Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

'Poverty Porn' In The UK Media Watch

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Explain to me ow the feckless couple living next door to me are able to go out drinking most nights. Go on holiday and have a large flat screen TV.

    Are they high paid consultants who work from home? Maybe academics on sabatical?

    No. They're feckless chancers who have realised that they can get paid as much to stay at home than go out and do work.

    One day, when you're working and realising that it's your tax money that is paying for these people, then you will get as upset about as I do.
    I think we're in agreement? I was pointing out the OP was belittling people's objections to people on benefits by claiming only 0.7% were fraudulently claimed, and that their concerns actually included the legitimate grievance with unnecessarily high payments you speak of.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    The systems wrong if that can happen. Even he acknowledges it. But if you can be paid for sitting at home for doing little more than filling a ew forms out. Why not.

    Therein lies the problem. We have a benefit system that doesn't promote work. Not a safety net. But a system that actually allows you not to work even tough your more than capable.
    The real problem is low wages and high cost of living.

    As I said, for the vast majority, being on benefits is not pleasant.

    It would be interesting to know what benefits your friend is getting.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    I think we're in agreement? I was pointing out the OP was belittling people's objections to people on benefits by claiming only 0.7% were fraudulently claimed, and that their concerns actually included the legitimate grievance with unnecessarily high payments you speak of.
    Sorry. My mistake.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    The 0.7% figure is a misrepresentation of people's concerns. Whilst it may be true that people overestimate the number of people fraudulently claiming benefits, there is also the issue of the perception that benefit payments are higher than they ought to be.
    Perhaps we should shift our focus towards making the general workplace a slightly more appealing environment to be a part of. We could make a start by raising the national minimum wage. As a young student, I take any work I can find, but I can't honestly say that the prospect of a poorly paid subservient role in a hierarchical menial workplace for the purposes of wage labour really scream a huge appeal to me. I think more worker democracy is somewhere to start. The workplace should be made to fit the worker, not vice-versa, in my eyes. Perhaps more encouragement of pursuit and expression in the workplace, as opposed to subjugation of the latter...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with the OP.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NorthCountryMod)
    Perhaps we should shift our focus towards making the general workplace a slightly more appealing environment to be a part of. We could make a start by raising the national minimum wage. As a young student, I take any work I can find, but I can't honestly say that the prospect of a poorly paid subservient role in a hierarchical menial workplace for the purposes of wage labour really scream a huge appeal to me. I think more worker democracy is somewhere to start. The workplace should be made to fit the worker, not vice-versa, in my eyes. Perhaps more encouragement of pursuit and expression in the workplace, as opposed to subjugation of the latter...
    But jobs that pay minimum wage are typically the type of job that workers would leave as soon as they could anyway, even if it did provide enough money. I do see the benefits of tying employers and employees together to work for mutual gain, but I'm not sure how to implement that in a workplace where the employees are going to ditch the employer at the first whiff of more fulfilling work. I would ban zero-hours contracts, for example, but I wouldn't really want to give short term workers who have the intent to be short term workers a say in the long term running of a business.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    I always find that odd.

    It's like the stories you get in some of the poorer quality press about the couple on benefits who have 39 children and "plan to have more." The paper will carry an unflattering picture (I always imagine that the people who read these papers study the picture and see it as an insight as to how the 'unwashed' live..."ohh, furniture which doesn't match, tatty wall paper AND that Constable isn't even an original. How interesting!") and will also have a quote from one of the parents:

    "Tracy told our reporter: 'well, like, the money is good and me and Steve have never been keen on work. So it makes sense to just stay at home having sex all the time. We have had six holidays this year and next year we will be buying our eldest children a new car each."

    Anyway - I wonder where they find these people. How they get them to talk? In any event, it does not take away the fact that it is pretty sloppy reporting.
    What I find odd is that you have to agree to be on Jeremy Kyle. Why all those scumbags agree to be publicly humiliated for what is probably only about £250 is beyond me...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The belief is generally that the system is too lenient.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NorthCountryMod)
    Current British media spend so much time promoting the idea that the poor have never had it so good - but almost no airtime is devoted to revealing the decreasing contributions from the wealthiest.
    That's because no such thing has happened. In each year of the Coalition the rich have paid a larger percentage of tax than any single year of the 1997-2010 Labour government. Corporation tax has risen in each year of the Coalition and is almost back to pre-recession levels. It is an indisputable fact that the Coalition tax the poor less and the rich more than Labour did. Stop listening to tired bull**** Labour rhetoric and get a grip, we can't keep putting off having to deal with ballooning welfare costs by dismissively blaming everything on the rich.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NorthCountryMod)
    The list of 'Poverty Porn' scaremongering shows on UK television in recent weeks has been long and pretty damn sad. Channel 4 (and I expected better from them) have brought us 'Skint',
    'Skint' is nothing compared to BBC's 'The Scheme' nothing...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NorthCountryMod)
    The list of 'Poverty Porn' scaremongering shows on UK television in recent weeks has been long and pretty damn sad. Channel 4 (and I expected better from them) have brought us 'Skint', 'Benefit Busters', 'How to Get a Council House' and 'Benefits Britain'. The BBC even chipped in with the dehumanising and painfully patronising, 'We All Pay Your Benefits'. This list is not even exhaustive, just some of the lowlights.


    All of these shows, intentionally or otherwise, feed into a myth that the UK is some sort of paradise for benefit cheats and so-called 'scroungers'.


    In reality, benefit fraud is just 0.7% of all claims – this means 'Benefits Britain', to be statistically accurate, would have needed to follow the lives of 100 claimants to show just one who was cheating the system.


    In these shows, most, if not all of a handful of claimants are portrayed as milking it and living in some sort of ill-entitled luxury - and the saddest part of it all is how the British public seem to eat it up like chocolate.


    The total cost of benefit fraud is £1.2bn a year – this is less than half what administrative errors cost the DWP each year - and nowhere near what corporate tax dodging costs us. Current British media spend so much time promoting the idea that the poor have never had it so good - but almost no airtime is devoted to revealing the decreasing contributions from the wealthiest.

    To me, I see it clear to be scapegoating aimed at distracting the public away from the government's continual failings.
    This post is gold.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    This post is gold.
    Just a pity most of it is *ollocks.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Just a pity most of it is *ollocks.
    Care to *laborate?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    That's because no such thing has happened. In each year of the Coalition the rich have paid a larger percentage of tax than any single year of the 1997-2010 Labour government. Corporation tax has risen in each year of the Coalition and is almost back to pre-recession levels. It is an indisputable fact that the Coalition tax the poor less and the rich more than Labour did. Stop listening to tired bull**** Labour rhetoric and get a grip, we can't keep putting off having to deal with ballooning welfare costs by dismissively blaming everything on the rich.
    Not advocating the status quo does not make you a Labour advocate. How many times?! Labour and The Tories are two centre-right parties with their own corporate interests. Their rhetoric might as well be interchangeable. It's not like they're a legitimate opposition, these days.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NorthCountryMod)
    Not advocating the status quo does not make you a Labour advocate. How many times?! Labour and The Tories are two centre-right parties with their own corporate interests. Their rhetoric might as well be interchangeable. It's not like they're a legitimate opposition, these days.
    I never said you were a Labour advocate, I said stop listening to their rhetoric; they're can't go two seconds without harping on about the top band tax cut and how apparently the Tories are letting the rich off while raping the poor, with the Guardian and BBC naturally giving Labour plenty of media coverage to do so. Regardless my point stands, that you were factually and indisputably incorrect when you asserted that the wealthy are contributing less, and wherever you got the idea from you should stop listening.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I never said you were a Labour advocate, I said stop listening to their rhetoric; they're can't go two seconds without harping on about the top band tax cut and how apparently the Tories are letting the rich off while raping the poor, with the Guardian and BBC naturally giving Labour plenty of media coverage to do so. Regardless my point stands, that you were factually and indisputably incorrect when you asserted that the wealthy are contributing less, and wherever you got the idea from you should stop listening.
    That's *******s. The Tories are cutting corporation tax - and planning to continue doing so, if you care to look at their website.

    http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Economy.aspx


    • Saved businesses £3.3 billion a year in slashed red tape.
    • Cut corporation tax to 24 per cent with a plan to bring it down to 22 per cent by 2014.

      And that's their own harking promotion!

      I don't know where you got the 'rich are targeted' rhetoric and where you got the idea that the Tories aren't cutting corporation tax, but wherever you got the idea from you should stop listening.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    That's because no such thing has happened. In each year of the Coalition the rich have paid a larger percentage of tax than any single year of the 1997-2010 Labour government. Corporation tax has risen in each year of the Coalition and is almost back to pre-recession levels. It is an indisputable fact that the Coalition tax the poor less and the rich more than Labour did. Stop listening to tired bull**** Labour rhetoric and get a grip, we can't keep putting off having to deal with ballooning welfare costs by dismissively blaming everything on the rich.
    I'm no fan of the Tories or this government but I'm more than willing to concede they have raised tax incomes since they came into power and that lowering the top rate of tax was a part of that success. Afaik the stats show that the optimum top rate of tax for this country would be about 42% therefore any politician advocating a move away from that figure is either ignorant or incompetent.

    Personally I don't think raising minimum wage would solve the issue, it would just make the problem worse by further driving up the cost of living and making the UK a less favourable place for buisness to invest. The key is to cut the cost of living while keeping wages at a level which is attractive to investment, while not the whole answer fuel duty and curbing extortianate rents from private landlords would help significantly.


    On the shows in question what you have to realise is that the TV companies are not trying to be informative or present a balanced picture of life as it actually is, they are trying to ENTERTAIN a certain demographic. I imagine that they think that by playing to a pop-myth peddled by the right-wing they can up their viewing figures and hence their profits.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NorthCountryMod)
    That's *******s. The Tories are cutting corporation tax - and planning to continue doing so, if you care to look at their website.

    http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Economy.aspx


    • Saved businesses £3.3 billion a year in slashed red tape.
    • Cut corporation tax to 24 per cent with a plan to bring it down to 22 per cent by 2014.

      And that's their own harking promotion!

      I don't know where you got the 'rich are targeted' rhetoric and where you got the idea that the Tories aren't cutting corporation tax, but wherever you got the idea from you should stop listening.
    Please actually read my post properly before ranting about it. I never said anything about rates of tax. Corporation tax revenues continue to rise since the Coalition took charge, and the further cut is likely to raise even more revenue as it makes the UK more globally competitive. What rate they pay is frankly irrelevant, 15% of a large tax base would be much better for the country than 85% of diddly squat. That's of course ignoring that corporations aren't people, so have nothing at all to do with your assertion.
    I pretty much explained the 'rich are targeted' rhetoric in my post, and you are a prime example, attacking the rich for something despite facts concluding otherwise.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NorthCountryMod)
    Care to *laborate?

    Se pol pot noodles post. He explains the flaws quite reasonably
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ripper-Roo)
    Yeah, this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-lost-way.html

    .

    Pretty much matches the stereotype the DM loves. It seems more than just 'reporting the facts'.

    I wonder how much they're paid to reveal how they fund those '39 children' :laugh:

    That article is absolutely shocking, even for the Daily Mail.

    Their usual rhetoric about scroungers I expected, but there's a sinister implication that anyone not in a wheelchair is faking, and that old people who don't want to be put in a home are just being plain selfish.

    Also of course benefits were proportionately lower in 1949.. we were still on food rationing!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.