Unemployment, the JobCentre, and the imposition of labour discipline

Unemployment, the JobCentre, and the imposition of labour discipline

Having been gainfully unemployed for a number of months, I’ve recently returned to take a swim in the shark-infested, soul-destroying, disease-ridden hell hole that is the job market. It’s also the first time I’ve been, ehhem, lucky enough to be able to claim dole. This means applying for jobs and making a fortnightly trip to the JobCentre. And it sucks.

My experience back in the labour market has led me to think about the role of both the state and capital in imposing labour discipline not just on the job, but in every aspect of the labour market.

I read Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed some years back. It’s got its problems—being inherently social democratic, for a start—but the one part that really stuck with me was when she talked about the interview process for retail jobs like stacking shelves or taking stock. As she describes it, the interview isn’t there so much to ensure suitability for the role (these are, after all, extremely de-skilled positions), but to establish the workplace hierarchy and ensure that the candidate understands that management has a totality of control regarding everything from pay to breaks to social interaction on the shop floor.

In short, and although Ehrenreich doesn’t use such terminology, the interview process itself lays down the rules of labour discipline in the workplace.

With my partner and I both applying for these sorts of jobs, I actually think Ehrenreich hasn’t taken the argument far enough. In today's world, as part of the application, there are these utterly bullshit questions which having no bearing upon the skills needed for the role. Instead, such “surveys” are designed to ensure potential applicants understand the expectations that they will, amongst other things, shorten lunch breaks to accommodate business needs, welch on workmates for even the slightest infraction of company policy, and be available for whatever ‘reasonable’ requests management may make of them.

The JobCentre, as you can imagine, only reinforces such dynamics.

And, just like with employers, the JobCentre expects you to meticulously tick each box, show up on time, grovel with thanks, and show deference to the point of physical sickness. The JobCentre, on the other hand, can have labyrinthine rules which change with Kafkaesque regularity. They can keep you waiting weeks, fuck up, then lose your paperwork, and ask you to fill out the same form a dozen times. Too fucking bad. They’re in control, you’re not. There is no double standard so get the fuck over it.

None of this is a dig, I should add, on JobCentre staff as whole. Some are lovely, helpful people. Some aren’t. But even those who are assholes are more likely to be jobsworths enforcing company policy that they have no say in crafting than they are to be explicit class traitors. After all, they wouldn’t want to end up on the receiving end of a dole payment.

Then, there are the posters. I have literally never felt so patronised in my life. And I’m not one of the people who uses ‘literally’ to mean figuratively. I mean like literally, literally. They’re where those god-awful motivational posters go to die. And then come back to haunt you at a point in your life when the last thing you need is to hear someone telling you, high school American football coach style, that all it takes is some perseverance and you too can be arranging fruit at Tesco or selling fucking phone upgrades from some unholy call centre in the heart of a Grimsby industrial estate.

The posters, in their hellish Panopticon of shame and revulsion, contribute towards an entire JobCentre experience which leaves you feeling at once confused and patronised, alienated and belittled, desperate and angry, demoralised and… You get the point.

Oh, and lest we forget the constant references to benefit fraud. When you call the JobCentre you are given the option to report benefit fraud before you are given the option to start a claim. Such priorities are, not surprisingly, again brought to light by a poster on the wall which warns that JobCentre “security agents” will track you down if dare commit benefit fraud. As if the money and time spent on “security agents” would in any way would justify the relatively very little money which people scam off the dole.

Beyond the psychological aspect of all of this, there’s the material. For example, since my partner and I are making a joint claim, we get thirty quid less in total than if we applied separately—which of course we can’t. And that money? It only goes into one account. What, you’re in a patriarchal, controlling relationship with a drunken husband who’s the main claimant? Oh well. Fuck you. We don't care, dole scum.

Let’s not forget government expectations on how far you should be willing to travel to work: 90 minutes. Each way.

And, according to the sanctions which came in last week, you can lose your benefit for up to 156 weeks if you “leave a job voluntarily or lose a job due to misconduct”. I mean, we all know how fucked it is that you can lose benefit if you “fail to take part in a mandatory work activity program”, but losing your dole for misconduct (and not even gross misconduct) or for leaving a job? That has some seriously dangerous implications.

The language around such sanctions has always been vague, but a codifying of such draconian rules demonstrates further the way in which class gains like unemployment benefits can be turned around and used as levers of class control.

Finally, while at the JobCentre, my partner and I had the pleasure of overhearing a conversation between a manager and a claimant being put on workfare. What employers value, apparently, is not education but “experience”. It’s an opportunity for “valuable insider knowledge” and “proving yourself on the job”.

Now, we’re still a while away from workfare, but it is worth noting that a large part of our job searching record log is dedicated to listing the agencies to which we've signed up. As if that's a normal part of job search... Why would you expect direct employment? What do you think this is? The 1960s, you stupid hippy?

This explicit push towards agency work and workfare points to a state policy of precarious employment.

A comrade in SolFed describes workfare as “state intervention in the labour market for the benefit of capital”. I like that. Slightly academic it may be, but it’s succinct. Obviously, there’s a major concern workfare will depress wages and lead to employers filling vacant positions with claimants whom they don’t have to pay, reducing the pool of jobs for everyone.

But perhaps we’re missing a trick. After all, the genesis of capitalism wasn’t low wages. It was primitive accumulation combined with the ability of newly empowered employing class to impose a labour discipline on a newly dispossessed working class.

So, perhaps the goal of workfare, short-term and zero hours contracts, agency employment, and privatisation isn’t first and foremost to reduce wages or even increase the reserve army of labour. Perhaps what we’re seeing is a concerted state-capital effort to begin a renewed cycle of increased labour discipline across the job market and, more generally, across the class.

And if that is indeed what’s going on, the case for a class-wide response to such measures is that much stronger.

Posted By

Chilli Sauce
Oct 30 2012 20:26

Share


  • The JobCentre: where those god-awful motivational posters go to die. As if all it takes is some perseverance and you too can be arranging fruit at Tesco or selling fucking phone upgrades from some unholy call centre in the heart of a Grimsby industrial estate.

Attached files

Comments

wojtek
Oct 30 2012 23:56
Quote:
Chilli Sauce wrote:
But perhaps we’re missing a trick. After all, the genesis of capitalism wasn’t low wages. It was primitive accumulation combined with the ability of newly empowered employing class to impose a labour discipline on a newly dispossessed working class.

What's 'primitive accumulation [of capital presumably]'?

northumberlandsoul
Oct 31 2012 02:31

Has this been written by a student who has recently graduated from university with a 2:1 in English Lit and is intending to spend a year in 'shitty' (read: lower class, menial) jobs whilst 'deciding what he wants to do with his life'/saving up money for travelling, followed by the inevitable PGCE? Because, although I'd like to think it was written by someone with a bit more life experience, upon reading, it really doesn't seem so...

I would also like to know if the author of this piece has ever lived, worked or even been to Grimsby, or whether he is simply using it as another hackneyed, misjudged example of a generic run down, post-industrial working class town.

Patronising and utterly, utterly clueless.

Juan Conatz
Oct 31 2012 04:10

I really don't understand that comment or what it has to do with the article. Is this some UK regional pride hurt or something?

General Strike
Oct 31 2012 04:44
Chilli Sauce wrote:
So, perhaps the goal of workfare, short-term and zero hours contracts, agency employment, and privatisation isn’t first and foremost to reduce wages or even increase the reserve army of labour. Perhaps what we’re seeing is a concerted state-capital effort to begin a renewed cycle of increased labour discipline across the job market and, more generally, across the class.

Oh, absolutely!

shug
Oct 31 2012 10:11

A good piece, Chilli.

Quote:
Patronising and utterly, utterly clueless.

fairly succinctly sums up Northumberlandsoul's contribution.

Arbeiten
Oct 31 2012 10:47
northumberlandsoul wrote:
Has this been written by a student who has recently graduated from university with a 2:1 in English Lit and is intending to spend a year in 'shitty' (read: lower class, menial) jobs whilst 'deciding what he wants to do with his life'/saving up money for travelling, followed by the inevitable PGCE? Because, although I'd like to think it was written by someone with a bit more life experience, upon reading, it really doesn't seem so...

^^ this is pretty much why trying to put forward a working class politics in britain can be so difficult sometimes.

Chilli Sauce
Oct 31 2012 11:01

Yep, primitive accumulation of capital. I try to balance out my writing between being accessible and having a bit of personality (something our Northumberland friend seems to lack) and including a bit of Marx, which I do think still offers the best framework for understanding capitalism. I had David Harvey in mind when I wrote that bit, FWIW.

Now, Northumberlandsoul,

1st, History, although in ten years in I've never actually taken the last few credits to get the degree. (Although I am flattered that you think highly enough of my writing to assume I have an English degree.) In that time I've worked in retail, landscaping, admin and, yes, education. I've even blogged about some of my organizing experiences in those jobs if you're interested in reading about them.

I probably will end up in education, but more to the point, I don't subscribe to some divide between "real" working class manual workers and the sort of work like teaching which requires a degree. In any case, your post has an air of workerist (in the worst sense of the word) anti-intellectualism that's far beyond hackneyed.

Nor do I think I need to dumb down my writing for folks who may not have as much education as me. I think anyone can come to understand new concepts and appreciate a bit of humour. Even if they're a dumb prole working in a call centre in Grimsby. wink

We all work for a wage and we're all part of the working class. In fact, the unemployed rate for graduates is like the highest it's ever been because the state and nature of the economy has changed dramatically in recent decades. Last I heard, if one leaves a school and get a job immediately, you're likely to be making more money after three years than someone who gets a degree and then begins work. Now, in the long-term, the graduate is likely to earn more, but the gap certainly isn't what it used to be. A degree is no guarantee of a middle income job, nevermind a managerial or exploitative position.

As for Grimsby, it's a joke dude. I could have used any number of countless other cities in the UK for the same effect. I live in a part of London that rightfully gets the piss taken out of for similar reasons. I mean, if we can't laugh at ourselves I don't think we're going to be too attractive a mass movement.

EDITED for clarity.

Steven.
Oct 31 2012 11:29

Yeah, exactly. Really, where chilli sauce lives is more Wales than London

northumberlandsoul
Oct 31 2012 12:16

Middle
Class
Angst

It's very, very difficult to believe that you must be what- over 30? And you're still calling people 'dude'? And friend, you genuinely don't have to worry about over-intellectualising your writing- in comparison, a column in the Guardian seems intellectually straining.

This reads as if you've spent so many years reading about what it's like to be unemployed and claiming jobseekers allowance, that now you're finally in that position yourself, your opinions have already been formed. I have a spent years claiming jobseekers allowance, on new deal (which you fail to mention here), new deal for musicians, various courses (employment skills, a call centre qualification) and I can assure you that so much of what you've written is utter rubbish. Aside from mentioning Ehrenreich in relation to job interviews (although really, you may as well have written 'CAPITALISM IS SOOOOO UNFAIR' in big letters and be done with it), and some other pretty obvious stuff about Workfare, your opinions are way off.

Worst of all are your views on those who actually work in the Jobcentre. Yes, of course there are some unhelpful staff, but there are also many enthusiastic and caring people who work there, who will do their best to refer you to potential employers for interview, and who turn a blind eye to the amount of time you spend doing voluntary work. Yes, we all know that the system is flawed, and that really, the only thing you have to do in order to remain on Jobseekers allowance indefinitely is to tell the truth in job interviews ("What would you say is your greatest weakness?" "My terrible punctuality/Poor listening skills/Anger problems etc etc" "Oh"), but really, all you're doing is faux-intellectualising a huge issue which you have such little personal experience of that said limited experience becomes absolutely irrelevant. You offer no more insight than anyone who has ever read a sensationalist SWP pamphlet, which coincidentally is presumably the way that you became interested in socialism.

And finally- you have a first, in History. You will never REALLY know what it feels like to live like most of the people collecting Jobseekers allowance do; to be aimlessly drifting, dreaming of something better (yes, even working class people have dreams!), whilst being offered the least stimulating jobs imaginable and expected to be thankful. Because, as a 90s pop song so succinctly put it, "If you call your dad he can stop it all".

Juan Conatz
Oct 31 2012 12:25

I don't think you really know what you're talking about, nor do you know the author's background, either.

I'm assuming 'middle class' is being used as a slur here, although it still doesn't really seem to mean much here. Frustration with the state's unemployment programs is a pretty widely held sentiment in the States. Almost everything the author described is similar to what its like in the States. Sounds like you have a family member that works at the place or you think people should be thankful there's a social safety net, either that or you view the unemployed as lazy, shiftless people and that these ridiculous standards and strategies to treat them like children is justified.

northumberlandsoul
Oct 31 2012 12:31

I've just stated that I spent years unemployed, as have many of my friends- why would translate into me thinking that the unemployed are lazy? Did you actually read anything I've written? I do think the unemployed are treated appallingly, but this is really not the fault of the Jobcentre staff! And no, I don't personally know any Jobcentre staff members, but I do know that they have to put up with abuse every day, and I do know that we should respect and support them as workers, and that taking out on them our problems with an entire system achieves precisely nothing. They hate Workfare just as much as us, you know.

flaneur
Oct 31 2012 13:03

I think you need to have a calm down and a read of this again. It says some workers are alright, some are not. And even those who aren't are just doing their job. If anything, I thought that was overly soft.

commieprincess
Oct 31 2012 13:25
northumberlandsoul wrote:
Did you actually read anything I've written?...I do think the unemployed are treated appallingly, but this is really not the fault of the Jobcentre staff!

Umm...

Quote:
None of this is a dig, I should add, on JobCentre staff as whole. Some are lovely, helpful people. Some aren’t. But even those who are assholes are more likely to be jobsworths enforcing company policy that they have no say in crafting than they are to be explicit class traitors.

Perhaps you've misunderstood the central ideas of the blog post?

I'm trying to work out exactly what you object to about it, apart from your assertions about the author which are just things you've made up in your head. Working class people with degrees who don't really know what it's like to be REAL WORKING CLASS? Unemployed education workers aren't as unemployed as unemployed brick layers? Because the author is new to signing on they have no right to express how humiliating, degrading and fucked up the benefits system is? They shouldn't try to explore the idea of economic forces dictating how the unemployed are treated?

Admittedly, the author's grating arrogance doesn't help him. wink

Fall Back
Oct 31 2012 13:36
Quote:
on new deal (which you fail to mention here)

Why would he mention New Deal? A bit odd to berate him for being a history had and not talking about history.

northumberlandsoul
Oct 31 2012 13:44
Fall Back wrote:
Quote:
on new deal (which you fail to mention here)

Why would he mention New Deal? A bit odd to berate him for being a history had and not talking about history.

"The New Deal (renamed Flexible New Deal from October 2009) is a programme of active labour market policies introduced in the United Kingdom by the Labour government in 1998, initially funded by a one-off £5 billion windfall tax on privatised utility companies. The stated purpose is to reduce unemployment by providing training, subsidised employment and voluntary work to the unemployed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal_(United_Kingdom)

Fall Back
Oct 31 2012 13:58

Exactly, it's historic. New Deal ended in 2009. It's successor FND was replaced in 2011. So why would you expect a blog about someone signing on for the first time in 2012 to talk about it?

northumberlandsoul
Oct 31 2012 14:14
Fall Back wrote:
Exactly, it's historic. New Deal ended in 2009. It's successor FND was replaced in 2011. So why would you expect a blog about someone signing on for the first time in 2012 to talk about it?

You're very naive if you think that The Work Programme is any different to New Deal. To the average Jobseeker, they're very similar, most long term unemployed still refer to it as New Deal. They still outsource to the same companies, who use the same mix of lies (no exaggeration, genuine lies, eg. completely rewriting your CV for you and filling it with complete untruths) and persuasion in order to force you into jobs you don't want to do.

commieprincess
Oct 31 2012 14:20

Again...

northumberlandsoul wrote:
on new deal (which you fail to mention here)...You're very naive if you think that The Work Programme is any different to New Deal

.

Perhaps read the blog post? There's 4 paragraphs relating to workfare.

Quote:
Finally, while at the JobCentre, my partner and I had the pleasure of overhearing a conversation between a manager and a claimant being put on workfare. What employers value, apparently, is not education but “experience”. It’s an opportunity for “valuable insider knowledge” and “proving yourself on the job”.

Now, we’re still a while away from workfare, but it is worth noting that a large part of our job searching record log is dedicated to listing the agencies to which we've signed up. As if that's a normal part of job search... Why would you expect direct employment? What do you think this is? The 1960s, you stupid hippy?

This explicit push towards agency work and workfare points to a state policy of precarious employment.

A comrade in SolFed describes workfare as “state intervention in the labour market for the benefit of capital”. I like that. Slightly academic it may be, but it’s succinct. Obviously, there’s a major concern workfare will depress wages and lead to employers filling vacant positions with claimants whom they don’t have to pay, reducing the pool of jobs for everyone.

northumberlandsoul
Oct 31 2012 14:27
commieprincess wrote:
Again...
northumberlandsoul wrote:
on new deal (which you fail to mention here)...You're very naive if you think that The Work Programme is any different to New Deal

.

Perhaps read the blog post? There's 4 paragraphs relating to workfare.

Quote:
Finally, while at the JobCentre, my partner and I had the pleasure of overhearing a conversation between a manager and a claimant being put on workfare. What employers value, apparently, is not education but “experience”. It’s an opportunity for “valuable insider knowledge” and “proving yourself on the job”.

Now, we’re still a while away from workfare, but it is worth noting that a large part of our job searching record log is dedicated to listing the agencies to which we've signed up. As if that's a normal part of job search... Why would you expect direct employment? What do you think this is? The 1960s, you stupid hippy?

This explicit push towards agency work and workfare points to a state policy of precarious employment.

A comrade in SolFed describes workfare as “state intervention in the labour market for the benefit of capital”. I like that. Slightly academic it may be, but it’s succinct. Obviously, there’s a major concern workfare will depress wages and lead to employers filling vacant positions with claimants whom they don’t have to pay, reducing the pool of jobs for everyone.

Workfare is just one part of The Work Programme. My friend recently turned down Workfare, was put on an employment skills course instead through which he was given an interview for a catering company, and now he is employed in full time work. There is much more to unemployment support in this country than Workfare (as terrible as WF may be).

Khawaga
Oct 31 2012 14:44

northumberland, what is the point you're trying to make? You obviously have one, but nobody seems to be able to figure out what exactly it is. It also seems as if you read the piece with a prior understanding of what it would be like, rather than reading the piece and then forming your opinion. All you're doing, from what I can gather from your comments, is raging that some people are more working clarse than others and that you are most definitively more working clarse than Chili Sauce.

Are you against workfare? Do you think being unemployed is shit? Are unemployed folks treated like shit at job centers?

commieprincess
Oct 31 2012 14:44
northumberlandsoul wrote:
Workfare is just one part of The Work Programme.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure why you think this particular article has a responsibility to list the various components of the work programme? Their blog post is explicitly drawn from their own recent experience. And they've just signed on so are not going have experienced being put on an employment skills course. If you or a friend of yours has, why not write a blog about it instead of slinging non-constructive and ill-informed insults around about chilli's lack of prole credentials?

northumberlandsoul
Oct 31 2012 14:58
commieprincess wrote:
northumberlandsoul wrote:
Workfare is just one part of The Work Programme.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure why you think this particular article has a responsibility to list the various components of the work programme? Their blog post is explicitly drawn from their own recent experience. And they've just signed on so are not going have experienced being put on an employment skills course. If you or a friend of yours has, why not write a blog about it instead of slinging non-constructive and ill-informed insults around about chilli's lack of prole credentials?

But that's my point, this author DOESN'T have any experience of Workfare, he hasn't been signing on long enough to be part of the Workfare scheme! At its core it's just trite, smug, anti-Tory rhetoric, and should be on the Guardian website not Libcom. If the author had written this after a year of unemployment then fair enough, but it's like me spending a couple of weeks working at Tesco and then writing some exposé about what a terrible employer they are, shady practices etc- yeah, there might be some truth in it, but most of the stuff I'd be saying would be taken from stuff I'd read and heard other people say, rather than experienced first hand in the short time I'd worked there.

Come on Chilli Sauce, you've got a History degree, so surely you should realise that, in terms of this particular issue, the blog post you've written is the archetypal unreliable source. Or should that be sauce?

Khawaga
Oct 31 2012 15:21

So your point is that Chii should just shut up because he's not as knee deep in shit as he should be? That's just great a really great point, northumberlandsoul. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed posting here and make comments about libcom since you've just been a registered member for about a day. That argument is just as valid. FFS, someone posts a personal reflection of his first experience of the shittyness that is unemployment and all you can do is bitch? If he'd been saying how fucking great workfare is, you'd have a point. But all these rather pathetic put-downs clearly demonstrates that you've actually got no point whatsoever. Your form of shouting down might work well in meetings, and some people might confuse your heckling for actually having a point, but when it's all there in pixels, your lack of saying anything substantial is as clear as the backlighting of my laptop's screen.

Now, what is it that you're really objecting to? Because the above is not an objection, it just trying to make yourself feel better than Chili. Why not share your experiences with Chili; let him know what he will likely face if he in the end is forced into workfare? Why attack him for something he has no control over?

Again, what the fuck is your point?

northumberlandsoul
Oct 31 2012 15:30
Khawaga wrote:
So your point is that Chii should just shut up because he's not as knee deep in shit as he should be? That's just great a really great point, northumberlandsoul. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed posting here and make comments about libcom since you've just been a registered member for about a day. That argument is just as valid. FFS, someone posts a personal reflection of his first experience of the shittyness that is unemployment and all you can do is bitch? If he'd been saying how fucking great workfare is, you'd have a point. But all these rather pathetic put-downs clearly demonstrates that you've actually got no point whatsoever. Your form of shouting down might work well in meetings, and some people might confuse your heckling for actually having a point, but when it's all there in pixels, your lack of saying anything substantial is as clear as the backlighting of my laptop's screen.

Now, what is it that you're really objecting to? Because the above is not an objection, it just trying to make yourself feel better than Chili. Why not share your experiences with Chili; let him know what he will likely face if he in the end is forced into workfare? Why attack him for something he has no control over?

Again, what the fuck is your point?

For the millionth time- my point is that the author does not have enough experience to write an article with such sweeping statements as the one above. He is not writing from experience. I personally think this is wrong. To me, it feels like the author is relishing the opportunity to finally, legitimately wheel out all the rhetoric and aforementioned middle class angst that has been building up for years. But it doesn't wash with me, as I know from experience that he could not have come to these conclusions after just a few weeks claiming jobseekers allowance. Therefore I am suggesting that the author is unreliable. That is all I am objecting to. The end.

Chilli Sauce
Oct 31 2012 15:36

oops!

Chilli Sauce
Oct 31 2012 15:38

Well, Northumberlandsoul you seem to have changed your argument, again. So it’s no longer my supposed slagging off of JobCentre staff? It’s my lack of skills as a historian? This is starting to feel a bit like trolling…

Before workfare, SF wrote a flier about the Flexible New Deal. I helped edit it if that makes you feel better?

You’re either being intentionally disingenuous or you’ve missed the point of the blog. Perhaps try re-reading it? Seriously.

It’s not about my experience on workfare (“we’re still a while away from workfare”) or working at Tesco, but about my personal experience signing on and applying for jobs. When I do talk of workfare, it’s admittedly “academic” so I really don’t see how you’re trying to accuse me of speaking for the long-term unemployed?

Finally, I find your accusation of middle class a bit strange. Perhaps you’re not a communist—and fair enough, then—but this is a communist board. While we may recognize divisions in the working class, including those of income, the notion of “middle class” is very much rooted in a bourgeois conception of socio-economics. I think middle income verse low-income or manual verse intellectual* labour is far more useful.

*Which is not to say that manual labour is without intellectual effort or vice-versa.

northumberlandsoul
Oct 31 2012 15:37
Chilli Sauce wrote:
northumberlandsoul wrote:
But that's my point, this author DOESN'T have any experience of Workfare, he hasn't been signing on long enough to be part of the Workfare scheme!

Which is why it's not an article about workfare! But glad you've clarified what your point actually is.

northumberlandsoul wrote:
it's like me spending a couple of weeks working at Tesco and then writing some exposé about what a terrible employer they are

It is not like you working a couple of weeks in Tesco and then doing an expose, it's like you working a couple of weeks in Tesco and saying "this is shit, this is why it's shit, and here's some theoretical meaty goodness to boot that I've been sinking my brain chops into". Is someone who's been working at Tesco 2 weeks not allowed to have an opinion of what it's like working for Tesco for 2 weeks? Does chilli at any point pretend he's got any more experience of claiming benefits than he has?

Are you talking about yourself in the third person? Or do you have multiple accounts in order to make it look as though lots of people back up your arguments, but have accidentally let the mask slip?

northumberlandsoul
Oct 31 2012 15:38
Chilli Sauce wrote:
oops!

Oops indeed.

commieprincess
Oct 31 2012 15:39

No I'm chilli's partner. Wrong login

Chilli Sauce
Oct 31 2012 15:43

Ooh, you little detective you. Sorry, but there's more than one person in the house with a libcom account. We're both good friends with the libcom admins, but please, go ahead and report me for breaking the rules by having more than one account, I dare ya. wink