I believe that people receiving benefits pose a lucrative market for satellite television networks.
In almost every town in the UK, and most notably, in towns where there is widespread deprivation, satellite television companies are present in mobile shops, encouraging people to sign up.
Often, these sales people, who are paid commission on every sale they make, push potential customers into making a subscription, on the basis of 'affordable' payments, and marketing the impression that individuals need to 'keep up with the Jones' '.
However, are these commission based sales people forgetting ethics, on the trail of a quick buck?
For many people receiving benefits, their social mobility prospects are often, by very nature, limited. Most are unable, or show no desire to work.
Why then do so many people who are on state support sign up to satellite TV networks?
Is it a sign of desire of social mobility, seeing access to satellite TV as an eminent feature of middle class lifestyle, or just a way of attaining some happiness for those who can't work?
Either way, the fact that so many people receiving benefits take out subscriptions with satellite TV companies is concerning.
Do satellite TV companies target deprived customers for sales, as in the long run, missed payments will accumulate more revenue through debt fees?
My view, and probably this goes against the leftist nature of the student demographic, is that satellite television should be the reserve of the middle class, or at very least, those who work, and can afford it.
I know some will suggest the compassionate argument of if you cannot work, that is different. To some extent I agree, it is after all, not someones fault if they are medically unfit for work.
What I staunchly disagree with is both satellite television networks purposefully targeting low income customers, and those who are on benefits, refusing to work, curling up in front of the latest series of Prison Break all day.