Shakira announce shows for December as part of a european tour,
MEN Arena Manchester on 14th December 2010, onsale from 9am from Ticketmaster, Eventim, Gigantic, Ticketline
O2 Arena Dublin on 16th December 2010, onsale now from Ticketmaster
Odyssey Arena Belfast on 17th December 2010, onsale now from Ticketmaster
SECC Glasgow on 19th December 2010, onsale from 9am from Ticketmaster, Eventim, Gigantic, Ticketline
O2 Arena London on 20th December 2010, Onsale now from Ticketmaster, Eventim, Gigantic, Ticketline
Says buy tickets then none so guessing that...
75 Responses
I recon this might be a very popular tour somehow!
Plus o2 date so she can add further date/dates when it sells out!
Posted on June 28th, 2010 at 09:42
There’s summat weird about those dates - can’t quite put my finger on it tho …
Posted on June 28th, 2010 at 10:29
why are they weird???
Posted on June 28th, 2010 at 10:36
Dunno but summat has changed lol
I hope Brum gets the missing Saturday date :/
Posted on June 28th, 2010 at 11:24
All the presale dates on different days this is confusing!
two pre-sale for o2 show tomorrow one at 10am and one at 3pm??
Posted on June 28th, 2010 at 13:48
It’s not gonna be yet-another £50 a seat rip-off is it??
Posted on June 28th, 2010 at 14:32
Yes. That’s exactly what it’s going to be.
Posted on June 28th, 2010 at 14:52
56 quid ffs …
Posted on June 28th, 2010 at 15:04
I can’t see there being a huge demand for these; less so at that price. Shakira is just not that popular - she’s not had any solid hits for ages.
Posted on June 28th, 2010 at 15:16
Yup, I’d consider going to see her (assuming a Brum gig) but no chance whatsoever at the best part of £60 - I’d pay half that (maybe I will be able to hopefully come the time) but no more …
Posted on June 28th, 2010 at 16:13
I think it’s outrageous that someone who has only managed a meager 50 million album sales should have either been given the opportunity to sing the official World Cup song or had the audacity to reckon they can command £60 a ticket at the O2. If she can charge £60 a ticket next thing you’ll know is Bon Jovi or Madonna asking for £200. I mean, what is she going to do with the money if she does sell it out? Open a school for under-privileged children or something. Disgusting!
Posted on June 28th, 2010 at 22:47
danny, how many records have black eyed peas sold?and their prices werent far off these. and they did a fair few nights at the o2 and sold out.
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 11:42
Greenday have sold more records than Shakira - their tickets were £35 a piece.
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 11:44
Danny boy,
I don’t think many of your arguments don’t hold water. Previous ticket sales should have little to do whether you can open the World Cup song. Us punters will never truly know whether its the promoter or artist asking for this price. Its usually in conjunction with both.
Furthermore the prices charged for punters (by promoters) are largely influenced by the current GBP exchange rate. Many international acts want payment in USD. With the GBP being so poor than means upping the GBP ticket price to cover the minimum costs they ask.
In Australia no international artist toured when our AUD rate was at a low early this decade. No promoter could cover their costs unless ticket prices were very high. Now many are touring as our rate is near par to the USD.
What I’m saying is that their are a lot of factors involved in why this happens.
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 11:54
I rather took DB as being sarcastic at me moaning about the cost - I’m sure lots of others will fork out £60 but I won’t, not for her two songs …
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 12:33
I was being a little sarcastic, yes, although not to be nasty. And yes, there are other artists who charge less. But at £51.25 (as it is) to stand or for the majority of the seats for an international artist with the sales she has isn’t in my opinion all that bad, certainly not what I’d call a rip-off.
From my recollection she had a pretty big hit at the back end of last year, so I don’t think she’s a has-been without a hit for ages either. And although she’s not as successful here as she is in some other countries, she’s had half-a-dozen top-10 singles in the UK and only three English albums, so pretty decent returns really.
I do think that artists as a whole charge too much or demand too much to do a gig, or the promoter wants too big a slice - or whatever the issue is. It’s just that personally I feel with the sales, hits and international standing she has, it’s not a surprising amount for her to charge and not a rip-off.
If you aren’t particularly a fan - and I’m not, she seems a lovely person but I’m not mad on her music - then of course you’re unlikely to want to pay £50+ as a casual spectator. But I hazard a guess that there will be enough people who are big enough fans that will feel £50 is a fair price. She does give a good show!
It also doesn’t matter if it’s an instant sell out or not. It may well sell out quickly, or it might take a bit of time like it used to with most gigs, but I’m sure it will sell well and I’m sure those who like her enough to buy a ticket will have a great time and think it was decent value, because at £51.25 I don’t think it’s an off-the-mark price.
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 13:32
Danny was definitely being tongue in cheek - and quite cleverly too.
John..2 songs? you mean three don’t you, ‘Hips’, ‘She Wolf’, and that new waka one….number one in 15 countries (columbia, mexico, peru, brazil, argentina, ecuador, bolivia, chile, help me out here…I’m struggling…guatemala, dominican republic….)
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 13:49
oh good grieg DB was CLEARLY being sarcastic -
1.) Madonna and Bon Jovi DO charge £200 a ticket
2.) She does spend her money on orphanages.
Cant you recognise a tongue in cheek post when you read it??
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 13:52
She spends her money on orphanages??? Well I guess she can charge what she likes then
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 13:59
She supports “charity” while going around Latin America criticising left-wing governments for taxing the rich and redistributing wealth.
We’ve heard that one before; helping the poor should be “voluntary”.
Fortunately most governments grew out of that idea in the early 20th century.
Celebrity charity is mostly a huge ego trip and is about power. Were she to really give a toss about the world’s poor she wouldn’t trapse around South America defending the filthy rich.
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 14:11
Death: I have no clue about any Wolf song - I know Hips and the Whenever, Wherever (or what ever it was) song from what seems like 10 years ago now …
No probs with the sarcasm, I was quite amused
All left-wing governments should be criticised. “Redistributing wealth” - otherwise known as state-sponsored theft …
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 14:28
“Redistributing wealth” - otherwise known as state-sponsored theft …
So it only counts as stealing when the government takes it from the wealthy, yet when the wealthy make their money through exploiting those less fortunate (i.e. those who were not born into money,) it’s ok?
Of course you would say that the poor don’t *have* to pay rent to landlords, work for slave wages, and pay for their health problems. No! Of course, it’s all their “free choice”.
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 15:44
You seem quite literate and yet tis the argument of a boy.
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 15:49
Its they’re job, they can charge what they want, I work and charge what I want for my products why does it make music artists any different?
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 15:52
Yes, but it’s my job too so they should charge less.
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 15:58
Obviously enough of a “man’s” argument for you not to forge a response to…
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 15:59
Having survived the horrors of 13 years of lowest-common-denominator rule over the people in this country who actually, y’know, contribute rather than just take, and now having to see my hard-earned raped yet more to pay back the billions p*ssed away in the process, I thought it’d be a lot longer before anyone had the balls to champion such lefty BS again mate, that’s all …
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 18:02
I’ve been trying to find these references to her supporting the rich and powerful in their exploitation of the poor…and came across this SHOUTING by some bible-basher:
….a woman who hides her true race, and likes to get almost naked in front of cameras while shaking her behind, just to make profits…[Gaga, Beyonce, Madonna, Aguilera, BEP,...]
…Will Shakira ever stop acting like a stripper dancer [let's hope not!!]…and
….Shakira just wants to make money by selling sex [like pretty much every advertisment in print and electronic media].
SHAKIRA FOR PRESIDENT !!!
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 18:13
Roll on the fascists, hey John. They’ll make everything OK.
Arguing which is better - totalitarianism nanny-state, or look-after-our-old-school-chum fascism, is like choosing between lethal injection or electric chair, while not noticing that someone has left the door unlocked.
I’m walking out that door….and hopefully Shakira will be on the outside waiting for me…almost naked..shaking her behind…like a stripper dancer.
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 18:32
Think £50+ fees is what you would expect for her for the good seats.
Prices over here will keep going up to bring us into line with the US and much of Europe. Shakira is actually quite a bit more expensive to see in the US and Europe, top seats work out about £100 over there and whilst they do have some tickets cheaper than us that is a big difference. In Europe she is around the 70-80 euro mark so certainly no cheaper even if the pound was stronger. I don’t think we are getting a raw deal or that tickets are over-priced, they are just moving more towards their market price.
I think you are going to see ticket prices become mega flexible over here over the next few years. Live Nation have already rolled out their new model for some shows in the US where they are having 10+ different price categories ranging from eye watering to bargain basement.
The exchange rate arguement is certainly valid too and one Promoters have wheeled out. I very much doubt they will correct the price downwards if/when the pound strengthens though!
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 19:22
“I thought it’d be a lot longer before anyone had the balls to champion such lefty BS again mate, that’s all …”
We’ve just had the biggest recession of the century caused by unregulated extreme capitalism and for you the problem is “lefties”!
Thanks for the comedy!
Posted on June 29th, 2010 at 20:19
I’m far less concerned about the recession than I am about the decade of dumbing-down, oppression and war-mongering that came before it …
All extremes are bad, left or right.
Posted on June 30th, 2010 at 08:20
“I’m far less concerned about the recession than I am about the decade of dumbing-down,”
I assume then that you’re not going to lose your job like so many others…?
As for dumbing down, your beloved Tories are about to relax the rules on media ownership - soon you really will know the meaning of “dumbing down” as are television is further commercialised and entertainment is mixed with news. This dumbing down is not a left-wing idea; it’s very much based on the commercialisation of everything and the free market.
Posted on June 30th, 2010 at 08:28
Ladies up in here tonight
No fighting, no fighting
We got the refugees up in here
No fighting, no fighting
James and John, you are both right…the decade of dumbing-down was the precursor to the planned recession - the dumbing down was required to make people think that the recession was a natural occuring phenomenon, rather than a planned exercise to increase unemployment, reduce wages, and wind back the hard won human rights over the last decades.
Posted on June 30th, 2010 at 08:58
I may disagree with John, but you my friend are a nut job.Seek help.
Posted on June 30th, 2010 at 09:10
Who says I’m a Tory?
I’m not likely to lose my job but if I do, I’ll be able to find another as I’m highly skilled and have a CV an inch thick. I haven’t been sat on my a*se for 15 years taking boxes off shelves then putting them back again or whatever it is that many of the millions of people in our public sector “do” in their made-up jobs …
I’m not happy that people in our very own PIIGS countries (Scotland/N.I./Wales + the north of England)) are going to bear the brunt of the cuts that are coming but unfortunately, they’re the areas who have ludicrous amounts of people “employed” in the public sector which contributes not a penny to the national coffers so everyone else is having to pay for it but we can’t do it any more, simple as!!
I haven’t watched TV seriously in 10 years, it’s shocking already!
Posted on June 30th, 2010 at 10:42
I work in the public sector.
My job entails copying out European Directives and re-writing them as UK legislation - pretty much verbatim. I find it rewarding and satisfying…especially when I find a typo or grammatical error…that makes me realise how important my job really is, and how much my countrymen depend on me..
Posted on June 30th, 2010 at 11:23
No nation can stand without an army of highly paid spell-checkers backing them up, it’s not like it’s a job that could be computerised or anything is it?!
Much respect to you and your colleagues Death.
/dofs hat
Posted on June 30th, 2010 at 11:54
You’ve not watched TV seriously in 10 years but you’ve had your delivery of the Daily Mail for the last 10 years I hazard to guess.
Last time I checked, civil servants did pay National Insurance and Income Tax, or isn’t that contributing a penny to the national coffers? And if they are public services then they aren’t income generating in the manner of retail or manufacturing company so of course they don’t provide money for the coffers in that way.
Of course there are going to be areas of public service that can be streamlined, but you make it sound like as the public sector doesn’t contribute to the coffers in the manner of a business - I guess this is your argument - that they aren’t actually doing anything for the country, like they are to blame for what we find ourselves in. It is a beautifully constructed argument created by the right and the banking institutions to divert everyones attentions away from the fact the banks will not pay for their heinous raping of the world, and why? Because the banking chiefs, media moguls and capitalist politicians all have too much invested there.
Are you going to clear and sort out your rubbish, take it to the tip and organise the land-waste management? Are you going to halt your job and teach your children - if you have any - or did your parents teach you everything you needed to develop your wonderful CV? Are you going to change the light-bulb in the street when it goes out? Or prune the local trees and hedges? Or clear up the road kill? Are you going to help the jobless get into work? Or find a home for an elderly or homeless person? Are you going to take care of sick and disabled people? Take them meals? Clean their homes? I could go on.
Because all the wicked people that have been doing these jobs have ruined this country and put us in the place we are now, we should punish them with job-cuts, wage-cuts and maybe even brand them so everyone knows how it was them that put us in this terrible situation.
I do not work in the public sector, but I still find it offensive that you suggest there are ‘ludicrous amounts of people “employed”‘ in it. As I said, I’m sure as in just about any business there is streamlining that could be done. But a statement like that suggest that most are sitting on their backsides doing nothing. This is not the reality. If it is, show me the proof, don’t just sweepingly attack a valuable part of our workforce and community.
Posted on June 30th, 2010 at 11:59
Ed Balls certainly has balls to post like that. Good post. John I didn’t know you had that cold bitterness in you.
Dreamer sits back and watches the argument unfold…
- How we got from Shakira to this intrigues me.
Posted on June 30th, 2010 at 12:27
Shakira says:
Oh baby when you talk like that
You make a woman go mad
So be wise and keep on
Reading the signs of my body
Posted on June 30th, 2010 at 12:49
For once in a long time…I’m starting to enjoy some of these threads for a read!
Posted on June 30th, 2010 at 13:28
The Daily Mail mob spout as much sh*te as the likes of Billy Bragg and co.
If you “earn” a pound paid by the government and pay 30p of it back in tax/NI then the country is still down 70p. I accept that many jobs in the public sector are vocational and I have huge respect for people who go into those roles with that mindset. However, I do not support job creation out of the public purse simply to cater for people who can’t hack it in a competitive environment and that’s clearly what has been going on in certain areas of the country, hence the enormous debt “we” have …
We’ve got to draw a line somewhere.
Our public sector costs us 11% of GDP FFS, that can’t be right, right??!!
Posted on June 30th, 2010 at 15:04
Salary of £23,500 (supposed ‘average’ salary for Midlands & North of England where you say a large amount of public sector workers are)
Approx tax = £3800
Approx NI = £1500
Take home = £18100
Weekly take home = £348
Jobseekers Allowance = £65/wk
Average housing benefit = £84/wk
Total = £149/wk
Difference = £199
Being employed as opposed to unemployed saves resources/costs of benefit officers, back to work schemes, training etc and the extra money the employed person has would then be spent generating increased revenue from VAT. The money employed people spend creates/sustains jobs in the private sector, again generating increased VAT levels from spending their earnings. It increases the bottom line of businesses making them more profitable with more money for shareholders.
Unemployment also increases poverty, and the side effects of poverty include poorer health, civil unrest, recession and increased crime.
It might sound odd, but creating jobs stimulates the economy even if you think it is costing a lot of money. I accept that on top of the £199/wk differential outlined above, the employed person may well be able to claim further tax credits. The unemployed person would also have access to other benefits not outlined and anything that could be claimed by the working person wouldn’t exceed the other costs highlighted.
I bet you those people who you don’t think are in a necessary job are doing at least £199/wks worth of ‘work’, and the added benefits of a society with greater self-esteem, fewer ghettos and lower crime and civil unrest are surely.
I think about 20% of the workforce are working in the public sector. The Government want to cut about 6.5% of those workers (380,000) within the current term as well as give an effective pay cut to the rest. If the marketplace isn’t stimulated enough to generate jobs for them, the effect will be further job losses in the private sector due to a decrease in revenue. That will cause a reduction in taxes to the Government, that will lead to more cuts, that will lead to more job loss…
Posted on June 30th, 2010 at 17:27
That Shikira’s a real honey though isn’t she?
Posted on June 30th, 2010 at 18:39
She is - Colombians are #1 in my experience.
Posted on June 30th, 2010 at 21:12
Ed:
No matter how you slice and dice the numbers, the simple fact is that 100% of the money coming “from” public sector workers is from the govt coffers so regardless of anything they put back “in”, we’re always at a loss financially!
Cut the public bill by 10 billion and knock the same amount off corporation tax - negligible effect on jobs more than likely but we’re not talking about a normal state of affairs here - it we don’t kick the a*se out of our national debt in the next two years then we are in serious danger of losing our AAA status and then we can ALL start looking for jobs in Romania …
Ultimately, it comes down to this:
The public sector and the “services” it provides that hopefully give us a more humane and “nice” society to live in is what we WANT.
The private sector and the often-times questionable immorality therein are what we NEED to pay for what we want.
There can be no public sector without the private sector paying for it (FACT) and it’s not give and take, it’s all give from the private sector to the public sector - on a strictly financial basis.
I’m more than happy to “give”, though I make next to no use of any public services at all, as that’s what you gotta do to handle the “mob” but there’s got to be limits and unfortunately, Labour have pumped it up to such ridiculous levels that it’s now got to be cut drastically and yeah, it’s gonna hurt the people involved but I’m afraid the bottom line is that anything “given” to you can just as easily be taken away from you.
You’ve gotta fight in this world to attain and keep progress/success and if you’ve been cossetted to the extent that many public sector workers have over the last decade then I’m afraid those people are in for an awful shock when reality kicks in over the next few years.
Again, I have no problem with the concept of a public sector or “socially motivated” initiatives but if you take it to the point of giving people something for nothing and/or take it to what are clearly utterly unsustainable levels then you not only leave them open to the horrors that are about to befall them but you also utterly “ruin” them in terms of being able to manage their own lives in the future.
Socialism taken to extremes is the ultimate cruelty to the very people it’s supposed to benefit IMO.
Again and finally, I understand the arguments about cuts being made damaging the economy and the risk of a double-dip recession but normal rules do not apply here any more! People have simply got to understand that this is not a matter of choice, we MUST blow away the debt quick-style or the whole country is royally screwed - try and imagine a country that you/your kids are trying to live in when the pound is barely on par with the dollar - £1.50 Mars Bars and £1,500 PS3s are just around the corner if the government doesn’t handle the debt reduction correctly …
Posted on June 30th, 2010 at 21:46
It’s a bit to late to offer a full reply John, but you’ll probably guess that I don’t agree with all you say. We are both clearly on opposing sides on how to handle the current situation, very similar arguments to those being thrashed out by economists, politicians and bankers all around the world.
As I’ve said, I believe there are cuts that can be made, but I don’t believe it needs to be as drastic. I’m not alone in my views, you are not alone in yours. And clearly neither one of us is going to change our opinions based on what either one of us writes here. And neither can categorical prove the way we think it should be done is the best way. We’ve both probably spent a lot of time thinking about it over the past year.
I would however say that the state of this country is not one of socialism taken to an extreme. If it were, the left-wingers would have been happy with the last Government and they most definitely were not.
I do just want to make one final point, because it is important. Of course as public services are paid from through government coffers there is always a negative, but if you close all those services tomorrow or transfer them to privately run businesses, everyone still needs them and we all still pay for them. Instead we pay the money to businesses. Whilst they ‘may’ well run them in a more streamlined fashion, their ultimate aim would be to make money, so I doubt anything would cost less, more likely it would be more expensive. And of course areas that are not cost effective to run the services would lose them outright.
I appreciate you may not use many of the services mentioned before, but they are there if you need them or someone you know or love needs them and I’m sure you use or have used more publicly funded things than you consider - paths, roads, refuse collection, hospitals, police (directly or indirectly), traffic wardens, teachers.
I seem to have said a lot more than planned, but we have to agree to disagree. We have beliefs on how things should be done. The hard way will probably work eventually, I don’t think it needs to be so hard though and therefore people will suffer more than I think they need to. I don’t see £1.50 Mars Bars or £1,500 PS3s any time soon, but neither would be a bad thing. Maybe that’s the way to raise the money. Huge taxes on chocolate and luxuries. We might have less obesity and more focussed teenagers. (I know you are saying those as inflationary prices and of course that is bad.)
Posted on July 1st, 2010 at 00:00
I’d pay £1.50 for a Mars Bar (or a Snickers) - they are great value for money.
I wouldn’t pay that for an Aero though, which are just full of holes.
Posted on July 1st, 2010 at 09:00
Clearly, there are lots of things “wrong” with this country but that’s a 100 year old problem so I ain’t going there on a full-on “why we’re sh*t at everything” conversation lol
I actually am horrified that things like utilities and the rail network are privatised, I think stuff like that which is clearly in the national interest should be run for the national interest. The problem is that as soon as it got made public again, the costs would spiral out of control with it being used (ala NHS etc) as another have-a-made-up-job-and-vote-for-labour-thanks sink.
Equally, I am horrified that we still dish out unlimited amounts of benefits (of all kinds) and that’s got to be cut wildly too. That said, in my world, anyone over 65 wouldn’t have to pay for their utilities or public transport etc.
In short, I want to see us doling out less cash for sure but more to the point, it needs to be directed better, stop ruining people by throwing money at them when they’re still teens FFS and get them doing something but OAPs get a free-ride …
Posted on July 1st, 2010 at 11:37
John you make some valid points. Alot I disagree with though.
NHS should be privatised. I never use it yet many abuse it. Fed up with alcoholics and smokers draining the system.
Benefits should be pretty much eradicated unless very strong evidencial proof you can not work.
Same goes for housing benefits.
Train networks should be either kept privatised with a cap on fares and cap on peformance related bonus’ for execs.
Likewise for utilities.
And retirement age should be lowered to 60 for men and raised to 65 for women. Why should women retire earlier when they live 10 years longer?!!? Makes no sense.
And on that note,..maternity leave and paternity leave should be equal amounts of time unless either party wishes to come back to work early.
All those people who buy 2nd homes and more should be subject to very very high taxes on the purchase and rental income. Which would again stop the rich getting richer and allow first time buyers a chance to actually get on the housing ladder.
University fees should be scrapped - no more of this rich get richer mantra.
Free travel for under 16s nonsense - scrap that.
Agree with free travel for over 60s.
GCSEs/Alevels should be made much much more difficult to seperate the best from the best.
They are my top policies.
Posted on July 1st, 2010 at 13:18
Why should all OAP’s get a free ride? I agree with not handing out anything to those that don’t need it or can do something about it but surely that should include not paying towards heating bills or giving free bus passes to people who have more money than they are ever going to spend?!
Posted on July 1st, 2010 at 13:21
R OAPs have been done over enough already with their pensions.
Free travel is a very minor scratch of public sector expenditure. Also most would travel outside peak hours so they wouldn’t cause overcrowding etc.
And given they are no longer “earning” per se, I feel its rightfully justified.
Posted on July 1st, 2010 at 13:23
Dreamer - don’t get me wrong, I think most OAPs should get help - it just seems bizarre paying heating bills for millionaires in some cases. I guess the expense of means testing is what makes this impossible
Posted on July 1st, 2010 at 13:29
The Queen is an OAP…how much does she get?
Posted on July 1st, 2010 at 13:48
I brought up the OAP thing to contrast with the money we p*ss away on young and fit people who we currently pay to do nothing except spawn kids - no child benefit in my world I’m afraid and sure as sh*t no free housing other than block housing/dormitories for the terminally feckless, I don’t wanna see people on the streets but they ain’t getting nice new flats/mobile phones/satellite TV/beer n fags etc on my dollar …
That money should be going towards helping people at the other end of life, particularly those who’ve put in a day once in a while …
Posted on July 1st, 2010 at 13:54
Do the ‘terminally feckless’ suddenly become a worthy cause at 65 then??!!
I agree with not funding Jeremy Kyler’s to live the Chav Dream but that is separate to paying bills for old people who can afford it rather than paying them for working people who may still need help, or people with genuine medical issues.
Posted on July 1st, 2010 at 14:42
I agree on a number of those points John. I’ve been to a good university but live in an area with a high level of bottom feeders (although they aren’t of course because of benefits). There are far too many people who don’t ever plan to get a job and their benefits should be cut out.
There are however people who do try to get work and cannot. My father was made redundant in the early 80s. He was an incredibly hard-working accountant. He could not get a job no matter what he did. He was unemployed for about four years, maybe five. He applied for all levels of jobs, but when you have had a good job and you apply for something ‘beneath’ you the person interviewing you fears for their job. That’s what happened to him on more than one occasion. He was already a workaholic but that experience made him ever more determined not to be out of work again. He worked himself into the grave, didn’t retire at 65, died aged 67 with a catalogue or stress related illnesses.
So there really are some people who deserve and have paid for their unemployment benefit / job seekers allowance. I remember 5-6 years ago when lots of places were cutting staff, I had to let about four people in my department go. One guy, in his 50s was totally broken by it. He’d been made redundant before. He was a very diligent, hard-working guy. There was a good chance he wouldn’t get another job using his skills as he was getting to an age that people would view him as too old for the industry. Similarly housing benefit is needed to support those made redundant so they can try to pay some of their mortgage. It doesn’t cover it mind. I know there are redundancy insurance schemes for mortgages, and if anyone wants to suggest they should have had that, then the government needs to make it compulsory.
Then there are those who do see benefits as their right without ever having put in.
I believe anyone getting jobseekers allowance should do local community based work. I’m not saying full-time, maybe just 4-to-8 hours per week, but they should. It would help give them experience and be giving something back for their money. They might also hate it so much it gets them into gear to get a full-time job. And if they don’t turn up and do the work properly, they don’t get their benefits.
But also, let’s be clear, there are not enough jobs for everyone. That being the case, there needs to be a benefit system for unemployed people. Especially as many people oppose ‘created’ jobs.
I believe in taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves, but I also wholeheartedly believe that everyone who is capable of putting in should put in. Anybody who can do something should, even if that means ‘creating’ a job. I’m not saying a full-time job at £24k per year, but maybe part-time or just doing their bit to justify their benefit. Or maybe we could create a full-time job for everyone if, based on an average working week of 40 hours, instead of employing 30m at that, we employ 35m at 34 hours per week. I know realistically that’s unworkable for logistical reasons and the skills base etc, but it could be worked to a degree, cut two hours employ two-million. A society where everyone puts in is a society that everyone has a vested interest in. A society that doesn’t care isn’t a society in the first place.
Posted on July 1st, 2010 at 14:50
You blokes do realise that an estimated £141 billion has been donated by ‘the public’ to prop up the ‘private sector’ banking industry, who continue to pay themselves enormous salaries and bonus..
Shall we call it all square then?
Posted on July 2nd, 2010 at 09:26
I guess this is probably not the right time to say I work in the private sector for an investment bank and received a 30% increase in base salary as our bonuses had dropped.
At least your pretty spot on the comments death_to_all_but_metal.
Posted on July 2nd, 2010 at 09:48
I work in an investment bank too. Leave us bankers alone. Get fed up with derogatory comments to bankers.
We worked extremely hard to get where we are..At least I did anyway.
Posted on July 2nd, 2010 at 09:56
On another note, I see Shakira has bombed. No surprise there really. Wonder if they’ll cancel the date.
*awaits buy 1 get 1 free tickets.
I do love it when big headed artists get ahead of themselves.
Posted on July 2nd, 2010 at 10:19
There was no criticism intend, Dreamer - I ALSO work in financial services.
My comment was in relation to the public sector v private sector debate, and the hypothesis that the public sector was leeching off the private sector - when it fact there is to-and-fro each way.
Posted on July 2nd, 2010 at 10:31
I agree with that death.
Posted on July 2nd, 2010 at 10:37
On the Shakira ticket sales, yes, it does seem to be a bit underscribed this morning. I hope it goes ahead though, and get’s a decent crowd, as Mrs. Death and I are looking forward to it.
However, being in the middle of festival season and with the World Cup reaching it’s climax (Go Uruguay!!) you might put a little bit of the apathy down to that.
Interestingly, there are now NO upper tier seats available on either Ticketmaster, SEE (spit) or Gigantic (and Stargreen only ever had standing). Hmmm. I got Upper Row A for myself on the presale, so they were available at one stage. No way they would have sold out before 110’s and they were only a few quid cheaper.
COULD WE REALLY BE SEEING THE PROMOTER PREPARING FOR A HALF-VENUE ALREADY???
Posted on July 2nd, 2010 at 11:05
At that price they should be …
Posted on July 2nd, 2010 at 11:26
With slow sales it’s very common to stop sales to the upper tier. I’ve seen it on other gigs that didn’t end up empty or upper tier closed, or with 2-for-1 deals. They are just making sure the lower tiers are sold out first. Doesn’t mean none of the aforementioned will happen of course.
I’m pretty sure that once the new album comes out and the promotion starts for that, she gets a top 10 single, she starts appearing on chat shows, radio shows et al, then the tickets will sell and you’ll have a decent level of sales for the show.
In the good old days it really was very unusual for a gig to be sold out in a day. If the touts have left it alone then that will also help the situation of tickets being left. Although if you are upstairs and they don’t reopen sales to the top level until the rest sells out, you could find it rather lacking in atmosphere because that will be the place with ALL the unsold seats. If the other levels don’t sell out, they may well relocate you to the lower tier.
Some of the upper tier was priced at £46.50 including fees before they closed sales up there wasn’t it?
Posted on July 2nd, 2010 at 16:11
Danny, yes they were at that price - not much difference really. When I had a chance to get some it was a choice between the back of 110, or front of 405. I know that purists would probably not touch the upper tier, but I liked the idea of having nothing but space between me and Shakira…oh, and the missus of course, but if she sits to the right of me, then I can still dream…bonita.
Posted on July 3rd, 2010 at 21:11
She was on some show touting her “wares” this weekend I believe - maybe sales will pick up - it looked an extremely chavvy show with the de rigueur gay/stupid “presenter” so I dare say it has an audience in the 10s of millions …
She looked pretty hot - how come British white women can’t do thin without looking like junkies?
Posted on July 5th, 2010 at 16:21
Lots of tickets on Ebay but it doesn’t appear anybody is buying them!
The O2 show appears to have bombed!
Posted on July 8th, 2010 at 10:11
John..was that ‘This Morning’, and you weren’t talking about Philip Schofield were you? :0
Shakira was on X-Factor (or one of those shows) last series, and did a superb number incorporating a long line of female Taiko drummers. I was quite impressive, and I have no doubt there will be something similar going on later in the year.
If it does ‘bomb’ then fine, I’ll be able to move closer to the stage once it starts.
Posted on July 8th, 2010 at 10:30
“If it does ‘bomb’ then fine, I’ll be able to move closer to the stage once it starts.”
With your Rohypnol and lubricant?
Posted on July 8th, 2010 at 12:56
ROFL.
No it was on in the evening, obviously my girly was watching it, not me, it defo wasn’t Phil Schofield, it was some fat idiot with specs???
I like what I’ve heard of Shakira and I’ve got nothing against her but maybe it’s cos I’ve seen so little of her but she doesn’t seem to have any personality/edge whatsoever (bit like Leona) and its pretty clear that the great British public likes a bit of edge to come running in their thousands (go Gaga go …).
As I said earlier, I’d have liked to have gone and see her (tho she appears to be snubbing Brum, bitch!) as someone different to the usual R&B non-entities but I’d never pay more than £35 a head. In short, she’s interesting and likeable but not compelling in any way at all …
Posted on July 8th, 2010 at 14:05
Her last album didn’t do all that well. Definitely not as well as those who would normally charge £50 a ticket!
Posted on July 8th, 2010 at 14:17
Shakira’s a really pretty person.
Posted on August 16th, 2010 at 13:43
Add A Comment