking the state owed him a living.

 

[chymaera]

That sounds like hate to me.

It isn't hate, it is purely down to experience. I thought my own treatment was a one off, until I have tried to help other people who were in the serious poo with their lives, and got just the same crap from people who administer benefits no matter how dire people's situation was.

 

[Looby]

It isn't hate, it is purely down to experience. I thought my own treatment was a one off, until I have tried to help other people who were in the serious poo with their lives, and got just the same crap from people who administer benefits no matter how dire people's situation was.

It doesn't excuse your attitude towards hazyp.

 

[chymaera]

It doesn't excuse your attitude towards hazyp.

I have had 17 years of crap from people who administer benefit, if my attitude is bad it is for a reason.

 

[Looby]

I have had 17 years of crap from people who administer benefit, if my attitude is bad it is for a reason.

No fucking excuse. Your a grown man, bloody act like one. Hazyp was justifiably upset about what had happened and you try and make her feel shit for doing her job.
I wonder if you have so much trouble and difficulty getting stuff sorted because you're as much of a prick in real life.

 

[hazyp]

Ouch!! Now I will take critism of the system, and I know there are a LOT of things wrong with it, and yes, I'd love to change it, but when I get attacked for the having 4 children and doing my job, then no, I bloody well wont take it, especially when you dont know me or my situation, and you Greebo states that I had them when I cant afford to look after them.

For your information Greebo, not that I have to give it to you, but I will...I was left on my own with four children...I was working part time in the evenings when my husband left...and instead of relying on the state to look after me, I got off my arse and got myself a daytime job with flexi hours...and God knows, there are'nt many of them...and I supported them myself...and the Jobcentre hours mean that I can work full time now they are at school during term times, and part time during the school holidays...and also pay for after school child care...

Somehow, my beliefs and my feelings for the system did'nt come into account...my children came first...food on the table and all that.

But, I do EVERYTHING in my power to get problems sorted out, I dont just sign the unemployed, I deal with problem cases, where people havent had their money, and I get 99% of the people I deal with their money within 4 hours...

In fact, I try to help the homeless and the alcholics and the drug dependent, people with the most dreadful problems before the others, because I feel they need my help more than the more able people...and I have even got myself into some problems from other staff who dont agree with me doing that..one told me I was making a legacy for myself, but I dont care...and I feel that if I left for another job, be it more money for me, I worry that these people would not have anyone who feels the way I do.

Go on then Greebo....give it your best shot now....but no matter how nasty you are to me...if you came to the place I work tomorrow, and you needed my help, then I'd do everything I could to help you....and not because its my job...its because I care.

 

[hazyp]

From Hazyp

.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Tbf I think that by saying "I have little sympathy" you are not exactly condemning the abuse, and you're hardly acknowledging people's real reactions to it. It may be a surprise to some, but people who work for the JC are people too. Well, some of them.

If you can find the bit where they condemn such abusive behaviour, aside from just "not being worth it", that would be good.

So what this boils down to is that if people don't make concrete statements of support, if they're even vaguely cynical. then you feel within your rights to castigate them?

Because that's what it looks like, that's the interpretation I'm making.

So what's wrong with trying to be more empathetic, e.g. "that's shit that you feel bad and it's a distressing experience I can see. However, if you consider x, y and z, then unfortunately it's something that comes with the job". If you don't feel like that, why post on a thread where someone is obviously distressed? There are plenty of threads to make points on - plenty in the everyday life of urban. I certainly don't post on certain threads where I think my (equally valid but not so emotionally charged at the time) opinion will distress someone who at that point in time, is in a worse emotional place to me.

Posting on a thread several days after the OP usually means that the OP has had time to "get over" the immediate trauma of the event.

I've been shouted at in jobs before by men much bigger than me. It's intimidating and scary. If I posted on here and got told that I shouldn't complain because I went in for a line of work where there's a risk it would happen, I wouldn't be too chuffed either! As I said, yes there is a basis of truth to people in certain jobs being at risk, and there's no harm pointing that out with sympathy or compassion to balance it. But when it's just "I have little sympathy", really, was it worth it on this particular thread?

I don't know, I'm not Greebo. What I am is someone who thinks that it's always worth examining all sides of an issue, and acknowledging that, insofar as opinions are often based on personal experience, they're equally valid.
To somehow assume that;
a) You shouldn't contribute to a thread unless your contribution is "fluffy"
and
b) that if the OP is willing to post a personal anecdote, that they should have the right to expect only supportive posts
strikes me as odd and perverse.

Oh and I just love how many assumptions you're making, Sparrow. Shame on you!

 

[Looby]

Ouch!! Now I will take critism of the system, and I know there are a LOT of things wrong with it, and yes, I'd love to change it, but when I get attacked for the having 4 children and doing my job, then no, I bloody well wont take it, especially when you dont know me or my situation, and you Greebo states that I had them when I cant afford to look after them.

For your information Greebo, not that I have to give it to you, but I will...I was left on my own with four children...I was working part time in the evenings when my husband left...and instead of relying on the state to look after me, I got off my arse and got myself a daytime job with flexi hours...and God knows, there are'nt many of them...and I supported them myself...and the Jobcentre hours mean that I can work full time now they are at school during term times, and part time during the school holidays...and also pay for after school child care...

Somehow, my beliefs and my feelings for the system did'nt come into account...my children came first...food on the table and all that.

But, I do EVERYTHING in my power to get problems sorted out, I dont just sign the unemployed, I deal with problem cases, where people havent had their money, and I get 99% of the people I deal with their money within 4 hours...

In fact, I try to help the homeless and the alcholics and the drug dependent, people with the most dreadful problems before the others, because I feel they need my help more than the more able people...and I have even got myself into some problems from other staff who dont agree with me doing that..one told me I was making a legacy for myself, but I dont care...and I feel that if I left for another job, be it more money for me, I worry that these people would not have anyone who feels the way I do.

Go on then Greebo....give it your best shot now....but no matter how nasty you are to me...if you came to the place I work tomorrow, and you needed my help, then I'd do everything I could to help you....and not because its my job...its because I care.

The customers at your office are very lucky to have you.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

So what this boils down to is that if people don't make concrete statements of support, if they're even vaguely cynical. then you feel within your rights to castigate them?

Depends on the thread tbh. Yes, I personally think on a thread like this where there has been a traumatic incident and the person is upset, people should at least exercise some tact. It doesn't mean that they can't have an opposing opinion, just that it should be balanced with tact.

Posting on a thread several days after the OP usually means that the OP has had time to "get over" the immediate trauma of the event.

I think hazyp's reaction suggests that the comments were not appreciated.

I don't know, I'm not Greebo. What I am is someone who thinks that it's always worth examining all sides of an issue, and acknowledging that, insofar as opinions are often based on personal experience, they're equally valid.
To somehow assume that;
a) You shouldn't contribute to a thread unless your contribution is "fluffy"
and
b) that if the OP is willing to post a personal anecdote, that they should have the right to expect only supportive posts
strikes me as odd and perverse.

I'm not saying you shouldn't contribute to a thread unless it's "fluffy". I am saying that you perhaps should give some time to consider how your opinion comes across when the OP is obviously upset, and then ask yourself, is it really necessary that I post that in that way? Personally I wish people would consider other people's feelings a lot more in all areas of life, if for example it happened at the job centre a lot more some people wouldn't be as pissed as they obviously are, but unfortunately I realise that's not going to fucking happen.

Anyway, beyond that, what has happened here?

One person says "I was verbally abused at work, I am upset"
Some other people either say "I have no sympathy because of your job" or "I have little sympathy because of your job", without finding out exactly how hazyp goes about her job (from what she's written above, she sounds like she does the best she can, and as she says, it's probably better to have caring staff there rather than just uncaring ones).

That could just be representative of it being a inherent risk of the job. It could also be representative of people automatically dismissing her upset because she works in a role which they have had bad experiences of. Now, if there is something of the second going on, then isn't that prejudice? Admittedly perhaps more understandable prejudice than some, but prejudice none the less.

I notice that you haven't disagreed that there has been no condemnation for that man's actions from certain posters.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Just for the record, if it's a normal debate, then IMPO I think it can be no holds barred (well, personally I wish people would criticise the post rather than the poster but lets not get into that now)

If the thread starts off by someone saying "I have had a shit experience" then yes, I don't think it harms to treat the thread in a slightly different way. That's not saying people can't post opposing opinions, just that they should be more aware of how they come across (and if you really have "no sympathy", is it so essential if you post that right then?). I realise that certainly not everyone feels this way, but I know I'm also not alone in that.

So, if somebody feels it's an opportunity to dismiss somebody's experience on the basis of their own, then that is their right. If I feel that it's a bit unnecessary in the circumstances, then it is my right to say that. And if you think that I don't have a point, then it's your right to say that. And the great circle of urban continues.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Amen to that!

BTW, why do you assume Greebo is a bloke?

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Amen to that!

BTW, why do you assume Greebo is a bloke?

I was actually being careful earlier to make no assumptions and to write "they" or "he/she", just re-read my posts and seen one paragraph where I called them a he, which tbh is probably more due to me speed typing than anything else and the fact that (yes shoot me) it can be an easy trap to subconsciously assume people on the boards are male unless they have an obviously female name. I know it's quite common - enough people have done it to me! So all I can do is apologise for that, and say it's not a sign of any insidious misandry.

Incidentally, what is the gender make-up of the boards?

I think this is also getting the point of having to agree to disagree, I seem to have partially used this thread as an excuse to do not work today ( ) and now feel very made of fail.

 

[chymaera]

I wonder if you have so much trouble and difficulty getting stuff sorted because you're as much of a prick in real life.

So it is OK to be very anti the police because of personal experience, but not OK to be anti people involved with administering benefits after a long catalogue of bad experience.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

So it is OK to be very anti the police because of personal experience, but not OK to be anti people involved with administering benefits after a long catalogue of bad experience.

If you want to hear my opinion (well, you don't have a choice cos I'm going to write it!)

It's OK to hate the institutions for shitty treatment and to argue to them to be better
It's understandable to fall into the trap of applying that negativity to all employees, but if you do so, it is, ultimately, prejudiced
That doesn't mean that a lot of employees within that service don't deserve your negative judgment
It also doesn't mean that if an employee of that service is subjected to a verbal attack, that they are necessarily deserving of it

That applies to JC staff, the police, and various groups of people IMO. I'm sure you could find some groups which I'd find more difficult to view in this way though. IMO, human beings by their nature find it easy to slip into prejudice because it helps us make sense of a complex world. We just have to keep an eye out for it.

Edit: you could always argue that by joining an organisation you are taking on it's values, and thus worthy of criticism and dislike by default. However, I refer back to what I said earlier, isn't it better for there to be "good 'uns" working in the flawed organisation than for it just to consist of "bad 'uns"?