Rincewind Posted 20 August 2015 Posted 20 August 2015 My problem with it is why did they pick out a story where a Mars Bar was stolen? Answer, to get the exact response we have seen on here. I saw the story on Facebook and my first response was like others 'why a Mars Bar? It is not exactly healthy. So in that respect I agree with Matt. The other side there are people that have stolen bread or worse to feed themselves or children because their income has been reduced. It is simplistic to say it is their own fault they should get a job etc but some are in work on low paid income. Some have no family or friends to turn to. Some have illnesses or a low mental capability so do not know where to seek help and if noone offers then they are stuck.Even if the woman was a 'fatty' as matt put it the problem is still there and it will not be resolved by making people more desperate The situation needs to be dealt with before it gets that far.
Smudge Posted 20 August 2015 Posted 20 August 2015 I don't see the harm in using false names. If they used real people some of you would accuse the department of making an unfair example of them. In effect it's just advertising, actors are used all the time. It doesn't upset me if I find out that Jane Doe really doesn't have arthritis.
Carl the Llama Posted 20 August 2015 Posted 20 August 2015 I don't see the harm in using false names. If they used real people some of you would accuse the department of making an unfair example of them. In effect it's just advertising, actors are used all the time. It doesn't upset me if I find out that Jane Doe really doesn't have arthritis. The harm is that it's building an argument on falsifications passed off as evidence. Verifiable claims are integral to both decent politics and adverts alike. There are certain standards which we should always demand of those seeking to gain/exert influence on the population. You sound like you'd have been right at home with the snake oil men of the WIld West.
Smudge Posted 20 August 2015 Posted 20 August 2015 The harm is that it's building an argument on falsifications passed off as evidence. Verifiable claims are integral to both decent politics and adverts alike. There are certain standards which we should always demand of those seeking to gain/exert influence on the population. You sound like you'd have been right at home with the snake oil men of the WIld West. Contrary to your unwarranted insult I am not naive, it just doesn't surprise or bother me that they used false names. "I don't sweat the small stuff!"
Carl the Llama Posted 20 August 2015 Posted 20 August 2015 Contrary to your unwarranted insult I am not naive, it just doesn't surprise or bother me that they used false names. "I don't sweat the small stuff!" I didn't mean to imply naivety, more a lack of concern for integrity in others which you've more or less confirmed in that post. Besides it's not just names, it's entire anecdotes summoned from the vaults of a propagandist's imagination. Maybe it is just the way things are, but it certainly shouldn't be.
Webbo Posted 20 August 2015 Posted 20 August 2015 It was mentioned by another poster and Matt replied that he did not know the facts of the case. Whether he was on benefits does not matter. It was the act. If he had been no doubt he should have been hung. It is those lines that confuse me. They seem to contradict each other. Should he be allowed to escape prison on the basis that he is in a well paid job? Why mention the story at all, where was the significance? Just because you agree with welfare reform and you don't believe that people are genuinely starving doesn't automatically mean you think posh twats should be allowed to glass someone in a nightclub.
Guest MattP Posted 20 August 2015 Posted 20 August 2015 It was a chance to bash someone who might have done well for himself, no excuse needed. We've actually now got to a point where we assume people nicking multi packs of chocolate are doing it to feed a starving family. Just what the hell is going on?
Smudge Posted 20 August 2015 Posted 20 August 2015 I didn't mean to imply naivety, more a lack of concern for integrity in others which you've more or less confirmed in that post. Besides it's not just names, it's entire anecdotes summoned from the vaults of a propagandist's imagination. Maybe it is just the way things are, but it certainly shouldn't be. Look I just see it as a way to get people to play by the rules and if they don't there will be consequences. That was at the heart of the message. I see it as a good thing to say without involving real people. Is the way they did it morally right? Probably not but since it has hurt no-one, I wouldn't get bent out of shape about it. If you spend your life worrying about government propagada and getting upset about it, it's going to be a long haul mate. I respect your point of view, lets leave it at that eh?
MPH Posted 20 August 2015 Posted 20 August 2015 And there we finally have it, the entitlement mafia are now defending people stealing Mars Bars to feed families. It's pathetic, I'm out. Reminds me alot of the people who herald Robin Hood as some sort of Hero for robbing stage coaches, ect. He was nothing more than an armed robber.
Buce Posted 20 August 2015 Author Posted 20 August 2015 Reminds me alot of the people who herald Robin Hood as some sort of Hero for robbing stage coaches, ect. He was nothing more than an armed robber. He was/is nothing more than a myth.And if he did exist, stagecoaches didn't exist in the alleged period of history.
MPH Posted 20 August 2015 Posted 20 August 2015 He was/is nothing more than a myth. And if he did exist, stagecoaches didn't exist in the alleged period of history. He's been made into a myth and thats my point. But there was a real person out there who this myth is based on .
Buce Posted 20 August 2015 Author Posted 20 August 2015 He's been made into a myth and thats my point. But there was a real person out there who this myth is based on . Would you like to provide some evidence for that?
Guest MattP Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 IDS taking action. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34042587 Iain Duncan Smith has said his officials who used fictional claimants to show the impact of benefit sanctions could face disciplinary action. The work and pensions secretary said the made-up stories on the DWP website were meant to help people understand the system and were based on "real life cases". But Mr Duncan Smith stressed that he had not seen them before publication. And he told BBC News that the officials "should never have done that". The DWP faced widespread criticism last week when it emerged that two sickness benefit claimants, supposedly called Zac and Sarah and who featured on the department's website, were not real people. It's a shame the fake morale outrage could cost a few low paid people their jobs.
Rincewind Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 The classic 'When you are in the shit pull somebody in as well to stand on to help you get out of it.'
Guest MattP Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 Or actually discipline the people who did it. Isn't that what you want given how awful this supposedly was?
Buce Posted 25 August 2015 Author Posted 25 August 2015 Is he in charge of his department or not? The buck should stop with IDS.
Guest MattP Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 Course he is. Should he really be held responsible for leaflets though? It's ridiculous to suggest he should. Should Andy Burnham have been charged with 2,000 manslaughters after Staffs? Of course he shouldn't, should the Area manager of Burger King be sacked if a local toerag spits in the sauce? Of course they shouldn't. You are letting you hatred of IDS get in the way of common sense here.
Buce Posted 25 August 2015 Author Posted 25 August 2015 Course he is. Should he really be held responsible for leaflets though? It's ridiculous to suggest he should. Should Andy Burnham have been charged with 2,000 manslaughters after Staffs? Of course he shouldn't, should the Area manager of Burger King be sacked if a local toerag spits in the sauce? Of course they shouldn't. You are letting you hatred of IDS get in the way of common sense here. The difference is that you don't believe the lies were officially sanctioned, I do. IDS is absolute scum, and his record speaks for itself. There is no doubt for him to enjoy the benefit of. He is the worst of a very bad lot.
Claridge Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 The difference is that you don't believe the lies were officially sanctioned, I do. IDS is absolute scum, and his record speaks for itself. There is no doubt for him to enjoy the benefit of. He is the worst of a very bad lot. Doing a fantastic job getting people back to work. His record speaks for itself. The absolute scum are people who refuse to work and live off the state.
Guest MattP Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 The difference is that you don't believe the lies were officially sanctioned, I do. IDS is absolute scum, and his record speaks for itself. There is no doubt for him to enjoy the benefit of. He is the worst of a very bad lot. The DWP is a massive department, the idea the head of it would be ticking off literature on a job centre leaflet is just too far fetched. You pretty much give your own prejudices away with the highlighted bit, if a cripple slipped on a banana skin I'd imagine you would blame IDS. His record does speak for itself, outstanding record of getting people off the dole and back to work, of course we'll have a few cases that seem harsh and they may well be, but overall he's done exactly what the government and the public have asked of him.
Buce Posted 25 August 2015 Author Posted 25 August 2015 The DWP is a massive department, the idea the head of it would be ticking off literature on a job centre leaflet is just too far fetched. You pretty much give your own prejudices away with the highlighted bit, if a cripple slipped on a banana skin I'd imagine you would blame IDS. His record does speak for itself, outstanding record of getting people off the dole and back to work, of course we'll have a few cases that seem harsh and they may well be, but overall he's done exactly what the government and the public have asked of him. No offence, Matt, but you give away your prejudice in every post - you have become a Tory apologist.
Guest MattP Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 None taken (although you were calling me a Kipper apologist this time last year).
Buce Posted 25 August 2015 Author Posted 25 August 2015 None taken (although you were calling me a Kipper apologist this time last year). I honestly don't remember that at all, but I won't ask you to trawl through my posts to prove it - I'm sure you have better things to do.
Rincewind Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 It was exposed and before it all received the objections it is doing now, the excuse was that the leaflets were just an example on how the policies were working. If the leaflets and falke stories had not come to light would IDS had ordered the scrapping of them if one should have happened to fall on his desk? The DWP would have a procedure of getting material approved from higher departments one which most likely be close to IDS. Regardless of the intentions the question remains what other policies have been supported by actions that are economical with the truth? Were these carried out before the GE resulting in people voting Tory? If this was a Labour Government Tory supporters would be calling for heads. I would agree. Politicians are working for the public. Well in theory anyway.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.