Jobcentre Plus is now basically just used for the job seekers to sign on and for the staff to "check" you've applied for a minimum of 3 jobs per week. I don't know what the national picture is like but at my local job centre plus office (which job seekers must attend every 2 weeks to sign on) they have only 7 minutes contact per person every 2 weeks. Now I seriously doubt 7 minutes every 2 weeks is anywhere near enough time to actually help someone find a job. Especially when that 7 minutes includes calling the person over, confirming their identity, finding their file, quickly reviewing their file, checking they've applied for 3 jobs a week and getting the person to sign on.

If jobcentres were funded properly they could easily do the same (and IMO better) work than the agencies are doing for people on the work programme and give proper, effective help to those who aren't so they don't get to the point of going on the work programme in the first place.

Especially in a climate with not enough jobs like Mintball says.

Thats why I'm convinced "Standee" is a persona and you are seeing the real Standee who uses his real name in the media, on the KC threads. I know which comes across the best

To HIM:
there are, also, other meetings of 10 -30 minutes at which CVs etc are looked at


However the trend is towards the support referred to being offered and delivered by the private sector.

If the person is on a Work Programme, the job search may be evaluated from a "drop and go" or by the Work Programme provider.

The only time I've ever signed on in my life was in 1992, an experience that I will always remember and swore I would never go through again.

At my very first Job Centre interview, I took my CV along and asked about any help they could provide with stationery, postal costs, access to trade magazines etc. I was gobsmacked when I was told that I would have to wait 26 weeks before being elligible to use the Job Club. This despite all evidence pointing towards early assistance being far more productive at finding permament employment.

This was further compounded when after I was granted an interview with a company in Newcastle, the Job Centre told me they'd pay my bus fares. It was their turn to be gobsmacked when I informed them that my interview was in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and not Newcastle-under-Lyme (I was living in Mid Staffs at the time). There was a very real lackof comprehension about mobility of jobseekers. I was then told I could apply for a travel warrant for 2nd class rail fare. The problem with that was there was no way I could travel and return without spending a night away. Despite proving that the rail (or even bus) timetables prevented travel within one day, there was no facility to pay my expenses for travelling in my own car, so had to fund my travek costs from my dole.

Thanfully I managed to find my own job, without any more "assistance" from the Job Centre

I would say, at this point, that I know Standee – and a number of others on these forums. And I do think that a forum like this can distort who we all are – and yes, I include myself in that.

This has many things about it that are good, but it does also emphasise stuff on a very simplistic level. And, y'know, the latter is a shame. And not particularly conducive to good debate.

I'm trying to fathom whether that's a defence of the indiviual or you are being prosecutary?
Are you attempting to articulate he has redeeming characters to his personality after having the opportunity of meeting him in person?
Or, do you believe it's unfair for fellow forum users to form conclusions based on what he types on this forum?

Simply trying to say that for many of us – my self included – this forum sometimes seems to see us bogged down in rather more extreme forms of what we might say otherwise, with debates becoming polarised.

The trouble is that tone of voice can't be heard on a message board, so some people might be making a point that comes across as much more shrill than it would have done down the pub.
The respondent replies in what they think is the same tone ... and it escalates.

Good point.

That is true but sometimes plain English is intended to be read as such and leaves little room for interpretation. Stating someone is "workshy" for example isn't open to misinterpretation.

I also don't think it is news to anyone these days that a text document doesn't carry any information about the tone of how people would speak so I think that excuse is out of date.