I noticed a couple of weeks ago that 'The case of the disappearing teaspoon' is pasted up in one of the kitchen areas in the Ben Pimlott building on Goldsmith's College. Given its age, I'm bemused that all of a sudden you've also just encountered it, or at least, just decided to draw out attention to it.
(I'm not sure whether its display in a Psychology Dept. common area is passive aggressive or domain-specific humour.)
Another data point: when I first joined Ravenbrook, I was annoyed at the lack of teaspoons and so I purchased 20 and donated them to the office kitchen. Thirteen years (and four office moves) later only three remain. I haven't done any audits over the years, but assuming a steady rate of loss, that's one teaspoon lost for about every 3,200 teaspoon-days.
Jobs are in short supply, so I'd have thought there were lots of people actively looking for work but not finding any. Why is a figure of a million controversial?
The full line is that these are people who have been out of work for more than three years of the last four. And then the point is that actually the 'million' figure, which is adequately headline-grabbing isn't supported by the government's own figures.
Well indeed, but then government figures have been specifically engineered over the last 30 years to under-report unemployment. Whatever the actual number of people unemployed for three years (i.e. for most of the 5-6 years since the start of the crash), isn't the actual issue that this is victim-blaming?
Comments 7
(I'm not sure whether its display in a Psychology Dept. common area is passive aggressive or domain-specific humour.)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment