Did a superfluous NOT intrude in the second sentence below or was it in the FT article? How about the equally plausible interpretation that benefit fraud is rife?
Allan Reese ... who left Hull to find work
"The failure was highlighted in a study of the unemployed in
Hull, where three inner city wards had nearly 400 more unemployed benefit
claimants than jobless working age men recorded in the census. The number of
claimants would *not* [my emphasis] normally be lower as not all unemployed people can claim
benefit."
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|