Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Star Wars Prequels United Kingdom Idle

Jobcentre Apologizes For Anti-Jedi Discrimination 615

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the these-are-not-the-benefits-you-are-looking-for dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Chris Jarvis, 31, is described as a Star Wars fan and member of the International Church of Jediism. Said church's intergalactic hoodie uniform is at odds with the strict doctrine of the Department for Work and Pensions, which may require Jobcentre 'customers' to remove crash helmets or hoods for 'security reasons.' Following his ejection, Jarvis filled out a complaint form and within three days got a written apology from branch boss Wendy Flewers. She said: 'We are committed to provide a customer service which embraces diversity and respects customers' religion.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jobcentre Apologizes For Anti-Jedi Discrimination

Comments Filter:
  • "These are not the dorks you are looking for."

    • by caffeinemessiah (918089) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:04PM (#31497924) Journal

      "These are not the dorks you are looking for."

      Not only that, only nerds would get excited about a STOCK response from HR about discrimination, and then post it on slashdot. Not trying to troll here, but HR folks aren't lawyers, and are trained to be extremely careful when it comes to possible litigation. In short, even the bad publicity makes it worthwhile for HR to apologize to this "Jedi" instead of saying something like "we only recognize jedis on active duty, with working light sabers".

      • by Colonel Korn (1258968) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @02:04PM (#31498862)

        "These are not the dorks you are looking for."

        Not only that, only nerds would get excited about a STOCK response from HR about discrimination, and then post it on slashdot. Not trying to troll here, but HR folks aren't lawyers, and are trained to be extremely careful when it comes to possible litigation. In short, even the bad publicity makes it worthwhile for HR to apologize to this "Jedi" instead of saying something like "we only recognize jedis on active duty, with working light sabers".

        That's precisely why it's funny. Of course no one there takes his religion seriously, but our culture forces them to act as though they do.

        • by Obfuscant (592200) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @02:27PM (#31499212)
          That's precisely why it's funny. Of course no one there takes his religion seriously, but our culture forces them to act as though they do.

          Hey, if we have to take one religion created by a science fiction writer as serious, we have to take them all as serious. Of course, if Jediism had as visible a spokesman as Tom Cruise, there'd be no question.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Yvanhoe (564877)
          In fact most of us take religions non-seriously, so this kind of turn of events is most welcomed to expose the overall silliness of all this. "I don't get fish on friday !" "I am proposed pork at lunch !" well, "I can't grow padawan braid" makes one able to enter in this kind of discussion, obviously showing how silly their superstition are but with a good foot to take offense when they say that your religion is silly.
      • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @02:26PM (#31499194)
        I'm just surprised that a cool guy like that that would be unemployed.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:07PM (#31497964)
      What's the point of having an Idle section if you never use it?
    • by centuren (106470) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:13PM (#31498058) Homepage Journal

      I'm by no means even close to being so dedicated a fan, but I'm pretty sure a Jedi would remove his hood when asked to after entering a building, specifically one run by the local government. All the Jedi characters I remember were pretty polite. Also, I don't recall many complaint forms being filled out.

      Still, kudos to Ms. Flewers for coming through, even if it's only on a customer service front. If being accommodating is possible, why not formally apologise if someone was upset enough to complain.

      • by causality (777677) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:29PM (#31498318)

        Still, kudos to Ms. Flewers for coming through, even if it's only on a customer service front. If being accommodating is possible, why not formally apologise if someone was upset enough to complain.

        Because it admits fault where there is none, sets a precedent, and generally encourages this sort of behavior.

        • by Oyjord (810904) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @02:19PM (#31499098)

          Still, kudos to Ms. Flewers for coming through, even if it's only on a customer service front. If being accommodating is possible, why not formally apologise if someone was upset enough to complain.

          Because it admits fault where there is none, sets a precedent, and generally encourages this sort of behavior.

          I don't have any mod points, someone give this post some credit. We Americans need to stop letting the loonies think they are on even footing with the rest of society. We're only doing ourselves a disservice. First we let the Scientologists think they are legits, then creationists, then the Tea Baggers, now Jedis? Ugh.

      • by Anonymous Monkey (795756) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:31PM (#31498346)
        This strikes me as an HR employee seeing some one being a complete Idiot and deserving to get several books thrown at him, and instead thinking "I'm just going to say I'm sorry and let this whole thing go, it's not worth shouting over, even though I'm right." If more people were this mature the world would have a lot fewer needless arguments in it. Just letting things go, too bad more people don't do it.
      • by Brett Buck (811747) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @02:12PM (#31498990)

        I'm by no means even close to being so dedicated a fan, but I'm pretty sure a Jedi would remove his hood when asked to after entering a building, specifically one run by the local government. All the Jedi characters I remember were pretty polite. Also, I don't recall many complaint forms being filled out.

                  Why, it's almost as if they were acting like immature twerps and that Jedi is not actually a real religion.

                    Brett

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Macrat (638047)

          Why, it's almost as if they were acting like immature twerps and that Jedi is not actually a real religion.

          There's a "real" religion?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by sglewis100 (916818)

      "These are not the dorks you are looking for."

      I'm not surprised he was out of work. His sad devotion to that ancient religion hasn't helped him find a job.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by spun (1352)

        Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good resume.

  • ha (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hanabal (717731) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:02PM (#31497904)

    Neeeeerrrrrrrrdddd

  • What now.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Talking about 'religion' going to far... Maybe if leather jackets are allowed he should join the church of the Fonz...

    For those who don't recognize the reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Father,_the_Son,_and_the_Holy_Fonz)

  • We Todd Dead (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ambiguous Coward (205751) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:06PM (#31497940) Homepage

    Unbelievably stupid indeed. I see Jedis take off their hoods all the time in the movies. Why can't he? The only force-user who's adamant about keeping his hood on is the Emperor, in which case you'd best throw this guy down a shaft now and save us all a lot of trouble.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:06PM (#31497948)

    I am not the unbelievably stupid asshole you are looking for.

  • by Ma8thew (861741) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:07PM (#31497974)
    For some reason in the UK we have exceptions for certain laws if you are a member of a religion. For instance, if you are a Sikh you are allowed to use a motorbike without a helmet since you have a turban in the way (although to be honest, in that case your violation doesn't harm anyone else). In a more outrageous exception, churches are allowed, when choosing a candidate for a job, to discriminate against gays and in the Catholic church's case women. It's one rule for us, and another for them. As the gentleman in the article has demonstrated this is extremely silly. Who defines what a religion is?
    • by Kenja (541830) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:11PM (#31498030)
      What defines a religion.

      If you do crazy stuff by yourself, its because your insane. If you get another person to do it as well, its because its a religion and is now worthy of respect and special treatment.
      • by delinear (991444)
        I think something like 400,000 people responded to a UK census with their religion listed as "Jedi", although I understand that the inclusion of Jedi as an option was more a stunt on the part of the census takers to encourage people in the student demographic (the demographic least likely to respond to the census) to take part and as such it was never officially recognised as a religion.
      • What defines a religion.

        To paraphrase Thomas Wolfe:
        "A religion is a cult with political power".

        The modern mantra of "separation of church and state" has lead some to the erroneous conclusion that religions exist entirely in the private sphere and have no interaction with the public and especially political one. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. Religions are inherently political institutions who will at all times strive to commandeer the powers of the state in enforcing their religious views. I'm not attempting to be controversial here. This kind of church-state interaction goes back to the early days of the Roman empire and before. Separation of church and state only puts limits on the level of official political status a church can have. It doesn't make their political status go away though.

        The "Jedi" religion does not attempt to court political influence, and as such is only a cult, not a religion. By contrast, the Sikh religion is very politically influential in many areas of Britian via voting blocks etc, and so are able to obtain exemptions on motorcycle helmets and ceremonial knifes and so forth.

        Religions are inherantly political institutions and modern society would be a lot better off it it came to terms with this fact rather than pretending it had somehow gone away.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by julesh (229690)

          The "Jedi" religion does not attempt to court political influence, and as such is only a cult, not a religion.

          Actually, I think you're wrong. The entire existence of organised Jediism appears to be an attempt at making a particular political statement, i.e. that "other" religions have too much power and some of it should be taken away.

    • by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:16PM (#31498106) Journal

      Shit, here in the US Churches don't even have to pay *tax*. And of course, you can't be discriminated against based on your religion. Nothing says you can't be discriminated against based on a lack of religion though. Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, my ass.

      • by jimbobborg (128330) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:21PM (#31498178)

        Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, my ass.

        So, where's this Church of the United States you're bitching about?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by sowth (748135) *

          The problem in the US isn't nationwide, it is regional. Take Utah for example. There is massive discrimination and harassment against non-Mormons, and they elect religious leaders into public offices on a regular basis.

          They also create laws thinly disguised so as to force others to conform to their religious beliefs. Where are the dance clubs in Provo? Last time I checked, they had put them all out of business using any excuse (one was after the olympics were held, "certain" businesses were required to ha

      • by clone53421 (1310749) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:27PM (#31498272) Journal

        No non-profit organizations in the United States have to pay taxes.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:55PM (#31498692)

          yeah, but churches are for-prophet organizations...

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          First of all, not all non-profit organizations are tax exempt.

          Second, non-profit organizations that are tax exempt have to prove that they're non-profit by disclosing their finances. That is, except churches, who are considered non-profit on religious grounds, and don't even have to disclose finances to their members, much less anyone else. In fact, they don't even have to file to be treated as tax exempt.

          Then again, whether churches are even non-profit is also very much arguable.

          • by pluther (647209) <pluther@usaRABBIT.net minus herbivore> on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @02:22PM (#31499132) Homepage

            In fact, they don't even have to file to be treated as tax exempt.

            Holy crap!

            I was about to post to say you were full of shit on this one, so went to the IRS site to get a reference, and it turns out you're right.

            "Religious organizations" still have to do all the paperwork that regular non-profits do, but there's a special exemption for "churches" that waive all these requirements. They don't even have to pay the $150 a year that we have to.

            The IRS has a handy summary Q&A [irs.gov] explaining how it works.

            They have to obey certain rules, such as they're not allowed to transfer Church property to private individuals for less than market value (but nothing prohibits the church from owning a private jet that's used solely by Pat Robertson, for example).

            Also, the church is prohibited from spending a "substantial part of its activity" in attempting to influence legislation, nor may it interfere in political campaigns. Of course, these rules are blatantly violated by large churches all the time.

            There's even special rules for churches limiting the IRS's authority to audit them.

            Damn.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Shit, here in the US Churches don't even have to pay *tax*. And of course, you can't be discriminated against based on your religion. Nothing says you can't be discriminated against based on a lack of religion though. Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, my ass.

        Another fun fact. Charities do not pay tax either. You Americans hate social programs like universal health care so non-profit organizations like churches help the poor, sick and homeless when taxpayers like you are unwilling to pay the state to do it. The "Make no law respecting an establishment of religion" refers to a state religion like the Church of England. It does not prevent the state from co-operating with already established religions.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by harl (84412)

          You're not quite accurate. They're against government social program. Private ones are just fine. The idea is that charity should be voluntary otherwise it's just another tax.

        • by clone53421 (1310749) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @02:27PM (#31499210) Journal

          You Americans hate social programs like universal health care so non-profit organizations like churches help the poor, sick and homeless when taxpayers like you are unwilling to pay the state to do it.

          You sound bitter...

          That is exactly how it was intended to be, and we like it that way. Thanks.

    • by ircmaxell (1117387) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:19PM (#31498150) Homepage

      Who defines what a religion is?

      That's the key point here. Just because something is believed by many doesn't make it absolutely correct (well, in terms of everyone else anyway)... I mean which sounds more absurd, that there's an omnipresent being in the sky that knows all and watches over everyone (not to mention that the being "punishes" wrong doers), or that all life is connected by a inherent quality that connects every living being? You say "Who defines what a religion is"... I say "Who defines what a religion isn't"...

      Religion started as a way to explain the unexplainable (Nature, Life, Death, etc), and in doing so implemented a moral backbone. Every major organized religion (I'm assuming major, I've yet to find any one that doesn't) attempts to qualify both aspects. They explain the hereto unexplainable, and they do provide a basis for moral life (typically through consequences in the afterlife, if one exits in said religion)... So what defines a religion then? Does it need to be organized (and a 503c organization) to be considered a religion? Or does it just need to be a set of beliefs that a person follows? I personally don't believe in any organized religion. But I do have my own beliefs about it. Does that mean I shouldn't be exempted from a law that violates my belief (For example, I believe that helmet laws are immoral. If someone wants to take the risk, let them) because it's not organized? Once we as a world can get our heads around that concept (that a religion is a set of ideas, and not something you are a "member" of), the world will be a lot better of a place...

      IMHO at least...

    • by Ralish (775196) <ralish AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:19PM (#31498156)
      An excellent point, and one I'd hope others pick up on, especially the media. This isn't stupid because he's a Jedi, because frankly, his religious beliefs have no lesser basis than any other religion (ie. none). This is stupid because it demonstrates the absurd double standard the law grants religion. The issue is people getting hang-ups over the fact he's a "Jedi" rather than analyzing the broader legal implications of the scenario that was played out.
    • I sense a market gap for motorbike helmets that are airbrushed to look like turbans.

    • by DriedClexler (814907) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:22PM (#31498190)

      How is that a "more outrageous exception"? Groups formed to promote value system X will prefer people who also like X. An aerospace company will prefer people who are "really into" aviation over people who see it as "just another job". Where's the pity party for people turned down in these cases?

      Even accepting that this group should be legally barred from discrimination, what makes it a "more outrageous" case? Oh no -- they're allowed to not hire you where ... um, everyone will hate you anyway. Next, Mosques will be allowed to prohibit Christians from leading services!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by euxneks (516538)

      [...] if you are a Sikh you are allowed to use a motorbike without a helmet since you have a turban in the way (although to be honest, in that case your violation doesn't harm anyone else) [...]

      In Canada, if that person gets into an accident, my taxes are going to pay for his hospital bill. I'm all for saving lives, but I would rather prevent injury before it happens. In this case I worked goddamn hard for my money, a third of which goes towards taxes - his not wearing a helmet isn't harming me per se, but it is really fucking annoying. A simple helmet can save thousands of dollars in taxpayer money and I'm expected to kowtow to a religious right? What the fuck man!??

      • What hospitable bill? I cleaned up after people who thought helmets are optional. Trust me. There is no hospital bill. The turban is a good thing however, it will keep the mess in. Makes it a bit easier for the person collecting the bits.

    • Theologian here (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Fished (574624)

      My first choice for career was theology, and I have a Ph.D. in New Testament. So I've given this a bit of thought.

      The problem is that, without these exceptions, you end up setting the disastrous precedent of the state defining what is an acceptable religious belief to hold. That's all very well and good when you happen to agree with the religious and cultural perspectives of the state--for example, from the sound of your posts, you seem to hold to "liberal democracy" (in the technical sense, not the pundi

      • Re:Theologian here (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bigdavex (155746) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @02:28PM (#31499240)

        So, my point is that granting special privileges to religious belief serves a useful social purpose. Yes, it's good for religious people (although I might argue how good it really is... religions tend to thrive on persecution.) But it's also good for society as a whole. Simply put, kill religious freedom is like eating your seed-corn.

        Why does a special exception for freedom in the context of religion serve this purpose better than freedom just 'cuz? In other words, if the freedom is good in the religious context why is it not good in another context?

      • Re:Theologian here (Score:4, Interesting)

        by amplt1337 (707922) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @02:41PM (#31499426) Journal

        all the humanist values that you hold dear... the rights of man, civil liberty, universal suffrage, the civil rights movement... were first nurtured in churches

        Umm... sorry, no. The Civil Rights Movement in the US was nurtured in churches, because that was the community that existed among African-Americans. But beyond that... the Rights of Man were championed in (fiercely anti-clerical) Revolutionary France. Civil Liberty was at least as much championed by deists/quasi-atheists, or secular liberals like JS Mill. Universal suffrage (do you mean of men? or race-blind universal male suffrage? and in which country?) had both religious and non-religious sides, but churches were certainly not at the forefront of supporting female suffrage in the US. (There was a strong religious abolitionist movement, as well as a non-religious one, and I suppose you might be right about that in terms of colorblind suffrage).

        But humanism generally was not a belief endorsed by churches; the Papacy made use of humanist scholars of course, but also subjected some of them to Inquisition, and Luther didn't exactly go around encouraging Germans to learn Ciceronian Latin...

        The problem is that, without these exceptions, you end up setting the disastrous precedent of the state defining what is an acceptable religious belief to hold.

        I... suppose. I would prefer a state that makes minimal rules over arbitrary social practices, but then does not make exceptions to them solely on the grounds of religious belief. Not that there aren't plenty of relics of religious belief in, say, American public life (we wouldn't need an exception for Quakers if we didn't insist that people swear before God for public functions, etc.)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by IICV (652597)

        It's worth remembering that all the humanist values that you hold dear... the rights of man, civil liberty, universal suffrage, the civil rights movement... were first nurtured in churches, at a time when these views were very unpopular.

        They were also roundly denounced in churches, at times when those views were unpopular - just like homosexuality in the modern era. It's almost like the people giving sermons in church are people with varying opinions, and not particularly special in any way!

      • Re:Theologian here (Score:4, Insightful)

        by syousef (465911) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @04:27PM (#31500904) Journal

        My first choice for career was theology, and I have a Ph.D. in New Testament. So I've given this a bit of thought.

        ...and you're extremely biased.

        The problem is that, without these exceptions, you end up setting the disastrous precedent of the state defining what is an acceptable religious belief to hold.

        Nope. Bzzt. Wrong. We are talking about exceptions to the law that everyone else must abide by due to your religion. We are not talking about being told what you may or may not believe.

        However, allowing freedom of religion--allowing religious groups the freedom to have mixed services, or women in the pulpit, or roller-skating as a religious service, or damned near anything so long as you can make some sort of argument that it serves a religious function--becomes the place where unpopular viewpoints can be expressed.

        You certainly don't need religion to express unpopular views or beliefs. I don't think your argument is terribly logical.

        It's worth remembering that all the humanist values that you hold dear... the rights of man, civil liberty, universal suffrage, the civil rights movement... were first nurtured in churches, at a time when these views were very unpopular.

        Now you're being dishonest. Religion in general and churches in particular are responsible for setting science back centuries or even millennia. If you held an unpopular view as defined by the state religion you could be excommunicated, tortured, killed. The Galileo incident is the standard one brought up but it is tip of the iceberg and had other political components (You don't call those in power simpletons!!!)

        So, my point is that granting special privileges to religious belief serves a useful social purpose. Yes, it's good for religious people (although I might argue how good it really is... religions tend to thrive on persecution.) But it's also good for society as a whole. Simply put, kill religious freedom is like eating your seed-corn.

        No it doesn't. It grants groups special privileges based on irrational views. You haven't demonstrated your point AT ALL.

    • by zappepcs (820751)

      You are already modded insightful, but in most cases, such comments are taken as trollish. The UK is slightly ahead of the US in discriminatory practices made in the guise of respect to and for religions. It's insane. Inch by inch religions are weaseling their way into government. It won't be long before you have to be someone of faith to get treated as a citizen, be elected to office, or conduct business. Yes, many will say that sounds silly now, but Rome was not built in a day. We can see them laying foun

  • I don't recall either Yoda or Luke wearing hooded garb. Not that the whole basis of this story isn't ridiculous, I'm merely saying it also appears Jediism is inauthentic.
  • by Mekkah (1651935) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:12PM (#31498048) Journal
    Does this mean I can carry a sword too!?
  • What BS! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chris Burke (6130) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:13PM (#31498068) Homepage

    Since when do Jedi have to wear hoodies with the hood up? There are numerous points in the movies where Jedi do not wear their hoods up, and numerous occasions where they even wearing a garment that has a hood at all. Clearly, mandatory hoodies is not one of the precepts of Jediism as it existed in the Galactic Republic/Empire.

    This reminds me of all the rituals and requirements Catholics make up that was never mentioned in the Bible. But at least they can point at a section in the Bible that can be read to say that the church leaders are allowed to make this stuff up.. As far as I know, not only is there no such statement in Star Wars, Lucas is quite serious about restricting who is allowed to expand upon Star Wars. Is there some Expanded Universe novel in which the Hoodie Requirement is created?

    So dude, I mean Mr. Jedi, put your hood down. You don't need it up to be a Jedi. Insisting on putting it up isn't holding fast to your religion, it's playing dress-up.

  • by Locke2005 (849178) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:16PM (#31498120)
    Under the ADA, discrimination against retards is unlawful here too!
  • Star Wars and Jediism is accepted as a religion, but using marijuana for spiritual purposes is not accepted as a religion, even though the law permits the latter.
    Don't get me wrong - I love Star Wars, but this whole situation makes me a bit bitter. :)
  • by filesiteguy (695431) <kai@perfectreign.com> on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:17PM (#31498134) Homepage
    I generally hire staff that have an affinity for Star Wars - and at least one replica lightsaber. I also have systems named JEDI (Joint Enterprise Document Ifrastructre) and YODA (Your Online Document Archive) but do not insist on Jedi robes.

    As it is, the guy was wearing a hoodie, not a Jedi robe.

    Seems a bit extreme.
  • by Trip6 (1184883) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:19PM (#31498158)

    ...Jediism carries the same credibility as other religions directly based on science fiction stories. Just ask Tom Cruise.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by pandrijeczko (588093)

      And of course the original "Battlefield Earth" trilogy & it's prequel "What The Big Alien Did Before Landing On Earth" trilogy some 20 years later were equal blockbuster successes to "Star Wars" at the cinema also...

  • Chris Jarvis, 31 year old Star Wars fan, finally gets laid and gets a life.

  • by dwiget001 (1073738) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @01:29PM (#31498314)

    Had he been a real Jedi, he would have just waved his hand and said "You don't have to remove your hood", to which security would have said "You don't have to remove your hood" and waved him on through.

  • by BlueBoxSW.com (745855) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @02:14PM (#31499030) Homepage

    Hard to imagine why this guy is out of a job.

  • by pandrijeczko (588093) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @02:15PM (#31499052)

    ... people like me who have to work for a living in order to pay taxes so that shirkers like him can stay on the dole indefinitely without needing to make any effort to make themselves good prospects for employment.

    Personally, I'd stop his unemployment benefit there and then because he's quite clearly not using it as stop-gap while he seriously looks for work... and wasting the time of Job Centre staff when there are more deserving people out there who are *DESPERATE* to get a job.

    Sometimes I despair at people these days...

  • Obligatory (Score:3, Funny)

    by unity100 (970058) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @02:28PM (#31499238) Homepage Journal

    "These are not the jobs you looking for"

  • by RevWaldo (1186281) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @02:36PM (#31499358)
    ... than a "somebody really doesn't want to get a job and have to stop playing XBOX and WOW all day in his mum's basement" issue.

Forty two.

Working...