Sex God
Because it's all a bit rude and sleazy isn't it, all that sex and suggestion...because we are ruled by idiots
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Can`t advertise for strippers !!!
Sex God
I'll change that to governed ....you are of course right
Quote by flower411
Job Centres are to be banned from taking adverts for strippers and topless barmaids !!
Seems a bit weird to me ...... it`s all perfectly legal.
Why shouldn`t people running legal businesses be allowed to advertise vacancies in job centres ?
Because the government wanted a cheap headline to keep the Daily Mail happy in the silly season.
Hasn't this got something to do with benefits being stopped if you don't apply for a certain job? Say you were religious and it was against your pinciples/morals/etc, and you were offered two stripping jobs and one topless barmaid job then that means you have your benefits scrapped. Doesn't sound just or fair to me so it seems a good idea not to be able to put it in the job centre for all.
They could have a section which was optional and not compulsary though
Dave_Notts
They could have a section which was optional and not compulsary though
Dave_Notts
Quote by flower411
Job Centres are to be banned from taking adverts for strippers and topless barmaids !!
Seems a bit weird to me ...... it`s all perfectly legal.
Why shouldn`t people running legal businesses be allowed to advertise vacancies in job centres ?
Because the government wanted a cheap headline to keep the Daily Mail happy in the silly season.
It was covered on radio 4 yesterday with some interesting comments.
I`m not so sure about it being a "silly season" story, I think Kaz makes a good point about it just being the start. On the one hand we have the medieval attitudes in the Church of England heirarchy trying to stop women from taking positions of responsibility and on the other we have the right wing nanny state trying to stop women from taking their clothes off for the sexual gratification of others.
Squeezed from both sides it seems.
Is that where a woman gets her "hour glass" figure from?
Quote by flower411
Hasn't this got something to do with benefits being stopped if you don't apply for a certain job? Say you were religious and it was against your pinciples/morals/etc, and you were offered two stripping jobs and one topless barmaid job then that means you have your benefits scrapped. Doesn't sound just or fair to me so it seems a good idea not to be able to put it in the job centre for all.
They could have a section which was optional and not compulsary though
Dave_Notts
Apparently, the complaint came about because two 17 year old girls went for masseuse jobs only to find there was a little more involved !!!
That just appears to be lack of adequate checks being made by the job centre.
As to refusing jobs you are offered, I have a feeling that you can turn down jobs that are not appropriate. I`m sure that anybody in a job centre trying to force somebody to take a strippers job wouldn`t last five minutes in court !!
I do remember many years ago when I was a lot younger and better looking we used to get lots of part timers through the job centre and I was often in the habit of asking them out
One day a friend said to me "where do you keep finding all these gorgeous women ?"
"I get em from the job centre" was the cheery reply :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Someone needs a kick up the bum for that. Perhaps another section for over 18's
Dave_Notts
Sex God
Quote by Kaznkev
According to kev,who has worked in this sector for a long time you can turn down any interview so long as your grounds are reasonable.
A good example he cited,an ex alchoholic can refuse to go for interview for bar work.
So there was never any idea that women would loose benefits by refusing to apply for these jobs.
The 2 17 yr olds were either the most naive women in the country,or bottled it.i know which i think happened.
and needless to say underage
Orgasminator
Quote by Kaznkev
The 2 17 yr olds were either the most naive women in the country,or bottled it.i know which i think happened.
Many 17 years olds are naive! They may well have just completed their course in massage at college and be all ready to go face the world. Why should they, at 17, expect that the job they are going for include 'extras' or that all massage is sleezy? College wont have taught them that part that's for sure.
Bottled it? I should hope they did in that case.
Sex God
Male stripper required for the entetainment of Mrs Bluefish :twisted:
All applicants please PM us
There I done it
All applicants please PM us
There I done it
Sex God
Quote by Kaznkev
Male stripper required for the entetainment of Mrs Bluefish :twisted:
All applicants please PM us
There I done it
Why not male or female,you sexist pig you ! :lol:
I would but Mrs Bluefish has never expressed and Bi tendency's and would therefore no be interested in a female stripper :wink:
Redeemed?
Sex God
Quote by Kaznkev
Male stripper required for the entetainment of Mrs Bluefish :twisted:
All applicants please PM us
There I done it
Why not male or female,you sexist pig you ! :lol:
I would but Mrs Bluefish has never expressed and Bi tendency's and would therefore no be interested in a female stripper :wink:
Redeemed?
Fingers crossed for that event :twisted:
Orgasminator
Quote by Kaznkev
The 2 17 yr olds were either the most naive women in the country,or bottled it.i know which i think happened.
Many 17 years olds are naive! They may well have just completed their course in massage at college and be all ready to go face the world. Why should they, at 17, expect that the job they are going for include 'extras' or that all massage is sleezy? College wont have taught them that part that's for sure.
Bottled it? I should hope they did in that case.
one would hope that general knowledge of the world might have taught them,true some 17 year olds are naieve,i was one of them,but that is a general lack of nouce as my gran would say that i find hard to credit.
As someone who believes sex work is a perfectly valid employment choice i have no idea whether it was a good thing or not that they "bottled it".
They're still very much underage. That to me is a very good reason for choosing not to go into that job, valid employment choice or otherwise.
But hey if you want to suggest that they're naive fools/chickens for not taking it, when they're still classed as minors thats up to you.
Its just a job after all!
Quote by Kaznkev
It does slight me as odd that at 17 you are judged old enough to die in Afghanistan
Wrong wrong and of course wrong again.
Nobody can fight for their country at 17! It is 18 when the law deems you to be an adult.
Of course you can join in a cadet form from the age of 12, and of course at 16 can go to an Army Foundation College, but to fight and die for your country 18 is the age....adult age.
That is of course the British army which is I presume what is being talked about?
Quote by Kaznkev
It does slight me as odd that at 17 you are judged old enough to die in Afghanistan
Wrong wrong and of course wrong again.
Nobody can fight for their country at 17! It is 18 when the law deems you to be an adult.
Of course you can join in a cadet form from the age of 12, and of course at 16 can go to an Army Foundation College, but to fight and die for your country 18 is the age....adult age.
That is of course the British army which is I presume what is being talked about?
i apologise,i know people who signed their kids papers to join up,but it was a few years ago.
You see easy to admit a mistake to more current knowledge.
It is and it is good to see with good grace you doing it................
............however it is Ken that is wrong if he is saying you could never serve under 18. Definately upto 1997 but unsure if they have changed the age now. I know of one soldier who was not allowed to serve in Northern Ireland with his unit (NI had an over 18 limit) so was sent as a spare bod to Gulf War 1 where he unfortuantely lost his life. So he was under 18.
May have changed in the 2000's as I know that UK government was being lobbied to get rid of "Boy" soldiers by the UN. This is because we accuse African countries of using boy soldiers and we have them as well.
Dave_Notts
In edit: Tony Blair signed a no under eighteens piece of legislation on June 24, 2003
Orgasminator
Quote by Kaznkev
The 2 17 yr olds were either the most naive women in the country,or bottled it.i know which i think happened.
Many 17 years olds are naive! They may well have just completed their course in massage at college and be all ready to go face the world. Why should they, at 17, expect that the job they are going for include 'extras' or that all massage is sleezy? College wont have taught them that part that's for sure.
Bottled it? I should hope they did in that case.
one would hope that general knowledge of the world might have taught them,true some 17 year olds are naieve,i was one of them,but that is a general lack of nouce as my gran would say that i find hard to credit.
As someone who believes sex work is a perfectly valid employment choice i have no idea whether it was a good thing or not that they "bottled it".
They're still very much underage. That to me is a very good reason for choosing not to go into that job, valid employment choice or otherwise.
But hey if you want to suggest that they're naive fools/chickens for not taking it, when they're still classed as minors thats up to you.
Its just a job after all!
It is just a job,and i did not suggest either of those things.As i dont know the girls in question i dont know how they would find being sex workers.
It does slight me as odd that at 17 you are judged old enough to die in Afghanistan but not fuck for are 17 yr olds having sex for love,attention,drugs,social status,and of course the fact they enjoy it,doing it for cash doesnt seem the worst possible reason ever.
Yes... you did. The bit where you said they were either the most naive women in the country or that they bottled it.... That was where you suggested it.
Anyway the line has to be drawn somewhere to prevent the young and vulerable entering into the sex industry at any level. Whether they're having sex for fun or any other reason earlier is absolutly not the point. Nor is Afghanistan come to think of it.
Quote by Dave__Notts
.however it is Ken that is wrong if he is saying you could never serve under 18
Did I say that Davey?
Where did I say never
I know that you cannot fight in Afghanistan until you are 18, that was the point that I picked up on.
Quote by Kaz
It does slight me as odd that at 17 you are judged old enough to die in Afghanistan
I know very little about the armed forces, only really know what I do because mrs777's Son is currently in there, and he joined at 16.
He cannot go to Afghanistan which was certainly our major worry.
Still he is 18 next March, then we will worry.
I hope that clarifies things, though I thought I already had.
Quote by kentswingers777
.however it is Ken that is wrong if he is saying you could never serve under 18
Did I say that Davey?
Where did I say never
I know that you cannot fight in Afghanistan until you are 18, that was the point that I picked up on.
You overstated the wrong, wrong, wrong statement as if it was something that had always been in. It is new development for the British Army...........and I guess there will be some under eighteens on the opposing side.
Age is a different thing for different people and different cultures. Maybe wrong in our eyes but not in theirs.
It is new to me that under 18s cannot go as I have only seen the legislation tonight, but going off experience it was not always like this.
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
.however it is Ken that is wrong if he is saying you could never serve under 18
Did I say that Davey?
Where did I say never
I know that you cannot fight in Afghanistan until you are 18, that was the point that I picked up on.
You overstated the wrong, wrong, wrong statement as if it was something that had always been in. It is new development for the British Army...........and I guess there will be some under eighteens on the opposing side.
Age is a different thing for different people and different cultures. Maybe wrong in our eyes but not in theirs.
It is new to me that under 18s cannot go as I have only seen the legislation tonight, but going off experience it was not always like this.
Dave_Notts
No Davey you just read it wrong and made an assumption....assume nothing I was once told.
Orgasminator
Quote by Kaznkev
The 2 17 yr olds were either the most naive women in the country,or bottled it.i know which i think happened.
Many 17 years olds are naive! They may well have just completed their course in massage at college and be all ready to go face the world. Why should they, at 17, expect that the job they are going for include 'extras' or that all massage is sleezy? College wont have taught them that part that's for sure.
Bottled it? I should hope they did in that case.
one would hope that general knowledge of the world might have taught them,true some 17 year olds are naieve,i was one of them,but that is a general lack of nouce as my gran would say that i find hard to credit.
As someone who believes sex work is a perfectly valid employment choice i have no idea whether it was a good thing or not that they "bottled it".
They're still very much underage. That to me is a very good reason for choosing not to go into that job, valid employment choice or otherwise.
But hey if you want to suggest that they're naive fools/chickens for not taking it, when they're still classed as minors thats up to you.
Its just a job after all!
It is just a job,and i did not suggest either of those things.As i dont know the girls in question i dont know how they would find being sex workers.
It does slight me as odd that at 17 you are judged old enough to die in Afghanistan but not fuck for are 17 yr olds having sex for love,attention,drugs,social status,and of course the fact they enjoy it,doing it for cash doesnt seem the worst possible reason ever.
Yes... you did. The bit where you said they were either the most naive women in the country or that they bottled it.... That was where you suggested it.
Anyway the line has to be drawn somewhere to prevent the young and vulerable entering into the sex industry at any level. Whether they're having sex for fun or any other reason earlier is absolutly not the point. Nor is Afghanistan come to think of it.
i apologie for disagreeing with you.
There's really no need. There's nothing to appologise for. I was just pointing out the contradiction.
This is an interesting thread - lets keep it that way!
On this subject - I have been on the unemployed side where you cannot refuse to put in an application for a job. You have to prove in your job search (that can be and is checked randomly) that you applied. Its fine saying that you can refuse or state that the job isn't appropriate IF the employer has given the correct details to the job centre in the first place. You may not find out until you get a reply back from the employer or you go for an interview.
I have been given a job to apply for that stated it was of an adult nature. I asked what they meant by adult nature - I am 51 yrs old, been around the block a few times
and have an excellent understanding what Adult Nature means but not so clear to me in a Administration post context!
A 17 yr old - not long left school/college, who may not have stepped far outside their community (and yes it happens a lot in close knit communities in large cities an villages), or hasn't a great awareness of the wider world because they were too busy being young people, who didn't listen to the lads talking about massage parlours and bj's -hehehe, or who where perhaps naive, nothing wrong with that is there?
So what if the "bottled it" I know I bluddy well would even now! Good for them - its not for everyone. Just because we are adults and perhaps THINK young people have a great understanding and knowledge of sex (because of course - they are all doing it :dry
, it just shows how sensible they can be by asking the right questions, being adult about a situation and know when something isn't up their street and of course highlighting the incident (if the did?). Give them some credit here!!
As for Job Centre's not being able to accept those types of posts - I think they should be able to as long as its clearly written in the notes what is entailed and unemployed people can make an informed choice as long as its legal.
Extra's in this instance was the important part that should have been in the centre's notes (if they weren't - not sure how anyone can check?). Massage can be just what it states on the tin and they are places where it purely is just that. Perhaps it wasn't the job centre's fault because there wasn't clarity regarding roles within the post and stating a legal age for the centre worker or prospective employee. The Employer has to take responsibility for ensuring the proper details are enclosed in a job advert. All job centre's can do is talk on the phone to employers - I can't see them having time to visit every single one, can they?
On this subject - I have been on the unemployed side where you cannot refuse to put in an application for a job. You have to prove in your job search (that can be and is checked randomly) that you applied. Its fine saying that you can refuse or state that the job isn't appropriate IF the employer has given the correct details to the job centre in the first place. You may not find out until you get a reply back from the employer or you go for an interview.
I have been given a job to apply for that stated it was of an adult nature. I asked what they meant by adult nature - I am 51 yrs old, been around the block a few times
and have an excellent understanding what Adult Nature means but not so clear to me in a Administration post context! A 17 yr old - not long left school/college, who may not have stepped far outside their community (and yes it happens a lot in close knit communities in large cities an villages), or hasn't a great awareness of the wider world because they were too busy being young people, who didn't listen to the lads talking about massage parlours and bj's -hehehe, or who where perhaps naive, nothing wrong with that is there?
So what if the "bottled it" I know I bluddy well would even now! Good for them - its not for everyone. Just because we are adults and perhaps THINK young people have a great understanding and knowledge of sex (because of course - they are all doing it :dry
, it just shows how sensible they can be by asking the right questions, being adult about a situation and know when something isn't up their street and of course highlighting the incident (if the did?). Give them some credit here!! As for Job Centre's not being able to accept those types of posts - I think they should be able to as long as its clearly written in the notes what is entailed and unemployed people can make an informed choice as long as its legal.
Extra's in this instance was the important part that should have been in the centre's notes (if they weren't - not sure how anyone can check?). Massage can be just what it states on the tin and they are places where it purely is just that. Perhaps it wasn't the job centre's fault because there wasn't clarity regarding roles within the post and stating a legal age for the centre worker or prospective employee. The Employer has to take responsibility for ensuring the proper details are enclosed in a job advert. All job centre's can do is talk on the phone to employers - I can't see them having time to visit every single one, can they?
Quote by anais
snip...
I have been given a job to apply for that stated it was of an adult nature. I asked what they meant by adult nature - I am 51 yrs old, been around the block a few times
waits patiently with bated breath to find out what was meant by that.... :smoke:
Quote by Kaznkev
i expressed myself flippantly,i will remember this is CA serious head only.i still have difficulty believing they were so upset at being asked they approached an anti lap dancing organisation,one who conveniently wanted the ads a couple of the femminist blogs i follow are suggesting the whole incident was apocryphal in nature,and that's a polite way of putting it.
None of the teens i know well are having sex,well , or so they claim,but they are incredibly knowledgeable intelligent people .And i live in a small close knit community.,Which is why i dont see that sex work for some 17 yr olds would be the end of the describe someone as venerable just because of their age is to do a disservice,exactly the same as assuming all teens are hoodies or thugs.
i have a friend who at 18 is one of the most mature women i know,i was more than willing to take her to a swinging club,and she carefully balanced the pros and cons before deciding the scene wasnt for her.
Did you really mean venerable or vulnerable?
Orgasminator
Quote by Kaznkev
This is an interesting thread - lets keep it that way!
On this subject - I have been on the unemployed side where you cannot refuse to put in an application for a job. You have to prove in your job search (that can be and is checked randomly) that you applied. Its fine saying that you can refuse or state that the job isn't appropriate IF the employer has given the correct details to the job centre in the first place. You may not find out until you get a reply back from the employer or you go for an interview.
I have been given a job to apply for that stated it was of an adult nature. I asked what they meant by adult nature - I am 51 yrs old, been around the block a few times
A 17 yr old - not long left school/college, who may not have stepped far outside their community (and yes it happens a lot in close knit communities in large cities an villages), or hasn't a great awareness of the wider world because they were too busy being young people, who didn't listen to the lads talking about massage parlours and bj's -hehehe, or who where perhaps naive, nothing wrong with that is there?
So what if the "bottled it" I know I bluddy well would even now! Good for them - its not for everyone. Just because we are adults and perhaps THINK young people have a great understanding and knowledge of sex (because of course - they are all doing it :dry
As for Job Centre's not being able to accept those types of posts - I think they should be able to as long as its clearly written in the notes what is entailed and unemployed people can make an informed choice as long as its legal.
Extra's in this instance was the important part that should have been in the centre's notes (if they weren't - not sure how anyone can check?). Massage can be just what it states on the tin and they are places where it purely is just that. Perhaps it wasn't the job centre's fault because there wasn't clarity regarding roles within the post and stating a legal age for the centre worker or prospective employee. The Employer has to take responsibility for ensuring the proper details are enclosed in a job advert. All job centre's can do is talk on the phone to employers - I can't see them having time to visit every single one, can they?
i expressed myself flippantly,i will remember this is CA serious head only.i still have difficulty believing they were so upset at being asked they approached an anti lap dancing organisation,one who conveniently wanted the ads a couple of the femminist blogs i follow are suggesting the whole incident was apocryphal in nature,and that's a polite way of putting it.
None of the teens i know well are having sex,well , or so they claim,but they are incredibly knowledgeable intelligent people .And i live in a small close knit community.,Which is why i dont see that sex work for some 17 yr olds would be the end of the world.Too describe someone as venerable just because of their age is to do a disservice,exactly the same as assuming all teens are hoodies or thugs.
i have a friend who at 18 is one of the most mature women i know,i was more than willing to take her to a swinging club,and she carefully balanced the pros and cons before deciding the scene wasnt for her.
Kaz - I didnt suggest that all youngsters are vulnerable, I said the line is drawn at that age to protect the vulneralbe. It has to be drawn somewhere to protect them and IMO 18 is a very reasonable age for it to be. There may well be plenty of very switched on 17 year olds, but the fact that they cant have been having sex for more than a couple of years or indeed have had a full time job for that long eiher, is enough to make even the most adult among them, less equipped in that situation.
Anais - You're right, the Job Centre can only go on the information from the employer. It beggers belief that such an employer wouldn't disclose all of the job description. That would surely be a big waste of everyones time as it would be more likely that they would be sent inappropriate applicants. Perhaps they never inteded to hire via the Job Centre in the first place but were just showing that they had advertised properly.
