David -


 AM>> Or have you NEVER been UNEMPLOYED?

 DD> Twice since 1980.

 AM>> Get your head out of the sand and LOOK at the REAL WORLD!
 AM>> You would be better spending your efforts to curb those who 
 AM>> ILLEGALLY obtain benifits, rather than those who have a legit 
 AM>> reason.

 DD> My point in this thread is that the government of the day affords the
 DD> unemployed people funds, supplied by the taxpayer, for the reason of
 DD> surviving on whilst they seek work.

Agreed.

 DD> These funds were never intended to be used for such luxuries as
 DD> running a BBS.

I certainly wouldn't be worrying about a BBS if I was unemployed -
there are more important things to spend money on, IN MY OPINION.

However... (you just *knew* this bit was coming, didn't you? 8^))

If someone wanted to spend their money a certain way, who should
decide HOW they spend it?  You seem to think that you should, David.
Regardless of the morality of this, there is simply no mechanism in
place to determine how the unemployed should/not spend their money. I
believe that if they want to go without some things in order to run a
BBS or whatever, then that is their prerogative. Not mine, not yours,
theirs.

 DD> Jobs DO exist in the REAL WORLD.  Quite a proportion of the unemployed
 DD> simply aren't interested in a job - it's just all to bloody hard.

'Quite a proportion'???

Obviously. Sir Humphrey Appleby could not have put it better. 8^)



Cheers...


russell{at}seranis.com.au


--- Spot 1.3a #754