Cycling Dan
Cycle Crazy
Today I was brought in by my team leader.
Main reason was subject X in our team complained about me on something I said about council estates of which Subject X found offensive.
When questioned on it I simply didn't have a clue what my team leader was going on about.
I had to think a while after as to what I said, I simply didn't remember.
After about 1 hour thinking on the event I suddenly remembered what the conversation was about.
We were talking about the troubles we have with offshore in terms of our work. She brought up how she hates people who come over and work, further more SubjectX added how to they claim benefits and have no right.
My reposnce was that they have a valid and valuable place in the economy and played there part. In regards to those who claim benefits and don't work it is small minority however it does annoy me as well . That being said I wouldn't consider those who are nationals whom lived in a house owned by the local government (council housing) and claiming the same level of benefits while in the same social position to be with the ability or right to criticize. In real terms its not one rule for one and different for another which was the point I tried to make.
Subject X didn't say anything about my response so I changed the conversation into Social Economic groups in relation to what we were and how our parents fitted into the categories.
Turns out she fitted into that statement or simply took offence too it, I don't know. So I got pulled for it.
What do you lot think? Was I wrong to say that?
Main reason was subject X in our team complained about me on something I said about council estates of which Subject X found offensive.
When questioned on it I simply didn't have a clue what my team leader was going on about.
I had to think a while after as to what I said, I simply didn't remember.
After about 1 hour thinking on the event I suddenly remembered what the conversation was about.
We were talking about the troubles we have with offshore in terms of our work. She brought up how she hates people who come over and work, further more SubjectX added how to they claim benefits and have no right.
My reposnce was that they have a valid and valuable place in the economy and played there part. In regards to those who claim benefits and don't work it is small minority however it does annoy me as well . That being said I wouldn't consider those who are nationals whom lived in a house owned by the local government (council housing) and claiming the same level of benefits while in the same social position to be with the ability or right to criticize. In real terms its not one rule for one and different for another which was the point I tried to make.
Subject X didn't say anything about my response so I changed the conversation into Social Economic groups in relation to what we were and how our parents fitted into the categories.
Turns out she fitted into that statement or simply took offence too it, I don't know. So I got pulled for it.
What do you lot think? Was I wrong to say that?
Last edited:
