JobcentrePlus now STOP you getting jobs

I had pretty appalling service at the Jobcentre this morning.

I would elaborate but I think a complaint letter says it better, so I'll share that with you.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to inform you of my dismay at the "help" and "service" I have received from the Jobcentre and it's staff.

I was made redundant in January 2009 and have struggled to find work ever since. I have managed to find a number of temporary jobs through agencies that were either unsuitable or never really long term. I have also had a number of interviews which I have been unsuccessful in.

It was with great reluctance that I signed up to receive unemployment benefit because of the automatic negative impact it has on my own self worth, but I did it simply because I could not afford not to while I was unemployed. There is a wide range of criteria that I as a jobseeker have to agree to fulfil, such as agreeing to do at least 3 things to look for a job inbetween signing dates. I do that at least every hour of every day. I have to prove that I am looking for work. I do that, too.

I was however under the impression that I would also receive a great level of support to get back into work. Not only have I had no help whatsoever from yourselves but today I have realised that you actively stop people going for a job.

In my 15 months plus since I was made redundant I have managed to find one suitable position through the Jobcentre that has actually replied to me. The position was in London but, I thought after checking it out, the position is within walking distance of where some of my family live and have agreed to let me live there rent free for a couple of months. So, imagine my delight when they rung me back within hours of my application on Wednesday 28th April to say if I could get down to London for Friday 30th April they would interview me. It was an agency who were dealing with the application but they said it would basically be just to fill in the paperwork and then they could send me to interview. I was hesitant because I didn't think I would be able to, so I said I doubted that I would due to time constraints.

However I then remembered a comment made in a Back to Work group session I had last Thursday where I was reminded of the Travel to Work scheme, anything out of area that could be proven and I would be able to get my travel costs paid for.

Last year I did have a couple of interviews where I used this scheme but unfortunately I was successful. My troubles didn't end there because I was given conflicting advice from Jobcentre advisors who told me I could claim retrospectively and then said I couldn't, so I was left out of pocket until I was eventually refunded. I was however told that it would be "too cheeky" to ask for the cost of a Travelcard in London to be refunded.

I was then told twice in March that I couldn't recover costs for travelling to an interview because it was retrospective, regardless of the fact that my travelling was so short notice I would not have been able to do so anyway.

Anyway, I thought, however short notice if I went in on Thursday 29th April it would still be in advance and I would be able to claim the costs. I rung the agency who said if I could do that then they would put me forward for the interview, and I said that I would let them know as soon as I knew. So, though I was due to sign in the afternoon, I went first thing so that I would have maximum time to travel and prepare for the interview.

Before I had even given the details of the job the advisor (name removed) tried to put me off. After being asked when the interview was, I said, "tomorrow" (Friday) and then she said "what time?". Obviously I didn't know the exact time and said I had the details if she wanted to contact the agency. She then said "you know you would have to go and collect the travel voucher today" to which I responded was fine, because I would be going into town anyway to get the train.

She then said that two day travel vouchers don't get warranted. Obviously I am not sure if this is true or not but if it is, it is a bit unreasonable to expect someone to get up at 4am to get the earliest train from (location removed) to London at 5:30am and allow time for the inner city commute to (inner city location removed) if they wanted to see me at 9am, and even that would be an incredible rush.

Moreover, the fact that a two day return cost £60.00 and the cheapest one day return costs £165.00 (with the cheapest two single tickets coming to £130) doesn't even make that cost efficient.

Still, she then said how would I expect to stay down there. I said I had relatives within walking distance and I wouldn't need or apply for any overnight costs. She then said she would ring the agency, she did, and seemingly interrupted the person she was speaking to after receiving confirmation that I would need to go into the agency prior to the interview. She hung up the phone and then told me I can't claim costs for an agency. I told her that I had been informed that was merely a formality and that the interview for the job would be tomorrow, she said no, it was just to sign up for the agency and the travel to interview scheme doesn't cover that. She then said that obviously the agency just wanted me to register and wouldn't put me through to an interview immediately because "they would have to run the background checks" on me first and wait for those.

I was confused, as you would reasonably expect, having not only been the recipient of seemingly inaccurate information from the agency but also repeatingly conflicting, contradictory advice from the advisor who kept telling me different reasons for why she wouldn't permit me the travel costs before then going onto ring the agency anyway.

After a short while actually rationalising everything I had been told, I rung the agency back. I thought that I should find out if what the advisor said was true and it was just to sign up for the agency, with the feeling that if there really was still an interview available I might just lend yet more money and end up owing even more just in the mere hope that I could get a job.

I was surprised to learn that yes, I would have been put forward for an interview immediately and that registering was just a formality due to the short notice of it. There would be no need for background checks, and I wouldn't just have been travelling to merely sign up with the agency. Unfortunately though due to what they had heard from the jobcentre advisor they had already put forward someone else for the role anyway, so I couldn't apply for this position unless I was willing to travel down anyway and be on standby incase that person didn't get the job.

Obviously I knew there was no chance of getting help for that and I couldn't personally justify spending another £75 (including travelcards to get back etc) but I was disgusted to realise that I had been lied to, and probably repeatedly lied to, by someone who had immediately given me the impression anyway that she was in no mood to help me get a job, someone whose responsibility it is to actually help people get into work.

Of course I am aware of my responsibility to find work. It's a responsibility to myself first and foremost, because I have bills and payments that I simply can't afford to get out of. I'm aware of the consequences of failing to assume my responsibility, that my "benefit" may be stopped.

What are the consequences, though, for someone who has actively stopped me applying for a job that I would have been quite likely to get considering there were only 2 applicants and I was over qualified for it anyway? Will she be responsible for paying my phone bill? Will she be able to pay the £7,000 I am contractually obligated to pay for my wedding in August? Will she cover the interest payments I have to pay as a result?

Are there any consequences or ramifications at all for someone who lies to someone who desperately needs a job to stop them even applying for it? That it was a job actually advertised BY the jobcentre makes least sense of all!!

I have grown accustomed to the non-help of the Jobcentre. The staff are not really helpful or particularly intelligent themselves, the job points and websites mainly run agency jobs which apparently are excluded from help by the Jobcentre or else advertise the same job about 50 times, clogging up the engine and making you feel like you're applying for many different roles when you're not. I never thought I would actually see the day, though, when someone who is employed explicitly to help people as much as they can so they have the best chance of employment actively refuses to help an unemployed person who is willing to jump through all of the many hoops and ridiculous policies JUST for a chance, and when asked why, lies to their face.

Thanks for nothing,

Best man?

If you've read my other entries, or you know me, you'll know I'm getting married this year.

Along with all the other issues a wedding brings, the fact we're getting married abroad has obviously created its own obstacles. It's been a push but most of the people we want to be there are going.

I do have a bit of a problem though. I've never been married before so I don't actually know if this is a common thing, but I have a "best man" problem.

I chose two best men; and before I even get into it, that they even intimated they would be willing to go abroad to do the job made me feel great. So I guess a little bit of this will seem like, I don't know.. I don't actually know the word for it, so apologies for the lack of structure.

The first best man is my brother; obvious choice really. We have been close all our lives even if the last 4 or 5 years he's really wanted to spend less and less time with me. I understand, no-one really wants to hang out with their older brother. I had hoped asking him to be best man would spark some life into that, but it hasn't, and that's fair enough, but at the end of the day he's my brother and he has to be best man. I'm not saying that begrudgingly; he's always going to be first choice.

The second is my mate; really, a mutual mate of my brother and I, we all grew up together and it's just one of those situations I suppose where one of the three acts like you're all still close, I mean, I call him my mate, this is someone I've been out with 4 times in the last year, since I asked him to be best man. We even invited his partner, who we've met a grand total of two times. She said she wasn't going and then changed her mind after they recently went abroad (we weren't invited, of course) and has now decided she wants to come.

He never answers his phone when I try to ring him; to the extent I stopped trying. He might call once every two months; he did last month and was annoyed with me when I told him we'd booked our flights (he didn't pick up his phone when tried to ring him and tell him we were doing it). I think it's probably fair to say that after the wedding he'd never ever contact me again anyway unless his relationship breaks up; he's basically very secretive about his life, doesn't really act like a mate, and when he is in a relationship, I'm essentially non-existent to him. I actually don't know anything about him now. Regardless of all this, I know that I can't "un ask" him. He hasn't booked yet. The flight prices are rising every week. I tried to call; he didn't answer. It's not my responsibility to make him book or make him aware.

If the truth be told, I'm devestated that the two people I chose as best men, the two people I considered closest to me, don't actually really want to know me at all, and that it took asking them to be best men to realise that.

I can't make people like me or want to spend time with me, and I learned a long time ago that you can only really rely on yourself. If someone doesn't bother with you, don't bother with them. I'm comfortable with that, because I know there are people who do want to spend time with me. The bind I find myself in is that I can't "un ask" so what do I do? Even if he does manage to book and go to the wedding, the fact he'll just go there for the reason he is in a position of importance and then never bother talking to me? Do I really want that as a memory of what's supposed to be the best day of my life?

I'm completely at a loss. What would you do?

St. George's Day. And I've never felt less proud to be British.

St. George's Day. A day to be proud to be English.

Proud to be part of a country that launched a British jobs for British workers campaign; and gave over 80% to foreign workers, a trend that continued when tens of thousands of people were hit by redundancy and have been unable to find work since. Supported by a private sector jobcentre that exists seemingly only to try and catch people out and not physically or actively do anything to help people back into work. Underpinned by one of the campaigning political party's proposal to pay migrants upto £50,000 if they find work outside of the UK to help stem the population boom, but won't dedicate that sort of money to British citizens who actually want to emigrate but can't because they don't have money.

A country that has become obsessed with political correctness and what is morally right or wrong to the extent where anybody with an opinion to challenge it gets labelled a bigot against whatever affinity the opinion concerns. This isn't encouraging tolerance; it's force feeding it and breeding contempt. Still, a nation that now confuses national pride with racism, from those that believe in it to those that don't.

A country with a media system that can't decide whether it's working class or middle class and preys like vultures on every soul thrust into the public spotlight, whether they wanted to be there or not. They love you then they hate you or, worse still, make you a figure of public ridicule. Some sign up for the merry go round, some get forced on it. One thing's for sure, the ride is never pleasant. Nobody gets off without paying the price.

Celebrities and high profile sporting figures abusing their position and financial power to humiliate and ruin the lifes of the ordinary man or woman.

TV chat shows under the fraudulent guise of "support" drag out the dregs of council estates in a bearbaiting exercise that still bizarrely make them feel like they're stars in scumville; the middle class sneer at what Britain has become because the poor people are taking advantage of the freebies that are being handed to them and rolling round like pigs in muck. There's no middle ground, no room to despair at the actions of either side, because that places you in the grey area that simply doesn't exist anymore.

A police force that is inherently corrupt and is by and large more cowardly than the public it pretends to protect. A general public that is more likely to run off with your dropped bag of shopping than pick it up for you. A lack of respect for the elderly; a lack of respect for the youth; where once the 20-35 year old white male was perceived king, he must now be denounced forever more. Where teenagers breed to increase their own income to feed their drug habits; where speaking out about crime is more likely to see you killed or beaten than the perpretators punished.

A land where a man cannot protect his own home.

A land where people who were born here and been alive longer than their accusers are told to go back where they came from.

A country where families can live in fear of unprovoked, repeated attacks because they happen to share a postcode with subhuman morons.

A country that still tries to desperately believe that being English stands for anything good anymore.

I want to escape being English. But the country won't let me.

Inconveniencing others

So, last year I went to Orlando with the missus, my brother and his girlfriend. Set aside a day for shopping and did just that. Having saved up like a stallion before we left, we splurged quite a bit.

Not showing off there, I'm painting the picture of having more than just a few bags. Fortunately for us the bus to pick us up was right outside where we went shopping and would drop us right at our hotel. Happy days. Hmm, not quite. The bus obviously had to make a few stops but we figured, even with rush hour, it's a 20 minute ride tops.

Did not account for what would happen when the bus arrived at Aquatica (the new-ish water park by Seaworld). OK, some people are going to get on here. But what's this, it's a bloke in a wheelchair?? An elderly bloke in a wheelchair, what I presume was his daughter and two chubby kids. Ok, the bus has disabled access. It may take a while here because the disabled access is right in the middle of the bus. Luckily for us we get a driver who is clearly unfamiliar with the very concept of using the functions to activate the disability lift and so on. Very, very unfamiliar. The whole process of the driver trying to work it out took 20 minutes. Meanwhile, the kids are eating family size bags of Funyuns. I'm wondering where they're going that could justify such a palaver. They eventually get on board and ready to go after 45, painstaking, laborious minutes.

Am I sounding like too much of a grouch here? No empathy for the disabled? Well, that might be the case. But I'm pretty sure that the woman (who seemed to be in charge of this little operation) goes around with only one aim, to inconvenience as many people as possible. It took an hour and a half of being sat on that bus to complete a short journey. The bus fare was $1.25, so times that by 3 for the guy in the wheelchair and one of the kids who was above child age, makes it about $4.75. Add the cost of a big bag of Funyuns for the lazy kid, probably about $6.

To top it off, they got off the stop before the one we were due to get off at (yes, it really is true), in an immature strop I decided to get off and walk the remaining 300 yards instead of waiting another 20 minutes. Found out price of a taxi from our hotel (approximately where they got off) to Sea World. About $5.

They paid a dollar more and made a bus journey 4 times as long as it would have been for us because they were so thoughtless. I almost felt like getting off the bus when the driver was pottering about at the start and offering to pay for a taxi before I realised that money wasn't the issue (well, taking the huge bag of Funyuns into the cost, and I don't know how important they were). It wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact they could have been driven by a cab to the door of their hotel for the same price and at much less convenience to not only us but themselves as well! Instead, they chose to get off at a random stop not even near a hotel to fully well and truly annoy those who just wanted to get from A to B without any fuss.

Any doubts I would have had regarding their desire to disrupt people were well and truly forgotten when we were sat in a fast food restaurant grabbing a quick bite when who should walk and roll in but the inconvenience family. And get this. Rather than just park the bloke up at a table, they rolled him through the small queuing area that was railed off. Fun for them while they deliberated what form of chicken they wanted. And boy, did they deliberate. Not fun, however for the people stood behind who clearly just wanted to order but were unable to do to the insurmountable obstacle in front of them, both physically and in the realms of political correctness. The wheelchair was a weapon.

Still, wasn't our problem then.

Ideas for topics to rant about, or if you just want my opinion on a subject, emails to yolkietalkie@yahoo.com

"I saw the Devil" .. er, no you didn't

The freedom of blogging is something of a double edged sword. On one hand, the freedom to write about anything, and cast your opinion, on the other, the knowledge that making yourself look a bit silly or going a bit too far with your opinion will ruin any reputation you want to build up as a credible blogger.

Most people acknowledge that political correctness has gone a bit mad, but you still have to toe the party line, as it were, perhaps be a little inhibited in your own opinion. Nobody in their right mind deliberately sets out to offend someone; but you still have to mind your P's and Q's when venturing into casting your own view in a topical hotbed.

Race, sexuality, religion, three taboo subjects where you dare not venture in fear of being cast racist, homophobic or.. well.. opening one hell of a can of worms when it comes to religion. However, there does come that time where you allow yourself and your own beliefs to be offended purely by listening to someone elses, and feel unable to respond in fear of offending them.

I'm not religious; I admire those that are, because they can find an inner strength they never knew they had or a faith, even if they do attribute it somewhat unfairly to a higher being. It really can strengthen people. Personally, I like to think I'm open minded on the subject. I do think it's a fine line, because the definition of a singular religion generally means you follow that chosen God and denounce all others (before I get an overwhelming response to this, I know it's flippant, but it's not what I want to focus on so I'm just making a general point to steer where I need to get to).

I watched one of those lifestyle programmes the other night; you know the ones. Banged up Abroad, My Close Call with Death, When Animals Go Wrong, etc, the one I watched was about a guy who had entered into a coma and recovered, and said that during his coma, he came "face to face with the devil" and had some kind of conversation with him. It's not an uncommon tale, is it? People have a close call with death and have a vision.

People's belief of the afterlife, if any, is directly linked to their religious belief. If you are a Christian, you're going to Heaven, etc. I can appreciate the need to believe in something and as said, I am fairly open minded about the possibility that there is a greater being.

But, if someone is going to tell me in all seriousness that they came "face to face" with the "devil" and had a life changing experience because of it and expect me to believe them? No, sorry. But you can't say no without offending their religious belief can you? You can't say that during the coma their body was in the hospital room the entire time and CCTV will prove it. That the person was unconcious and they had a dream, no matter how real it felt at the time. I totally believe the extensive scientific research that has concluded that near death experiences trigger some kind of life assessment, the whole "life flashing before your eyes" thing. The white light theory as the body shuts down makes sense. What doesn't make sense is having a dream about something that isn't even proven to exist, something you physically have never seen, and then waking up, trying to convince someone and then being offended on account of your belief when they don't believe you.

My rationale was this; if I moved to a desert island with the missus and had two lovely kids, told them nothing was to happen after they die apart from rotting in the ground (sorry for the bluntness) but there was a Superman in the Sky who would rescue them if they were very good and they could start their life from whatever point they wanted, that's what they would be conditioned to believe. It stands to reason that their near death experience may be coming face to face with Superman. It's not a watertight theory; granted. But it's as close to an equivalent as I could twist into being ridiculous.

If I said that I had a dream last night that I won the lottery; I wouldn't be able to go into a bank and withdraw the money. I would be laughed out or, more likely, escorted by the police. The explanation of the dream wouldn't really stand up in court.

I'm all for respecting people's beliefs; but surely we are allowed a right of reply when our intelligence is being insulted?

Yolkie Talkie 6 : Icons : Sweep

It's cool to be retro. I'm unsure how cool it is to continue loving something from it's original spell in the limelight, in the dark years when it is considered ridiculous to like it, and then enjoy the resurgence in popularity. It does allow you to become somewhat of a specialised snob, like you are somehow more in tune with it and it makes you a "better fan".

80's cartoons and kids shows have long been making a fightback; as the internet puts us back in touch with those forgotten days. Rainbow, Transformers, Centurions.

Old theme tunes, Raggy Dolls, Raggy Dolls, just like you and me. Mr Rossi, what you want? Who you gonna be today, Huxley Pig?

I love the way that I was completely sold on "He Man" and how obvious it is now that it was just a huge marketing ploy to sell the toys by Mattel; in much the same way as comically put across in the Simpsons time and again.

Nothing however comes close to the legend that is Sweep - the dog from the Sooty Show. I'll make no bones about it (see what I did), I love Sweep, and I can watch episodes now and laugh at them as an adult. I'm not sure if that's what was intended at the time; perhaps I'm fundamentally immature to a fault. If you aren't familiar with Sweeps work, videos are to follow, but for a brief description he was something of a birdbrain (or sausagebrain) companion to the famous yellow bear "Sooty" and through generally being stupid would end up in all kinds of situations. And, he couldn't bark. He just squeaks. I'm unsure just why this is funny, it just is.

I find inflection and intonation in speech to be some of the funniest things (if you understand what I mean, hello, kindred spirit) so the difference in intonation in Sweeps squeaks is a joy to behold on its own. Again, that's if you're as painfully immature as I am.

I won't share my complete tale of love and complicated relationship with Sweep; suffice to say I have had my very own Sweep for knocking on 15 years and he travels everywhere with me, though I stop short of having him in my bed at night time.

Just check out this clip of him "singing" (though the funniest part for me is when he's 'snoring'..)




Or, just enjoy some of Sweep's "Squeakiest moments"



What's your favourite childhood icon? After Sweep, obviously?

If you have any ideas for topics or news that you would like me to blog on, please email at yolkietalkie@yahoo.com

Turn your back on package holidays and save a fortune

What are the benefits of a package holiday?

You know everything is taken care of inside of that bubble; everything is covered. Some people are willing to pay for the convenience and fair play to them. Chances are though if you've clicked onto this you're probably wanting to know how to save as much money as you can.

Without wishing to sound like I'm bagging on package holidays the massive negative is that when something goes tits up, you have only one place to contact, and more likely than not they'll fob you off or whatever course of action will be at best delayed if forthcoming at all. The issue here is that you have already paid the travel agency your money and they are essentially a third party. We don't need to go too deep into detail for this, needless to say that the travel agency and more often than not the accomodation will (quite rightly) be more inclined to protect their own interests rather than yours. I know this because I had a temporary job at an online travel agents and when I was essentially told to lie to the customers to fob them off (ie. advise them their problem would be sorted within 48 hours if they got off the phone), obviously as a person with some decency I couldn't do that to other people even to earn money for myself.

Personally, other than the inconvenience (if you can call it that) of spending more time and doing it all yourself, I see no drawback with assembling the holiday yourself. As long as you are organised and intelligent enough to spot a good deal or a trend then you can't lose.

I'll give you my recent experience - one that I have had many times over in the past since I decided that I would use my own ways and means. I booked my holiday abroad and my mother is planning to go to the same place at the same time. She had been told by her bank that they had a deal with a travel agency where she might benefit from a discount of upto 55%.

That of course was total tosh and I went with her to see what they said - I appreciate that workers for travel agencies have a living to earn but I think they do themselves no favours by thinking everyone that comes into their shop / store is a total moron who will lap up anything that is said to them. The lady we were sat speaking to had the audacity to try and say a hotel my mother requested firstly didn't exist (I stayed there last year and have just booked again this year) and then after flight prices came up said she was "just waiting for the system to add tax". The worst thing was these are such pointless lies and as I said they don't do themselves any favours. Then when the final price got presented and it looked astronomical she said "fuel prices" were the reason.

First of all; I don't want me or my family to be entrusting upwards of a thousand pounds to someone who is so clearly stupid, second of all, I don't want to entrust that kind of money to someone who thinks I am too.

I'm convinced that nearly every holiday that you get a price for from a travel agency can be found cheaper - I don't have the time or energy to go through every possible destination here but what I will do is pick one of the most popular destinations (and one that I have direct experience with, so you know I am being straight up). The first thing you need to think of, is in the mind of the travel agent. Wherever they are making money is where you can be saving money.

If we go along on the proviso that you have been given a price by the agency and you want to manually check it out - first of all you'll have the main features of your holiday which will be the flight and the accomodation. The internet really is your friend here; the time I would have real concerns was if an agency recommended a flight or accomodation that you would not be able to find information out via a quick google search.

The biggest cons that agencies try and sting customers with is firstly the airfare which, when all else fails, they ambiguosly attribute to "taxes", and then my personal favourite, room occupancy - for people travelling as a pair agencies will always try and sting some money out of you for this when in actual fact hotels simply just charge for the room.

From the searches you should easily be able to find the prices direct from the business or service that the travel agency is using for you and compare them to the prices you were given. 99 times out of a hundred the prices you find will be significantly cheaper in total; you then have the choice of booking direct with the accomodation and flight company or taking the information you have back to the travel agents and challenging them.

The other thing you should do is google search hotels in the area you want to stay - for example, I googled "hotels on international drive" and after some searching found a map of the I-Ride trolley schedule - what a handy guide, with an itemised by number list of every hotel and where they are situated. Travel agencies obviously have working relationships with hotels and that means you're getting the best prices from their selected hotels, not the best prices in the area, and it really is worth checking to find out. Also, go to the trouble of checking out Trip Advisor to see if your hotel has been reviewed. If you have got a hotel at a good price and are concerned about the quality go and check there - even if you are put off by the reviews, there's no need to worry. If you contact the hotel yourself prior to your stay outlining your concerns you generally find the service will be improved as they are eager to please. I have done this and got little extras such as a fridge in the room when I stayed in Orlando, as well as a preferred view, which isn't always guaranteed. I would advise always being friendly and dismissive of the possibility things could go wrong as you trust the hotel, if only because it will make a good first impression and that of course is never a bad thing.

If you are going to deconstruct a package holiday to pass the savings onto your wallet you should always remember that those package holidays have several components. To ensure your holiday is complete you can just remember "FIAT" - Flights, Insurance, Accomodation, Transfers. Most travel agencies will deal with each component individually anyway so if you have problems finding a taxi firm or shuttle / transfer from airport to hotel and vice versa you can always use the travel agency for one of their recommended companies even if it's just to get the name.

You also get the added benefit of knowing if you do encounter a problem you're going direct to the source and not an agency rep who with the greatest of respect you can't trust will do what you want - the response will be quicker; you have full responsibility for explaining your issue and knowing that they are dealing with a customer, companies feel obliged to act sooner. Again, helps to do this as friendly as possible.

All this may be nothing new for seasoned internet connoisseurs but there are still a remarkably high number of people who are willing to go full whack and pay a travel agent money that is far better in your pocket. At least by applying this method you're going to know the best price and go in with your eyes open, able to challenge the fictional taxes that get added on.

There are a few websites that will help you - bearing in mind all you really need is google and the area you want to stay in, ie. "hotels in costa brava" - you should always check out what the moneysupermarket and moneysavingexpert websites too.

http://www.cheapflights.co.uk or http://www.cheapflights.com will, as you might have guessed, give you a list of the cheapest air fares from a range of companies. It really is worth the hassle; assembling yourself a DIY holiday in this fashion can shave more than just a few quid off the price. In percentage terms you're talking anywhere upto 50%, in my experience.

I would go into more detail but this is when we delve into the realm of specifics and this was meant as a general guide. If you do have any questions feel free to drop me a comment.

Any topics in general that you would like to know my opinion on, email me at yolkietalkie@yahoo.com

Reality TV has gone too far. It did ages ago.

Urgh. Few things I dislike more than these shows. "Britain's Got Talent" is back on the ITV screens tonight.

Let's not kid ourselves with the pretending that reality TV is anything new. Right back to quiz shows in the 70s, probably even beyond that, right back to the kids shouting "hi mum" on the news, people have been trying to get their 5 minutes of fame. The recent wave of reality TV though has the ability to shock, entertain, disgust and put off probably simultaneously.

I won't pretend I don't watch some - I do. How can you avoid it? After hating the way Big Brother used to mean I could watch evening telly during the summers, I tried to make a concious effort to avoid all reality tv, and it worked for a while. Maybe I just mellowed or maybe the schadenfreude just gets the better of me, but I do watch some these days and find myself laughing. Coach Trip (or as I've renamed it, the Big Gay Coach Trip given it's ridiculously high proportion of gay contestants) on Channel 4 has become a favourite just to see how long it takes your conservative types to snap under the overbearing power of the camp brigade and how bitchy they can all get when voting each other off.

Pop Idol or X Factor as it's now known used to be funny and can be entertaining in the audition stages, until you get to grips with the knowledge that exposing deluded.. well.. idiots (sorry, couldn't think of a better term) to this kind of environment is probably not the right step for their emotional development. You may feel sorry for the chubby girl who isn't much to look at and can't sing; the way she's put across by the producers is in such a way that they want you to laugh at her and her completely unrealistic dream. You'll be in uproar when the girls parents race in having a go at the judges who shoot her down.

Who's really to blame here? The judges are there to give their opinion. The general complaint against them is "what do they know?". Who cares what they know, you do - that's what you signed up for, remember. Their opinion. The producers are in it to make money. They do make money, otherwise the programs wouldn't keep coming. The parents shouldn't expose their children to this. I don't think it's particularly great to see adults go through it either, but if they're old enough and stupid enough to put themselves through it, that's a different kettle of fish.

But if the youngsters are not good enough or considered pretty enough then that's one thing. The judges generally consider these individuals as blights. "Why are they here?" is the general expression, on their faces if not from their mouths. The sympathy only comes when it's a cute kid.

Britain's got Talent, for me, took this to a new low, but the public still lap it up. No matter how you put a kid through it, it's a lose lose scenario. I had to do some research for this next bit, so apologies if anything is inaccurate (blame Wikipedia). There are two major reasons I hate the show. (Apologies in advance, I'm not going to find all the links, but you can hop on to Youtube and just type in the basics and you'll get there)

A few years ago, in it's first run, a little girl called Connie sung "Over the Rainbow" and melted the UK's hearts. She'd obviously been pushed into this by her parents so now her dream was to sing in front of Simon Cowell. What an adorable little girl - eventually she was put through to the final where she was "up against" rotund operatic singer Paul Potts. The nature of these finals is such that announcing the winner means standing both contestants side by side - Potts celebrated his victory like he had scored the winner in the World Cup Final. He may as well have got her favourite toy and crapped on it in front of her face. He was clearly thoroughly proud of the fact he beat an infant child, an infant little girl in a televised talent contest.

How can you build up a childs dreams like that? And then have a grown man rub it in her face that he won. A child is unable to comprehend this kind of scenario. An adult would struggle! On one of the other series there was a child called Hollie who cried and stopped when in the middle of singing in a live televised performance. The hosts carted her off, initially not allowing her to sing again because of advertising constraints. How do you explain that concept to a child? They allowed her back later, I'm not sure even that was the right move. She didn't win the competition, so basically she went through all that for nothing. Brilliant.

What's the best case scenario for these child reality stars? The precedent is a dangerous one. James Harries was a boy who appeared on the Terry Wogan show with an incredible knowledge of antiques. His exposure lead to incredible bullying, subsequent depression and an eventual sex change. After becoming Lauren; she has made a number of bizarre television appearances where, to be kind, you would reasonably have concerns for her mental wellbeing. Television is the worst because people are making money from it; I'm not the greatest fan of child pageants in any format either because even though they appear great fun, someone still has to lose. They say everyone's a winner; the losing kids don't see it that way no matter how much you might try and cheer them up.

It's not just children who suffer. I am able to draw a very relevant example from my own experience. There is a guy who was on X Factor a few years ago and made an absolute fool of himself, thinking he was a rapper - I didn't know him personally but he lived locally and we quickly knew of him. He appeared on the auditions, was laughed at and voted out, but by God did he milk that 5 minutes of fame. And, some would say, fair play to him. My brother had two encounters with him - once, in a pub, where he was telling two girls (wearing sunglasses, indoors, in winter) that he was going places, and to stick with him, baby. Not completely silly given the delusions his TV appearance may have given him cause to believe in but when you think of him, it is. The second time my brother saw him was at a barbers - he tried to cut in front of my brother in the waiting queue, because he had an important business meeting. My brother told him where to go, and everyone he has told since has laughed about it, but think if you will of this guy - little intelligence, no talent in the industry he wants to make it in and now probably of the opinion that his TV appearance MUST mean he has SOME talent. My own experience of being in his company was when, about a year ago, he door knocked and very unconvincingly tried to charm me into donating to the RSPCA.

That's my opinion on talent shows. But as I said, I hate reality shows in general. Writing this has re-inforced all of my earlier opinions; I'm more convinced than ever I only watch Coach Trip on the odd occasions I do just to see the what happens when a dozen people in incredibly close proximity blow up. The very best reason for why it's bad can be traced to a programme I watched in the US two years ago; it was run over here for a while I seem to remember but never to such devestating effect as what "Moment of Truth" contestant Lauren Cleri ruined her marraige in the quest for fame and fortune.

The show (if my loose knowledge is to be believed) essentially is based around asking a contestant questions through a lie detector polygraph and then asking them again on air to marry the results. If the contestant is shown to be lying to the polygraph then they don't win, simple. Of course, the questions asked are intended to embarrass the contestant, but never had I seen the likes of this show before. Cleri brazenly confessed that she preferred her ex, would have preferred to marry him and felt that she married the wrong man. All of this with the ex and her husband right there. Beyond the unreliability of such machines in the first place, the fact that she admitted to all of the above and then "failed" to win any money when she answered "do you think you're a good person" with "yes" and the polygraph said "no" basically shows more than anything the risks someone will personally go to in their quest to enrich their lives and how selfish they really are. It was jaw dropping at the time to watch it but can you really take any satisfaction from someone elses heartbreaking? The husband did to his great credit take it with immense dignity and as the victim in the show will no doubt have come out the other end far better off - a dishonest partner kicked into touch and a bevvy of beauties after him, considering he was a handsome bloke.

Regardless of this; I still disagree with the concept of reality TV. There are very few good luck stories, and those that are generally have to endure a great hardship to get there. It's here to stay in whatever format it appears next; and people will continue to watch it as long as it is force fed to them.

But, don't people have a responsibility and duty to realise that theirs and their childrens lives is precious, that a talent that should be shared will almost always be recognised, and that the only winners from reality shows, ultimately, are "fat cats in Leicester Square lining their already bulging wallets"?

Topics as always to yolkietalkie@yahoo.com

Why stealing flowers can be no laughing matter

I think I'm abusing my first day blogging; I won't normally be so prolific.

Part of the "inspiration" if you like for writing this blog was a number of discussions I had with Andy; the top bloke who runs Stretford-End.com and allows me a platform to wax lyrical about all things United and, generally, wind up Arsenal fans.

Talking about ideas for other general blogs and websites that we could run together, we came up with the idea of a "What would Larry Do" website, based on Larry David's characterisation of himself in the sitcom Curb Your Enthusiasm. We both love the show and thought it would be good to perhaps set it up as a cross between general moaning column and an agony uncle kind of thing. I went to the trouble of setting it up and floating a few ideas before coming to the conclusion that it wouldn't really have the legs, the longevity without a great deal of time and effort.

Besides, the very basis of the idea was set up on an idea that was bordering on differing level of frequencies. How often could we find something to get annoyed or anal about? What if lots of things happened at once? Fortunately for me, life's little quirks can annoy me. I hate queues. I hate queues with a passion but unless I have a confrontation in a queue, I don't think I'd be able to blog about it with any great conviction and come out of it sounding sane.

But, I did recently have a "Curb"-esque moment I'd like to share with you all.

I don't know how many of you have seen the show, and then how many people would have seen the episode I'm on about. In Season 6 there's an episode where Larry has to apologise to someone so, in a rush, he actually steals flowers from the memorial of the dead mother of a friend. It's all quite contrived and very funny. I never thought I'd even have an experience that I could loosely compare, but I do.

My grandmother recently got admitted to hospital. She's fine, at nearly 91, with 7 kids, around 20 grandkids, countless great grandchildren and even more great great grandchildren, we often joke she'll outlive us all. Anyway, I went to see her with my mum, and decided to take her some flowers. Some nice roses, the same as she had for her wedding way back before the second world war. How nice of us. Only now, it seems, there is a new policy where some wards don't permit flowers for their patients on account of the water they may have previously been in.

We were told to leave them by the door to the ward on the way in and pick them up on the way out. Fair enough. But you can see where I'm going with this. That's right, after a while I said I'd just go and get them anyway, and bring them to show my grandma just to show (she was joking saying she thought we were lying about having brought some). They were gone. I approached the nurse who was in fairness apologetic, but after that initial apology, was blank when I looked at her expecting further help.

You know the kind of exchange.

"Excuse me, we put some flowers down, they've gone"

"Oh.. really? I remember you bringing them.. oh yeah.. they have."

"Do you have them?"

"No.. Sorry"

Sorry?? Is that the full extent of your help? That's where it ends? When you opened your mouth to say the word, did you really expect me to be content with it knowing that was the end result?

Even if it was the best apology you'd ever given, if it was the best apology anybody had ever given, if it was the most sincere thing I'd ever heard, how on Earth do you expect that to resolve the issue? She was not forthcoming with any help; no offer of a search, she clearly felt the apology was sufficient.

Fortunately I'm quite level headed; on the greater balance of it all, some flowers being stolen barely matters. But it would have if, for example, my grandmother was seriously ill or worse. And it is here where the anger is probably misdirected. It's funny in almost a Carry On sense that a nurse (if that's what she is) can be sat down at a desk and miss someone stealing something 5 yards in front of her face, but it's baffling to think what kind of lowlife thinks it's acceptable to steal flowers in a hospital - in a wing for ill elderly people, without them knowing about the health of the intended recipient? You can't be angry at the thief, they're long gone - the emotionless, helpless response of someone paid purely to be caring and helpful does not really help them when it comes to getting a non-exasperated response.

This has no resolution other than tough luck, and we were able to make a joke out of it. It just goes to show that something can be funny or made into a joke but the circumstances that make it so are so narrow.. well, really, the circumstances in which you find out about such a thing have to be carefully contrived so you can see the funny side. If I'd had caught the scumbag who took the flowers? I don't know if either of us would be seeing the funny side.

Is it a bird, is it Superman? It isn't a plane...

I hate flying. There, I said it. Completely unique opinion, I know. I'm sure everyone else loves flying... (!)

To be fair I dislike most forms of travel. Bizarre as it's kind of a neccessity in order for me to enjoy one of my favourite hobbies, which is travelling. That in itself is a bit of a misleading noun - travelling in itself is the bad part of seeing new places or familiar, loved places that are any considerable distance away. As a generally impatient person I long for the day of teleportation that wouldn't result in me eventually morphing into a fly.

But, until that day arrives, as I said, it's a neccessity. An unavoidable obstacle in getting from A to B. Flying is the worst because of the finality of the "what if" question. You don't want to think about it; that makes me think about it more. Any hint of turbulence, hell, it doesn't even have to be as severe as that, an ascent or descent that I've managed to convince myself is a unique weather condition that has struck my plane at the perfect time. You can imagine what fun I am to be sat next to on a flight.

It's a condition that I seem to have picked up through watching my fathers own discomfort with it when I was younger. Worsened after 9/11, by which time I was at least mature enough to encourage and condition my own irrational thought patterns.

That fear manages to at least partially alleviate my impatience. Last year I was going to the US, and the flight was delayed by two hours, while we were sat on the plane. I don't mind delays for technical problems. I can't understand who in their right mind DOES have a problem with that. I do slightly mind being told there is a technical problem, though. When I'm on the plane.

"The crew are just checking the engines are OK"

Yeah, that could have been done before. Or without telling us. I'm now concerned about the durability and condition of the engine. Perhaps you could have said..

"Apologies for this folks, the pilot had a kebab last night, and well, we did warn him..!"

All would laugh and no-one would be concerned. Silly pilot! Get a move on!

Yesterday we woke to the news that an erupting volcano in Iceland had grounded most flights from the UK. Today it's reported that it may be Saturday morning before things return to a degree of normality.

A terrible inconvenience, sure. But consider the response of a guy I saw interviewed on the news who was irate because he had travelled to the airport for his flight, checked the flight company's website when he got there and the website hadn't been updated to cancel his flight. The news was clear; the airport staff had informed him his flight was cancelled, too. For some reason, the guy felt strongly enough to label the situation "a disgrace".

I'm not exactly sure what, exactly, was the disgrace. Was it Mother Nature's inexplicable decision to cause the volcano to erupt? The airline's decision to NOT go against all safety advice and attempt to navigate through conditions hazardous enough to grind the rest of the country to a standstill? Surely not the fact that the website hadn't been updated yet, considering all other contact information at his disposal?

Now if it were me and I was impatient for whatever reason that guy was, then maybe my response to this might not be so level headed, I'll accept that. I tried to rationalise this when I was informed by my fiancée of a friend of hers who was due to get married abroad next week and the flights obviously have disrupted (not neccessarily ruined) those plans. As I mentioned in my first ever blog post here, I am getting married abroad so it's a fear that is very real.

How would I feel then? I can't say for sure. Money's one thing; you get insured for this purpose. Time is another. I know that we have arranged to fly out well in advance so that this kind of situation wouldn't arise; a delay or cancellation through no fault of my own would not prove to be insurmountable. First and foremost I would want the travel method to be completely safe, especially when as said, if it isn't so, with flying you know any instance where it's unsafe is likely to be very final.

But, I can't bring myself to empathise with the feeling of angry impatience in such circumstances. The bottom line is I want to get married; I want there to be a wedding. I don't want to risk my life or that of anyone elses just to get there quicker, I don't want anything to be put to risk, and I certainly am not going to get angry or impatient about it.

I can't help but wonder if mine is the opinion that's "wrong".. whether by and large more people are angry even taking into account it is a freak force of nature or simply a bunch of people trying to best ensure our safety as we prepare to travel thousands of miles, thousands of feet up in the air.

Me being someone with a black and white view; I don't even think there's a middle ground on this.

Mail me at yolkietalkie@yahoo.com if you have a topic you would like to know my opinion on.

Introduction; my journey through redundancy and unemployment

Hello.
I've decided to join the great wide world of internet blogging though the intention is to create more of a "column" than a journal.

I decided to see how it would be if I branch out a little and just put across my general opinion - having contributed my football/soccer opinion on http://www.Stretford-End.com since 2007 I figured the time was right and perhaps I would at least generate a little bit of interest rather than just starting a blog that went nowhere. This might still go nowhere but the odds are slightly more in my favour than they would have been if this was 3 years ago.

So, a little about me. Not too much but enough to make this relevant. I was made redundant in January of 2009 and have had little luck finding a position since. None of the positions I have ever held or, indeed, have applied for, have been my "dream" job as a creative writer / journalist. The time has passed (well, it hasn't, but the motivation for that isn't as strong as the motivation for money as instant as possible) and at school although writing and English were my strong points, the accompanying qualifications which required knowing the intricate details of which camera is the best to use weren't. I have a keen interest in films but then again only in the kind I like. Does that even make any sense? I suppose not. I'll elaborate on that later, I guess.
That will do as an introduction as I have a juicy subject to open with.

I have had two what you would describe as long term jobs, that being positions I could have seen myself developing a career. The first was in the private sector and the next was for an educational company - this was the role I was made redundant from.

Unfortunately the timing of that was pretty poor. I had recently gotten engaged and we were planning our wedding, which we thought we had plenty of time to do. Decided on what at the time seemed a practical decision to have a long engagement. Discovered that it would be more cost efficient to get married in Florida - fortunately, a mutual dream.

Well, 15 months have passed since the redundancy, and a handful of temporary and agency positions and failed interviews later mean that I've been unable to really contribute to the wedding so far.

I suppose it's as good a time as any to ask the first poser, what price your dignity?

My role in the educational company was one where I felt I had a degree of importance; that I was a crucial part of getting the job done, and that my opinion was valued. And yet being made redundant at the time didn't phase me; I felt bullish and confident enough in my own ability that I would walk into another job.

Time passed - 9 months, to be exact - and I was getting no joy so I signed up with an agency, they found me a role at one of the country's most well known delivery companies in a customer service based capacity. We were given limited training - 8 hour days that could probably be best described as 3 hours relevance, 5 hours talking about Facebook of all things (Isn't that supposed to be the other way around? I missed the change when you talked about Facebook in real life rather than your real life on Facebook). Anyway, the fallout was inevitable. During the training one of the new starters fell asleep - full on asleep - we all had a joke about it but the next day when that new starter came back, it was no longer funny.

I then had clashes with the trainer who turned out to be an employee of the company who was merely on the same level we were, just with over 3 years experience in the same position. With no hope of promotion. Perhaps understandably he was a bit of a jobsworth and perhaps deliberately he witheld information that would help us later on so he would seem more knowledgeable. The problem was that when most of the new starters received enquiries these would be issues he had no idea about, and after I had to deal with a particularly distressed customer the jobsworth bloke was, shall we say, disrespectful of me in front of other team members. Perhaps it's my own elevated sense of self importance or maybe I just find it difficult to understand the concept of speaking to someone like rubbish either in a personal or professional sense, but I wasn't about to stand for it. After a similar thing happened two more times, I found myself walking out after informing the manager of the circumstances. The initial relief of finding and starting the job - which, jobsworth aside, generally had a good team - was replaced by a feeling of having let down my family and fiancée.

I had to counter that with the thought that every now and then there comes a line where you have to personally evaluate and weigh up the professional and personal costs. Would this position be something I miss - poor money aside, I felt I had really lowered myself to get it because there was nothing else. Having come to the conclusion that my dignity was worth more and hopefully my family would understand, I felt a little more secure. My underlying thought was that I try to be a man of principle and I would hardly be that if I allowed myself to be spoken to as if I was a nobody.

The first time you make such a decision it makes it easier to do again - and I did, twice, once after a week at a local surgery and once after a few days at an online travel agents fielding calls from customers who had paid for their holiday and had not received confirmation that they were going sometimes on the day before they were due to leave. Classy move, and the customer service team were given the mandate (may I add, the only training given) that customers would get a call back within 48 hours. When that 48 hours expired and angry customers called back - some now on holiday with a hotel who didn't have their names down - I was told to stop asking people for advice. By the manager! Customers then quite rightly demand your name and use it whe slagging off the company. I know, I've done it.

Finally I got a temporary 2 week job through an agency at an online bookmakers to take calls from customers over the duration of one of the big sporting events - 4 days into that, I got a call that I thought would change my life. An invitation to an interview for an amazing position, closer to where my fianceé lives, the only catch being I would have to miss 2 days of the next weeks work to take it. The agency were completely uncompromising and inconsiderate and told me not to come back, that to me was a minor blotch, because it was a dream job. Not a journalist or writer but something that would properly make use of my qualifications, something that looked like it would become a true career, and something that would properly reward me. So, to me, it was a risk worth taking.

After going through 3 interviews (one after I was told the first role I applied for was being 'restructured', and the second after it didn't exist at all) and after encouragement from the head resourcer who had made me feel so confident that I felt I couldn't NOT be working there soon, the inevitable happened and I didn't get the role. And that's where we're at now, about 7 months to the wedding, no job, no-one likely to take me on for a full time role considering I'll be taking almost a month out to get married, and no way of cancelling the wedding and holiday that won't be almost as financially punishing as going through with it.

I know there are people worse off than myself. Rather than dwell over what I don't have; I count myself extremely lucky to have the family and friends that I do have, the people who like me for me and want to spend time with me.



I resigned myself, after weeks of thinking that borrowing from loved ones was less degrading, to signing on. I hate it. I hate the feeling of it and without being disrespectful the company that puts you in. I know from where I grew up that most people signing on don't want a job. They're just out to see how much money they can scam; people who live off the state and through credit, somehow able to afford plasma tv's and a cannabis addiction. Automatically by signing on you become one of "them", a statistic. Having spent all of my time out of work looking for it it is ridiculous to find myself having to prove that I am looking; from my own experience trying to help the unemployed or lower skilled, I know that they have very little motivation to even look for a job let alone pretend that they are. So how do they get away with it, and I have to prove it? I don't mind doing it for myself, but the same rules don't apply to everyone.

It seems they're more interested in how to catch you out and stop people claiming than actually helping them get a job. I still check the agencies but one in particular that I use - Randstand (I was going to protect names, but sod it.. they're one of those agencies that screen you and can send you into a position without the need for an interview) rung me up the other day. I missed the call and returned it, got through to a different person, it turns out the person I got through to was the same person (Sean, if you were wondering) who had put me forward for the travel agency position. The voice message I had received said they had an "interesting position" for me, when I got through to this guy he remembered me and said that the phone call was just a check up. So, it would seem that some agency staff will decide that you won't be allowed to apply for a position if they don't want you to. Is that abusing his position or does he have a right to do that considering I walked out of the role he had found me? Either way, I'd advise against p*ssing Sean off if you're with Randstad and need a job. He has the power. Honestly.

I suppose it's a little tame for a first post, but there it is. What are your own experiences through the economic crisis? Your experience with agencies? Your thoughts on "signing on"?

If you have an opinion or would like to hear my opinion on something, please comment or email me at yolkietalkie@yahoo.com