Annoying Colleagues
pb21
Posts: 2,171
There is someone in my office who really annoys me, he is basically a human version of the daily mail. He is currently on the phone to someone, having what can only be described as one of the most unintelligent of conversations ever, complaining that disabled people get benefits. Any linguists might be surprised that any communication is actually going on (that’s my f*cking money going on taxes blah f*cking blah f*cking).
:evil:
:evil:
Mañana
0
Comments
-
I know it's really hard, but just ignore him.
You have to be there all day and you're the one that will get upset if you let him get to you.
Just accept that he's a twat, feel superior and laugh inwardly.
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
Capt Slog wrote:I know it's really hard, but just ignore him.
You have to be there all day and you're the one that will get upset if you let him get to you.
Just accept that he's a fool, feel superior and laugh inwardly.
Yeah I know, I have only been here relatively recently (three months) and its just getting too much! Trouble is its quite a small office so its impossible to avoid his angry hateful opinions and the language he uses to voice them.Mañana0 -
pb21 wrote:There is someone in my office who really annoys me, he is basically a human version of the daily mail. He is currently on the phone to someone, having what can only be described as one of the most unintelligent of conversations ever, complaining that disabled people get benefits. Any linguists might be surprised that any communication is actually going on (that’s my f*cking money going on taxes blah f*cking blah f*cking).
:evil:
You should consider yourself lucky only having one as*hole,i have atleast 60 in my office that i would gladly stone to death..
I only hope that they are only like it at work and not in their personal lives however sad and boring they are.Cervelo S5 Ultegra Di2.0 -
Well. thats the last time I call the Samaritans.My pen won't write on the screen0
-
upperoilcan wrote:
You should consider yourself lucky only having one as*hole,i have atleast 60 in my office that i would gladly stone to death..
For goodness sake, you can't stone 60 people to death just because you don't like them.
What do you think they invented Uzis for?
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
Capt Slog wrote:
For goodness sake, you can't stone 60 people to death just because you don't like them.
What do you think they invented Uzis for?
Using a gun would be far too kind to them,I would get a lot more satisfaction using stones and pelting them the old fashion way. Cervelo S5 Ultegra Di2.0 -
Some days I just have to resort to loud music and headphones.
Speaking of which.............None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
We've got one in here. Claims to despise the DM and all it stands for, yet most of his opinions seem to align perfectly with theirs. I try to ignore it for the sake of a quiet life, every now and then I have to leave the office to avoid saying something. Somtimes I can't leave it and tell him, arguments invariably follow. Occasionally I will go right off on one at him.
Not surprisingly verbally ripping him and his stupid arguments to shreds doesn't really help anything. So I just walk out muttering "FFS!" under my breath.0 -
pb21 wrote:There is someone in my office who really annoys me, he is basically a human version of the daily mail. He is currently on the phone to someone, having what can only be described as one of the most unintelligent of conversations ever, complaining that disabled people get benefits. Any linguists might be surprised that any communication is actually going on (that’s my f*cking money going on taxes blah f*cking blah f*cking).
:evil:
Break both of his arms and legs so he has to go on benefits, then organise a Taxpayers' Alliance demonstration outside his house.0 -
Ever occurred to you that even more people in the office actually agree with him and that you're the minority wierdo?
The DM may be a bit reactionary to say the least, but it is much closer to the 'average Brit' than the Guardian or the Independent. That said, both those rags have their own share of lunatics there who believe in inviting everyone from the world to live in the UK, a free for all with the welfare state and of course, to destroy British industry.
Oh, and they should be in charge in their wonderful socialist state.0 -
johnfinch wrote:then organise a Taxpayers' Alliance demonstration outside his house.
That would be a pretty small group of people given the overwhelming majority of taxpayers actually take out far more than they contribute. Its pretty silly demanding value for your taxes when the first thing anyone would do is to cut back on the benefits and other support services they receive.0 -
tiredofwhiners wrote:That would be a pretty small group of people given the overwhelming majority of taxpayers actually take out far more than they contribute. Its pretty silly demanding value for your taxes when the first thing anyone would do is to cut back on the benefits and other support services they receive.
Unless a very small number of people are paying a LOT of tax, that can't possibly be true. Tax take must, in the long term, be greater than spending. Yes we have a deficit but only recently. Got numbers and sources?0 -
tiredofwhiners wrote:Ever occurred to you that even more people in the office actually agree with him and that you're the minority wierdo
I'm not certain but I would be surprised if others felt as aggrieved and apparently angry that their f*cking taxes were going on f*cking disabled people.
Oh and it's weirdo btw
Mañana0 -
There's an incredible irony in this comment, given the record of Tory Governments since 1979. Much of British industry was deliberately destroyed by a venal and spiteful Government, 1979-1984.tiredofwhiners wrote:a free for all with the welfare state and of course, to destroy British industry.0 -
pliptrot wrote:
There's an incredible irony in this comment, given the record of Tory Governments since 1979. Much of British industry was deliberately destroyed by a venal and spiteful Government, 1979-1984.tiredofwhiners wrote:a free for all with the welfare state and of course, to destroy British industry.
Typical left wing rot. British industry was a dead man walking long before Maggie came to power. the mines cost the economy a fortune, the car industry couldn't actually get cars out of the factory and nobody outside of the Uk bought them. They had a typical 300+ days of strikes a year. EvenLabour knew it was dead - they gave in ro a 25% wage demand and killed the companies overnight. Yes, 25% - can you imagine any company getting that kind of pay rise and surviving ?
Please don't even go close to trying to pretend 1970's British industry was alive and was killed by a nasty government - all that happened is that the taxpayers stopped subsidising the manufacture of sh*t that nobody wanted to buy or use.
Stop reading the Socialist Workers Daily 0 -
DrKJM wrote:tiredofwhiners wrote:That would be a pretty small group of people given the overwhelming majority of taxpayers actually take out far more than they contribute. Its pretty silly demanding value for your taxes when the first thing anyone would do is to cut back on the benefits and other support services they receive.
Unless a very small number of people are paying a LOT of tax, that can't possibly be true. Tax take must, in the long term, be greater than spending. Yes we have a deficit but only recently. Got numbers and sources?
It was a BBC survey/calculator they put online a few months ago - you could put in your 'circumstances' sucha s salary, status, kids etc and it gave you a ready reckoner to tell you how much overall you were 'paying in' and how much you and your family were taking out.
Basically the answer was that you had to really earn a lot before you were a net contributor - 70% of the Uk are 'takers' and 30% are contributors. Then there's the old stats about the top 10% of the Uk pay 35% of the taxes and consume nearly zero of the benefits because they have private health, education etc and don't use the bus etc.0 -
tiredofwhiners wrote:DrKJM wrote:tiredofwhiners wrote:That would be a pretty small group of people given the overwhelming majority of taxpayers actually take out far more than they contribute. Its pretty silly demanding value for your taxes when the first thing anyone would do is to cut back on the benefits and other support services they receive.
Unless a very small number of people are paying a LOT of tax, that can't possibly be true. Tax take must, in the long term, be greater than spending. Yes we have a deficit but only recently. Got numbers and sources?
It was a BBC survey/calculator they put online a few months ago - you could put in your 'circumstances' sucha s salary, status, kids etc and it gave you a ready reckoner to tell you how much overall you were 'paying in' and how much you and your family were taking out.
Basically the answer was that you had to really earn a lot before you were a net contributor - 70% of the Uk are 'takers' and 30% are contributors. Then there's the old stats about the top 10% of the Uk pay 35% of the taxes and consume nearly zero of the benefits because they have private health, education etc and don't use the bus etc.
You're confusing the wealth that people generate with the salaries that they earn. For example, one of my friends was a biologist working for an agricultural business. He was on £19k a year for research work and told me that if he stayed in the life sciences field, the chances of earning decent wages were very, very low because there is no shortage of biology graduates. So despite the fact that workers such as him are generating HUGE amounts of money for the UK economy, they don't actually earn that much.0 -
I used that calculator, if it was accurate (and there was no reason to think it wasn't) I found the results staggering. Even though I only earn ~£30k p.a. and my girlfriend only earns ~£23k p.a, because we don't have kids and are lucky enough not to need to claim any form of benefits as a household we found ourselves in the 10% of society that "does worst" from the net contribution/benefit balance.0
-
tiredofwhiners wrote:EvenLabour knew it was dead - they gave in ro a 25% wage demand and killed the companies overnight. Yes, 25% - can you imagine any company getting that kind of pay rise and surviving?
Inflation was 25% in 1975. The 25% wage demand from (some) unions was to try and let their members keep up with the cost of living.
-Spider-0 -
GiantMike wrote:pb21 wrote:There is someone in my office who really annoys me.....etc
What's he up to today then?
He is currently 'reading' The Sun newspaper, no doubt thinking how soft and liberal it is. Thankfully I haven't heard any interesting opinions from him today, just a bucket load of profanities. He has got a really annoying nasally sounding voice too!Mañana0 -
Daily Mail Man may have a small point...
On the Fat Loss Ward TV programme last night there was a women who was fat because, suprise suprise, she could not moderate her eating (a typical weekend would see her stay in the house the entire time bingeing on chocolate ect). Athough the gasteric operation she was having would be cost effective in the long term it is still not a cheap operation and is funded by the NHS, the need for which is due to a lifestyle choice, ie deciding to purchase and consume calorific junk food.
Ms Fat by Choice also had a bright red Hyundi i10 that you can bet a bag of cream filled doughnuts is funded by a mobilty allowance......0
