So this week was a sad week because I lost my job at the Citizens Advice Bureau. In a lot of cases, I wouldn't have minded quite so much but in this case I did mind because it was interesting and most of the people there were friendly.
It all started when I came back from the Christmas break because I'd been ill and that had broken my body clock, so that led to me making a few errors because I got out of be that day having had no sleep. But then they started saying that I'd made other errors. So they got the person who supervised all the gateway assessors (who'd just come back after being treated for cancer) to assess me and because I did things differently to the way she did things, she criticised me far too much for some of the things I was doing, even though a lot of people were doing things I was doing.
One of the main things she criticised me for was for not being sympathetic enough when someone with a debt problem called. She said that I shouldn't have just said "I'll call you back", and that I should've given her more help before putting the phone down to see what could be done for her but the reason that I didn't do that was because I'd never dealt with or observed a call on debt before, and so I'd rather leave her with without any information before I called her back as opposed to giving information I wasn't sure of, and I think anyone else would've done the same. The worst part about it was that no one else had told me that that was a problem.
Then another person called with a issue regarding divorce/money, and I was going to use the same tactic I proposed using with the previous caller of finding out the relevant information and calling them back when I had the relevant information and she again criticised me for temporarily sending them away with no information. When we were discussing what to do, I made it perfectly clear that I knew what to do but she went around insisting that this was another person she was having to call back for me!
Part of the problem was that she was aggressive in the way that she criticised me and so it made me nervous and meant that I couldn't do the job properly.
So after my manager had talked to this person, he called me the next day and said that it's just not working out and that he's not comfortable having me on the phones. When I tried to say that this woman had caused some of the problems, he said that he felt that way even without her feedback but that can't have been true because he'd said 4 weeks ago, "I think you can do this", and in the last two times I'd been back in the four weeks after he said that the gateway assessor had been supervising me on both occasions, so it must have had something to do with her. And I can't help thinking that it seems rather contradictory to tell me that he had thought about it and then slept on it before deciding that he wasn't comfortable with me answering the phones. The worst thing about that phone call was that he didn't thank me for the time I'd given up to come in and help.
But I guess my father was right when he said that I'd "had [my] first taste of office politics" because really I lost my job because the gateway supervisor just didn't like me. I'm not going to deny that there weren't faults on my part that led to this but she made me sound worse than I was.
When I asked if I could do anything else in the office the manager said that there was nothing at present that he needed me to do but he said that he would call me if there were any other roles became available. If he'd given me something else there and then I probably would have taken the offer but if he rings me up in a few weeks/months and says that they need me to do something, I don't honestly know if I'd feel comfortable doing it after all that's happened even though it's good legal experience.
Saturday, 26 February 2011
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Was I meant to take a gap year?
Since I last posted not much has happened but there was one particular event that took place in my village that was unlike any event we'd ever seen before here in the past few decades: 4 thatched houses caught fire and because the fire started in the roofs of the houses, the thatched houses couldn't be saved, so the roofs fell in and the residents of the houses had to move out. The fire was so bad that firefighters had to be called in from the neighbouring counties of Wiltshire and Hampshire and they had to stay there fore at least 36 hours and check on the houses for the next 2 days after that. It also meant that we had a power cut for 12 hours because the smoke from the fire was so bad that it took the electricians a long time before they could cut those houses off from the electricity supply.
Luckily because we're a small village of 200-250 residents, word of this incident could be spread easily and so we could get lots of help quite easily. Since the residents needed boxes in order to gather their things and take them elsewhere, I brought lots of boxes along in order for them to do just that. Admittedly I wasn't doing nearly as much as some people, who were actually helping to pack the resident's belongings into the boxes but it still was quite an important role.
One of the saddest things about these fires was that 3 out of the four houses were council houses and the residents of the other house had spent a lot of the last summer decorating the house. It was also rather sad on a historical note because these houses are houses that have been around since the late 1600s.
If there was anything that this fire taught me, it taught me that you should never buy a thatched house because originally the fire started in the roof of one of the houses but because they were terraced houses it spread to all four of the houses. Although I knew that there was a greater risk of a fire starting in a thatched house, I didn't realise that the insurance was also greater because once the fire starts in the roof, they can't stop the fire.
Because the electricity was still off at supper time, we had to go and have supper at the pub. When we got there, we met some other people from our village and so naturally we talked about the fire. One of the things that the mother/wife (who'd been helping the victims of the fire) said was that she was only able to help because she happened to be off work that day and when she said that I couldn't help thinking that it was just aswell I was having a gap year and I was there to help. So I couldn't help wondering if this was one of the reasons for which I was meant to take a gap year because it reminded me a lot of how there are much less people around than usual on a train/plane/bus, etc. or in a place than usual when accidents/tragedies take place, almost as if it were a premeditated order.
However, it's not just that incident that makes me think that I was meant to take a gap year. The other incident that makes me think I was meant to take a gap year, is something that happened at the Citizens Advice Bureau. Admittedly it was something small to begin with because it just involved me learning that at the moment because of the recession, a lot of employers will put their full time staff on part time hours/pay for 12 weeks and then make them redundant so that they have to pay them less redundancy money. But I happened to relay this fact to my family later on in the day, and it was just aswell I did because my mother is a public sector worker and so she's suffering the consequences of the budget cuts but coincidentally someone (who was ignorant about this fact regarding redundancy pay) had suggested that they all go part-time to save jobs, and the managers in her office very nearly did take the suggested action until my mother pointed this problem out. It's just aswell that she did point this fact out because the budget cuts are getting so bad that my mother has voluntarily made herself redundant and so if they'd made her part-time before hand, she would have been entitled to less redundancy money.
Admittedly taking a gap year has been beneficial to me in other respects but it's just so odd to think that there was a good reason for me doing badly on my maths exams in year 12!
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
Picking a university
I haven't posted for a while since I've been busy doing exams but also because I've had open days and interviews to go to. But since my blog is about taking a gap year and deciding where to go to university, I shall give you my perspective and tell you of my experiences so far.
The first open day and interview (and in fact the only interview) I went to was at Essex University. I wasn't particularly impressed by what I saw of Essex. The first thing that put me off was the train I took there because it looked like something out of the 1980s with the faded seats and the yellow sides and as I left the train station my perceptions of Colchester/Essex University didn't really improve because in general the buildings in Colchester and the university were rather nasty modern buildings (office block type buildings, etc.). I looked at the accommodation and I just couldn't see it suiting me and during the open day I got the distinct impression that people were more focussed on the social side. However, what also put me off was the interview because they asked me really simple questions such as "Why do you support Britain's membership of the EU?" and they didn't really challenge my answers and for the first 5 minutes they were asking me of I wanted to do law combined with another subject. Apparently Essex University started doing the interviews for law this year as a result of the budget cuts but if they're asking those kind of questions then it makes me wonder what the average intelligence of people on the course is and what kind of people they're trying to root out. Nevertheless, I will say that the good things about the university are that the accommodation is very cheap, you can do courses to make yourself more employable and there are a lot of shops and banks on the campus, also the good thing about the law course is that they have a law clinic in which you help citizens around Colchester who need legal advice and they do compulsory work experience in the field of mediation.
The next university I looked at was Sussex. I was much more impressed by Sussex than Essex because they went into a lot of depth about what their law degree entailed, why they incorporated particular aspects into the law degree and they gave you a seminar in law so that you would be prepared for what was expected of you when you start a law degree. I also preferred their accommodation because a lot of it looked much nicer although admittedly the accommodation at the lower end of the scale is worse but the accommodation at the top of the scale was much better. I would say that the other advantage of Sussex is that there is more to do in Brighton (ie. the nearest city to the university) than in Colchester and you can do language courses in almost every language.
Today I looked at Exeter and I didn't find it as impressive as people often describe it as being. In a lot of ways I found Sussex more impressive because Exeter in a lot of ways seemed quite disorganised, for example during "self-catered accommodation tour", we were only shown one of the particular rooms and the person giving the tour said "You're not going to get much done in the first year" (I worry slightly that the latter might be a sign that people at Exeter might be too relaxed for their own good). I was also put off by their talk on law because unlike Sussex they didn't go into great depth about what the degree involved and they seemed a bit too focussed on the social side of the degree at that point aswell because they did a whole slide about what university was good for and how it was good for memories. On the other hand they showed us what a moot was like and they told us that Exeter was one of the top universities for mooting and Exeter also has a law clinic which allows you to apply the knowledge of law which you have learnt. And if you like sport, it's worth noting that Exeter has facilities for 170 different sports!
So at the moment I'm waiting to see if Queen Mary will make me an offer, and if they don't I'll have to decide whether I will put Exeter or Sussex down as my firm offer. If it does end up being a choice between those 2 for me it will be question of which university has the highest rate of 2:1s and 1sts for law, which university campus is cheaper to live on, which law degree is more practical, which university has the better reputation and which main city I prefer because as a girl who's grown up in the countryside, I really want to go to university in a big city where there's lots to do!
I was also rejected by Durham, most likely reason being that my LNAT score was actually worse than the first time when I did it but I'm not too bothered because I wasn't that keen on going up north and being so far away from my family, it's very cold there, it's a long way to take all your belongings and I just wasn't that keen on the university in general.
The first open day and interview (and in fact the only interview) I went to was at Essex University. I wasn't particularly impressed by what I saw of Essex. The first thing that put me off was the train I took there because it looked like something out of the 1980s with the faded seats and the yellow sides and as I left the train station my perceptions of Colchester/Essex University didn't really improve because in general the buildings in Colchester and the university were rather nasty modern buildings (office block type buildings, etc.). I looked at the accommodation and I just couldn't see it suiting me and during the open day I got the distinct impression that people were more focussed on the social side. However, what also put me off was the interview because they asked me really simple questions such as "Why do you support Britain's membership of the EU?" and they didn't really challenge my answers and for the first 5 minutes they were asking me of I wanted to do law combined with another subject. Apparently Essex University started doing the interviews for law this year as a result of the budget cuts but if they're asking those kind of questions then it makes me wonder what the average intelligence of people on the course is and what kind of people they're trying to root out. Nevertheless, I will say that the good things about the university are that the accommodation is very cheap, you can do courses to make yourself more employable and there are a lot of shops and banks on the campus, also the good thing about the law course is that they have a law clinic in which you help citizens around Colchester who need legal advice and they do compulsory work experience in the field of mediation.
The next university I looked at was Sussex. I was much more impressed by Sussex than Essex because they went into a lot of depth about what their law degree entailed, why they incorporated particular aspects into the law degree and they gave you a seminar in law so that you would be prepared for what was expected of you when you start a law degree. I also preferred their accommodation because a lot of it looked much nicer although admittedly the accommodation at the lower end of the scale is worse but the accommodation at the top of the scale was much better. I would say that the other advantage of Sussex is that there is more to do in Brighton (ie. the nearest city to the university) than in Colchester and you can do language courses in almost every language.
Today I looked at Exeter and I didn't find it as impressive as people often describe it as being. In a lot of ways I found Sussex more impressive because Exeter in a lot of ways seemed quite disorganised, for example during "self-catered accommodation tour", we were only shown one of the particular rooms and the person giving the tour said "You're not going to get much done in the first year" (I worry slightly that the latter might be a sign that people at Exeter might be too relaxed for their own good). I was also put off by their talk on law because unlike Sussex they didn't go into great depth about what the degree involved and they seemed a bit too focussed on the social side of the degree at that point aswell because they did a whole slide about what university was good for and how it was good for memories. On the other hand they showed us what a moot was like and they told us that Exeter was one of the top universities for mooting and Exeter also has a law clinic which allows you to apply the knowledge of law which you have learnt. And if you like sport, it's worth noting that Exeter has facilities for 170 different sports!
So at the moment I'm waiting to see if Queen Mary will make me an offer, and if they don't I'll have to decide whether I will put Exeter or Sussex down as my firm offer. If it does end up being a choice between those 2 for me it will be question of which university has the highest rate of 2:1s and 1sts for law, which university campus is cheaper to live on, which law degree is more practical, which university has the better reputation and which main city I prefer because as a girl who's grown up in the countryside, I really want to go to university in a big city where there's lots to do!
I was also rejected by Durham, most likely reason being that my LNAT score was actually worse than the first time when I did it but I'm not too bothered because I wasn't that keen on going up north and being so far away from my family, it's very cold there, it's a long way to take all your belongings and I just wasn't that keen on the university in general.
Saturday, 11 December 2010
My faith in politicians
So yesterday, I wrote about how I'm not currently sure which party I support in British politics. However, at the moment I'm also losing my faith in politicians both inside and outside of Britain because of the whole Wikileaks' scandal.
I think of Obama, I was very supportive of him in the election because he'd always put himself forward as someone who was very much in support of human rights and justice for the people. He himself condemned what had happened at Guantanamo Bay and said he "condemned all torture". He's also made many speeches in which he supports democracy, such as the one he made in China. But yet now, when Julian Assange is exposing all of the governments unknown human rights' abuses and countries wrong doings in order to try and make them more accountable and transparent, he seems to be making Sweden pay two women to say that Assange raped them, so that his work is halted and he tries to justify by saying that Assange is "posing a danger", when he clearly isn't. So how much does he really support human rights? Does he just support them when it suits him to do so?
I also think of Hilary Clinton, she also seemed to be very much in support of human rights and justice, and before she dropped out of the election I supported her. But yet I see her doing exactly the same as Obama, she says that Julian Assange is 'sabotaging peaceful relations' between countries. In a way it doesn't surprise me because it was revealed a few months ago that she wanted Britain to cover up CIA torture evidence. But this has made me lose even more respect for her. These are politicians who condemn corrupt countries, where leaders oppress those who try to expose government wrong doings and yet when this happens to them they oppress the person whose exposing their wrong doings. I'm not trying to say that they are as bad as those leaders, because they aren't nearly as bad but the way they are carrying on in this instance is nevertheless hypocritical.
Admittedly in the case of Cameron, he hasn't spoken out quite so much for Human Rights. In fact he was the one who was even threatening to withdraw us from the Human Rights Act if the Conservatives
were in power. So maybe it's less of a surprise that he's also trying to stop Julian Assange from carrying on with his work.
I also have to admit that in all of this, it is a minority of politicians who are condemning the actions of Assange outright. But what annoys me is, that none of the politicians are speaking out against the way in which Assange is being treated, and that they seem to think it is fine to carry on in this way.
What also annoys me is the way in which all the countries involved in the imprisonment of Assange are just doing it because that's what America wants and America is the financial capital of the world, so they feel they have to, even though they have the Human Rights Act as part of their constitution. But why should someone's rights come second to money?
The way that the politicians are behaving is a disgrace given that we're in the 21st Century.
I think of Obama, I was very supportive of him in the election because he'd always put himself forward as someone who was very much in support of human rights and justice for the people. He himself condemned what had happened at Guantanamo Bay and said he "condemned all torture". He's also made many speeches in which he supports democracy, such as the one he made in China. But yet now, when Julian Assange is exposing all of the governments unknown human rights' abuses and countries wrong doings in order to try and make them more accountable and transparent, he seems to be making Sweden pay two women to say that Assange raped them, so that his work is halted and he tries to justify by saying that Assange is "posing a danger", when he clearly isn't. So how much does he really support human rights? Does he just support them when it suits him to do so?
I also think of Hilary Clinton, she also seemed to be very much in support of human rights and justice, and before she dropped out of the election I supported her. But yet I see her doing exactly the same as Obama, she says that Julian Assange is 'sabotaging peaceful relations' between countries. In a way it doesn't surprise me because it was revealed a few months ago that she wanted Britain to cover up CIA torture evidence. But this has made me lose even more respect for her. These are politicians who condemn corrupt countries, where leaders oppress those who try to expose government wrong doings and yet when this happens to them they oppress the person whose exposing their wrong doings. I'm not trying to say that they are as bad as those leaders, because they aren't nearly as bad but the way they are carrying on in this instance is nevertheless hypocritical.
Admittedly in the case of Cameron, he hasn't spoken out quite so much for Human Rights. In fact he was the one who was even threatening to withdraw us from the Human Rights Act if the Conservatives
were in power. So maybe it's less of a surprise that he's also trying to stop Julian Assange from carrying on with his work.
I also have to admit that in all of this, it is a minority of politicians who are condemning the actions of Assange outright. But what annoys me is, that none of the politicians are speaking out against the way in which Assange is being treated, and that they seem to think it is fine to carry on in this way.
What also annoys me is the way in which all the countries involved in the imprisonment of Assange are just doing it because that's what America wants and America is the financial capital of the world, so they feel they have to, even though they have the Human Rights Act as part of their constitution. But why should someone's rights come second to money?
The way that the politicians are behaving is a disgrace given that we're in the 21st Century.
Friday, 10 December 2010
My political beliefs
At the moment I'm really struggling with my political beliefs. Before the election of this year, I was a Liberal Democrat but since they decided to make higher education more expensive than it already is and pushed through some budget cuts which really do seem rather unfair, I really am having second thoughts about whether I support them.
The problem I'm having is that I don't know how much of it was really their fault because Labour did leave the government with a lot of debt and so they have had to make some harsh budget cuts as a result. However, even they concede that they were actually planning to make budget cuts when they were in coalition talks with Labour and the Conservatives despite the fact that they said they were against the Conservatives making cuts i 2010. Clegg said that he had had a change of heart because other countries in the EU were starting to make budget cuts because they were starting to realise that they also had to cut their debts and so he now thought we needed to take this approach but if this was the case, then why didn't he say this before we all went to the polls? What really annoys me about the fact that he did this, is that he had always tried to make out that the Liberal Democrats were an honest party but in doing that, they hardly seem honest.
Nevertheless, I cannot forget that they have done good things, that might not have happened if the Conservatives had been in a majority government. For instance they stopped the Conservatives giving tax breaks to married couples and withdrawing us from the Human Rights Act. Furthermore, they and the Conservatives have stopped people wanting to do a part time degree from having to pay up front and they have scrapped some of Labour's other ridiculous policies. So I'm left wondering just how much difference there would have been between a Conservative government and the current coalition's government.
But the fact that I'm disillusioned with the Liberal Democrats doesn't mean I support either of the other two predominant parties anymore. I dislike the Conservatives because they support the interests of the rich more than the interests of anyone else, I cannot forgive them for what happened whilst Thatcher was in power and I really cannot stand the views of their more right-wing members.
And although I lend more of my support to Labour than I do to the Conservatives. It doesn't mean I would necessarily support them at the election because I think they sometimes take their issue of equality a bit too far by doing things such as encouraging too many people to go to university in order to bring about "the equality of opportunity", and they try and dictate how governmental organisations should work far too much when half the time they don't even know what they're talking about and I'm very angry that they took us to war with Iraq.
So I'm considering voting for the Green Party but I'm still eager to stop the Conservatives winning in my area (because where I live the Conservatives often win, and they've won every election in that seat since the 1950s, and the only other party who has a chance of winning is the Liberal Democrats), so I'm still trying to work out what would be most worthwhile in the current situation.
The problem I'm having is that I don't know how much of it was really their fault because Labour did leave the government with a lot of debt and so they have had to make some harsh budget cuts as a result. However, even they concede that they were actually planning to make budget cuts when they were in coalition talks with Labour and the Conservatives despite the fact that they said they were against the Conservatives making cuts i 2010. Clegg said that he had had a change of heart because other countries in the EU were starting to make budget cuts because they were starting to realise that they also had to cut their debts and so he now thought we needed to take this approach but if this was the case, then why didn't he say this before we all went to the polls? What really annoys me about the fact that he did this, is that he had always tried to make out that the Liberal Democrats were an honest party but in doing that, they hardly seem honest.
Nevertheless, I cannot forget that they have done good things, that might not have happened if the Conservatives had been in a majority government. For instance they stopped the Conservatives giving tax breaks to married couples and withdrawing us from the Human Rights Act. Furthermore, they and the Conservatives have stopped people wanting to do a part time degree from having to pay up front and they have scrapped some of Labour's other ridiculous policies. So I'm left wondering just how much difference there would have been between a Conservative government and the current coalition's government.
But the fact that I'm disillusioned with the Liberal Democrats doesn't mean I support either of the other two predominant parties anymore. I dislike the Conservatives because they support the interests of the rich more than the interests of anyone else, I cannot forgive them for what happened whilst Thatcher was in power and I really cannot stand the views of their more right-wing members.
And although I lend more of my support to Labour than I do to the Conservatives. It doesn't mean I would necessarily support them at the election because I think they sometimes take their issue of equality a bit too far by doing things such as encouraging too many people to go to university in order to bring about "the equality of opportunity", and they try and dictate how governmental organisations should work far too much when half the time they don't even know what they're talking about and I'm very angry that they took us to war with Iraq.
So I'm considering voting for the Green Party but I'm still eager to stop the Conservatives winning in my area (because where I live the Conservatives often win, and they've won every election in that seat since the 1950s, and the only other party who has a chance of winning is the Liberal Democrats), so I'm still trying to work out what would be most worthwhile in the current situation.
Friday, 19 November 2010
My work at the Citizens Advice Bureau
So this week I was finally allowed to answer the phones at the Citizens Advice Bureau. It doesn't sound that great but it's nice to finally be given a bit more independence, after having to sit and listen to other people taking the calls. Although the only downside was that the first person I had calling was a polish person, so it was hard to spell her name correctly, especially as the telephone line isn't great!
Nevertheless, no matter how limited my independence there has been, I've still found it very interesting. Obviously I'm learning lots about law but it's teaching me a lot about society, and the injustices still present in society, and it's making me question the way some things are in the English legal system. Most of what the office of the Citizens Advice Bureau that I work in deals with is employment, debt, and housing issues, but it varies with each office of the CAB because it really depends on the issues that are more predominant in the town/region where the CAB office operates.
The enquiries that are most complicated to deal with, are enquiries relating to employment, because whether their employer is in the right or the wrong depends largely on the contract that they are under, and so we often have to give them an appointment so that someone can review their employment contract and work out whether they have a valid claim.
What I have found so far by working at the CAB is that quite a few of the people who come to the office with problems, have often gotten themselves into the particular problem because they haven't done some of the simplest things. For instance, the first call I ever listened to was from a woman who was facing a repossession order because she lived/lives in social housing and she hadn't kept up with her rent payments. The reason that she hadn't kept up with these payments was in fact because she had become a self-employed worker, and so she could no longer afford her rent payments but in reality all she needed to do was ring up the authorities and tell them that she had become self-employed and then she would have received more housing benefit to help her with her rent payments.
Another case that I still remember very clearly, is the case of a woman who had lent her friend a large sum of money, which the friend was refusing to give back. The background to the story was that her husband had had a stroke and she became friends with this woman after this had happened because the woman's husband had worked in the same business as her husband, and after her husband had the stroke, the woman did lots of things to help her such as picking her grandson up from school, etc. But then one day this friend said that she needed financial help, and so she lent her all or the majority of her life savings (£10,000). But when she started asking her for the money back the friend would not reply to her in any way or form, and she appeared to have used this "emergency" money to buy a house. She tried to get her lawyer and the police involved because it was essentially a case of theft at this point but because she had no proof that she had even given this friend the money, apart from the friend confessing that she had borrowed this money from her, there was nothing they could do and she couldn't take it to a small claims court because they don't deal with claims that exceed £5,000. I don't know whether she gave the friend the money in cash or as a cheque, but it's crazy to think that she wouldn't have even had this problem, if she'd just made out a cheque and spent 5/10p photocopying it, and perhaps made the friend sign a written agreement that she would pay back the money.
The other case that has contributed to this point of view was the case of this woman, whose husband had lost his job. She called us because they were trying to just pay for everything by living off their savings and the money was beginning to run out, and they had quite a lot to pay for because they had a mortgage and some loans/credit card debts. But they could have solved this problem by taking simple steps because what her husband should have done was signed up for Job Seeker's Allowance and what they should have done was call the bank, and credit card/loan companies they had debts with to explain that they had less income coming in and would have to pay less money back to them each month.
Nevertheless, no matter how limited my independence there has been, I've still found it very interesting. Obviously I'm learning lots about law but it's teaching me a lot about society, and the injustices still present in society, and it's making me question the way some things are in the English legal system. Most of what the office of the Citizens Advice Bureau that I work in deals with is employment, debt, and housing issues, but it varies with each office of the CAB because it really depends on the issues that are more predominant in the town/region where the CAB office operates.
The enquiries that are most complicated to deal with, are enquiries relating to employment, because whether their employer is in the right or the wrong depends largely on the contract that they are under, and so we often have to give them an appointment so that someone can review their employment contract and work out whether they have a valid claim.
What I have found so far by working at the CAB is that quite a few of the people who come to the office with problems, have often gotten themselves into the particular problem because they haven't done some of the simplest things. For instance, the first call I ever listened to was from a woman who was facing a repossession order because she lived/lives in social housing and she hadn't kept up with her rent payments. The reason that she hadn't kept up with these payments was in fact because she had become a self-employed worker, and so she could no longer afford her rent payments but in reality all she needed to do was ring up the authorities and tell them that she had become self-employed and then she would have received more housing benefit to help her with her rent payments.
Another case that I still remember very clearly, is the case of a woman who had lent her friend a large sum of money, which the friend was refusing to give back. The background to the story was that her husband had had a stroke and she became friends with this woman after this had happened because the woman's husband had worked in the same business as her husband, and after her husband had the stroke, the woman did lots of things to help her such as picking her grandson up from school, etc. But then one day this friend said that she needed financial help, and so she lent her all or the majority of her life savings (£10,000). But when she started asking her for the money back the friend would not reply to her in any way or form, and she appeared to have used this "emergency" money to buy a house. She tried to get her lawyer and the police involved because it was essentially a case of theft at this point but because she had no proof that she had even given this friend the money, apart from the friend confessing that she had borrowed this money from her, there was nothing they could do and she couldn't take it to a small claims court because they don't deal with claims that exceed £5,000. I don't know whether she gave the friend the money in cash or as a cheque, but it's crazy to think that she wouldn't have even had this problem, if she'd just made out a cheque and spent 5/10p photocopying it, and perhaps made the friend sign a written agreement that she would pay back the money.
The other case that has contributed to this point of view was the case of this woman, whose husband had lost his job. She called us because they were trying to just pay for everything by living off their savings and the money was beginning to run out, and they had quite a lot to pay for because they had a mortgage and some loans/credit card debts. But they could have solved this problem by taking simple steps because what her husband should have done was signed up for Job Seeker's Allowance and what they should have done was call the bank, and credit card/loan companies they had debts with to explain that they had less income coming in and would have to pay less money back to them each month.
Saturday, 6 November 2010
Fullfilment
So, I'm currently in the middle of watching Letters to Juliet but I'm watching it on Megavideo, and as I've just watched 62 minutes of it, I have to wait 54 minutes to see the rest of it, so I just thought I'd write a blog update while I was at it.
This blog has been partly inspired by this film because Letters to Juliet is about a girl who goes on holiday with her boyfriend to Italy. However, because her boyfriend is using this holiday as a business trip to help set up his restaurant, he doesn't have very much time for her, and so her options as to where she can go in Italy are somewhat limited. But she can still explore Verona (the place where she's staying), so inevitably she does and she discovers a wall in which people having all sorts of problems with their love life write to the Juliet of Romeo & Juliet and post them on to a wall, and at the end of each day Juliet's secretaries come to get the letters they have received and write back to them in order to help them with their problems. As a prospective journalist, Sophie decides to spend a few days with them to discover more about their work, and one day when they go to collect the letters Juliet finds a very old letter stuck in the wall, dated from 1956, from a woman who left a boy behind, despite the fact that she really loved him, and doesn't know what to do. In spite of the fact that this is a very old letter, Sophie decides to reply and rather unexpectedly the woman is very grateful and follows her advice, I won't tell you what happens next but it's a very good film.
Although one of the reasons that I'm talking about this film is because I enjoyed it, the other reason I'm talking about it is because I feel like Juliet. Because I like Juliet want to travel, I don't necessarily want to go to Italy, don't get me wrong it's a beautiful country and I would at some point like to go there but there are many places that I'd like to go to in Europe. But to want isn't enough because I just don't have the money to go to these places.
I'm glad I didn't go to Hull and I don't think I'll ever regret my decision to decline the offer but being stuck in the Dorset countryside (as much as a love the breath-taking views) whilst my friends and my sister are at university just isn't very exciting. In the past few weeks I've been looking at photos of travel photographers and travel blogs and thinking of how nice it would be to explore.
At the moment I'd really like to go to Brussels, one of the things that attracts me to it is Le Musée Hergé (the museum about Tintin), another thing that I like about it is its architecture but also because I went on a holiday to Bruges when I was 12 and I really enjoyed it, and so I'd like to see some more of Belgium, and since I'm a supporter of the EU, I might even end up working there.
But since I'll have to compromise on this dream of exploring more of Europe, I'll have to just settle for interesting places to visit in the UK, and since I'm planning on doing some work experience in the courts in London this should be possible. So I'm thinking of going back to the V&A (I went there this summer but because there's so much of it to see, I didn't get to see all of it), going to Dr Johnson's Museum, Covent Garden and other interesting museums in London, I'm also interested in going to the Jane Austen Museum in Bath, since I really like Jane Austen's literature.
I'm also really interested in going to Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Scandinavia, Italy and Poland. This is one of the downsides to doing an A-level in your gap year though, you can't go and live abroad and get a job in order to facilitate this desire but make no mistake, I'm still enjoying learning Latin but if you're thinking of taking a gap year then take note!
But since I haven't got the money to travel, I have instead taken up the considerably cheaper habit of watching a lot of films. So far in the past week I've watched the Time Traveller's Wife, Wild Child and as you know I'm currently watching Letter's to Juliet. I've also been watching a lot of trailers for french films, I'd forgotten how unique they were, so I've bought Après Vous but I'm also interested in buying Lemon Tree, Paris and My Best Friend.
This is another problem with gap years, the boredom induced can empty your pockets. I've been so bored I've already done the majority of my Christmas shopping, I've spent £40 on a pair of pyjamas and I've been buying loads of books and music.
This blog has been partly inspired by this film because Letters to Juliet is about a girl who goes on holiday with her boyfriend to Italy. However, because her boyfriend is using this holiday as a business trip to help set up his restaurant, he doesn't have very much time for her, and so her options as to where she can go in Italy are somewhat limited. But she can still explore Verona (the place where she's staying), so inevitably she does and she discovers a wall in which people having all sorts of problems with their love life write to the Juliet of Romeo & Juliet and post them on to a wall, and at the end of each day Juliet's secretaries come to get the letters they have received and write back to them in order to help them with their problems. As a prospective journalist, Sophie decides to spend a few days with them to discover more about their work, and one day when they go to collect the letters Juliet finds a very old letter stuck in the wall, dated from 1956, from a woman who left a boy behind, despite the fact that she really loved him, and doesn't know what to do. In spite of the fact that this is a very old letter, Sophie decides to reply and rather unexpectedly the woman is very grateful and follows her advice, I won't tell you what happens next but it's a very good film.
Although one of the reasons that I'm talking about this film is because I enjoyed it, the other reason I'm talking about it is because I feel like Juliet. Because I like Juliet want to travel, I don't necessarily want to go to Italy, don't get me wrong it's a beautiful country and I would at some point like to go there but there are many places that I'd like to go to in Europe. But to want isn't enough because I just don't have the money to go to these places.
I'm glad I didn't go to Hull and I don't think I'll ever regret my decision to decline the offer but being stuck in the Dorset countryside (as much as a love the breath-taking views) whilst my friends and my sister are at university just isn't very exciting. In the past few weeks I've been looking at photos of travel photographers and travel blogs and thinking of how nice it would be to explore.
At the moment I'd really like to go to Brussels, one of the things that attracts me to it is Le Musée Hergé (the museum about Tintin), another thing that I like about it is its architecture but also because I went on a holiday to Bruges when I was 12 and I really enjoyed it, and so I'd like to see some more of Belgium, and since I'm a supporter of the EU, I might even end up working there.
But since I'll have to compromise on this dream of exploring more of Europe, I'll have to just settle for interesting places to visit in the UK, and since I'm planning on doing some work experience in the courts in London this should be possible. So I'm thinking of going back to the V&A (I went there this summer but because there's so much of it to see, I didn't get to see all of it), going to Dr Johnson's Museum, Covent Garden and other interesting museums in London, I'm also interested in going to the Jane Austen Museum in Bath, since I really like Jane Austen's literature.
I'm also really interested in going to Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Scandinavia, Italy and Poland. This is one of the downsides to doing an A-level in your gap year though, you can't go and live abroad and get a job in order to facilitate this desire but make no mistake, I'm still enjoying learning Latin but if you're thinking of taking a gap year then take note!
But since I haven't got the money to travel, I have instead taken up the considerably cheaper habit of watching a lot of films. So far in the past week I've watched the Time Traveller's Wife, Wild Child and as you know I'm currently watching Letter's to Juliet. I've also been watching a lot of trailers for french films, I'd forgotten how unique they were, so I've bought Après Vous but I'm also interested in buying Lemon Tree, Paris and My Best Friend.
This is another problem with gap years, the boredom induced can empty your pockets. I've been so bored I've already done the majority of my Christmas shopping, I've spent £40 on a pair of pyjamas and I've been buying loads of books and music.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)