Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Entry Fees
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Entering a race is a luxury and should not be subsidised by either the state or the other entrants. Ditto for gyms.
You certainly do not lose access to running by being unemplyed. Maybe we should also support the golf memeberships for all the bankers that lost their jobs?
Good idea about volunteering as that always looks good on the old CV
If you volunteer to marshal our club race you get a free place for next year, a sandwich AND a cup of tea. You can't do lead bike though. That's the fun job and it's mine.
I work full-time and I can't afford to go to a gym and I don't do expensive races. It's not the end of the world. If I can't afford it then I can't have it. Simple.
Well said
At the risk of sounding further right than the tories (not really difficult these days...) I object to someone being given discounted gym membership and potentially discounted race entries because they are unemployed.
I work damn hard and cannot afford to join a gym, so I do what I can at home, go to park run etc and I enter races that are reasonably priced, or save up to enter the ones that are pricey. Why should someone not working get benefits that I am unable to afford as a tax paying employed member of the public? It infuriates me - why can't they just go out for a walk or do park runs etc - why should my hard earned taxes contribute to someone getting a gym membership. Surely if they're looking for work they don't have time to go to the gym??!!
Controversial maybe, but just exercising my right to object, not that it changes anything!
On another note - why are races getting so expensive?? The Great Manchester Bupa run for example - costs a fortune and you don't really get that much for it......
Many years ago I played for a football team and we had to pay a few quid each week towards a referee, pitch fee and washing kit etc (pretty standard I guess). If you were a student or unemployed you didn't pay anything. Interestingly, the guys used to take the piss out of the students for not paying but no one ever took the piss out of the unemployed. To be fair any of the guys unemployed would really be looking for work and as mentioned earlier the Kyle unemployed tend not to do much sport. This was the only team I ever played for that did this and I have to say I think everyone thought it was a good thing.
Guess in running the parallel would be running clubs helping out members rather than races.
You seem to be referring to a time when individuals were less selfish and cared more about their neighbours, rather than obsessing about whether they were being treated on a par with everyone around them.
Good times.
Pudge - it's not about being selfish and uncaring, it's about hard working people being penalised yet again for actually getting off their arses to go to work every day and getting a bit fed up of people claiming welfare taking the piss.
I disagree. And you seem to be focusing on the Jeremy Kyle generation. I was actually referring to those who are out of work not through choice. Believe it or not (and you may need to look left to do so) there are people out there who would love to work but for whatever reason can't get it. There are also people who do work, but are in low paid jobs, so receive benefits as a top up to their income.
I too have no time for those who are simply idle, but it's wrong of you to simply label anyone who's out of work as 'taking the piss'.
I presume this is a facetious comment, or do you think that "job seeking" ought to be a full-time activity in itself, lasting from 8am to 10pm, with breaks for meals and sanitation?
Anyone who wants to know how much of the 'welfare bill' actually goes on Jobseekers Allowance might be surprised by this analysis, which shows that by far the largest proportion of the bill actually goes on the state pension.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending
I can honestly say it doesn't bother me at all if someone is given a free/discounted place in a race or has a subsidised gym membership or get to go swimming at the local council run pool for free because they are out of work, or a student or a pensioner.
Quite frankly, I'd rather spend my time and energy earning more money (or saving more money) to afford the things I want than complain because someone else is getting them for free. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes, even if they do get free gym membership.
This is also interesting. I think most people forget that a large part of the benefits bill goes to families that DO work - thus the state is subsidising low-paying employers. Also, this research suggests that most people prefer to work than not - there is no evidence of a 'culture of worklessness'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths
I look forward to the day some of you nice people become unemployed, and get to enjoy all the benefits that come with it
DTEXS... well put.
+1 !!!
How do you do a little 'thumbs up' icon?
: y : without the gaps.
Thanks Phil
Nope, not a facetious comment. If someone is getting job seekers allowance, then yes, why shouldn't they spend a day i.e. working hours, looking for a job?
And before anyone shouts at me, I have been out of work, did not claim benefits and did spend all the hours god sent looking for a job, which I did eventually find. The last thing on my mind at that time was joining a gym which I still consider to be a luxury item.
Good for you Beth ( want me to polish your halo ? I have time whilst watching the Giro )
Dave - on a different subject.....The finish line from today's Giro is 500mts from my office and they'll be flying right past me in just under 2hrs....I'm getting excited
So let's get this straight. Not only do you think gyms shouldn't be subsidised for unemployed people (fair enough, it's an arguable case), but you would have a problem with them joining and/or using a gym at all until they've found a job? Just so's I'm clear.
If they're paying for said gym themselves, no, I don't have an issue with it. If they're using benefits to pay, then yes, I have an issue.
Like I said, gym membership is in my opinion a luxury item that many people in full time work cannot afford - if you're out of work and looking for a job, surely your benefits are better spent on paying your necessary bills (mortgage/rent, food, childcare etc etc) and funding your travel to and from interviews etc. I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption.
How do you differentiate between benefit money and "their " money ?
(Wonders who they are ?)