Alf Bentley Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 I wasn't sure what to make of this series after the first episode, but after the second it looks like being quite good. I hope future episodes fill out the stories a bit, both to explain why the people ended up in their current circumstances and to show what became of them: Did 50p man make a living, get a proper job or give up? Did the Romanians find work or go home? Do the Polish/Algerian couple stay together or was it a marriage of convenience (work permit for him, cash for her to fund her musical ambitions)? Who is the Benefits Street in Bloom woman? Are there any reasons for Black Dee's hostile attitudes? Why is White Dee on benefits....Idleness? Given up? Couldn't earn enough for childminding? Wants to be F/T Mum? Tax/benefits trap? My brother got caught in the tax/benefits trap about 20 years ago. He was working full-time but suddenly found himself a single parent. At the time, his options were (a) keep working, hand his kid over to expensive childminders for most of his waking hours and end up with £10 per week more than on benefits; (b) go on benefits, bring his kid up himself and have just £10 per week less. Needless to say, he chose the latter (but then worked part-time when his kid was school age - as White Dee could do, if work is available). Labour's massive expansion of tax credits and the Coalition's raising of the tax threshold to £10k were both at least partly supposed to address this, but both come with problems....not least encouraging low pay. Complex issue... The Romanians were in a dodgy position, though, as when filming took place (not now) they'd have been working illegally, unlike Poles, Slovaks etc. Doesn't make slave gangmasters any better - and I'm not criticising. In the past, I worked in Australia on a tourist visa - and in London worked in kitchens alongside Africans who were there on student visas. You do whatever you can to get by, within reason... I suspect that the broadcasters have been quite cunning: put out a first episode that was bound to be controversial in the current climate, showing the more chaotic/criminal elements to get people talking and boost viewing figures (very high for the first episode, apparently), then broaden things out to encompass everyone from the chaotic and the addicts to the striving, the put-upon and the community-minded.... look forward to the next episode.
breadandcheese Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 The Romanian situation was pretty upsetting. Obviously they were working illegally, but to be working under threat from a gangmaster, is hideous. It's even more upsetting that the police once called have no organisation or authority they can refer this situation to. I understand there's not enough evidence to prosecute (although you wonder whether more senior officers than the officers who turned up could decide it it's worth the police spending time and money to investigate and set up a sting against the gangmasters), but there should certainly be an organisation that the police can refer the Romanians, who can then take some responsibility for the situation so that they can be helped home. The reality of the Romanians running away into the night helps no-one.
bovril Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 The Romanians were in a dodgy position, though, as when filming took place (not now) they'd have been working illegally, unlike Poles, Slovaks etc. Doesn't make slave gangmasters any better - and I'm not criticising. In the past, I worked in Australia on a tourist visa - and in London worked in kitchens alongside Africans who were there on student visas. You do whatever you can to get by, within reason... I suspect that the broadcasters have been quite cunning: put out a first episode that was bound to be controversial in the current climate, showing the more chaotic/criminal elements to get people talking and boost viewing figures (very high for the first episode, apparently), then broaden things out to encompass everyone from the chaotic and the addicts to the striving, the put-upon and the community-minded.... look forward to the next episode. Not necessarily. The transitional controls were only relevant to certain fields of work. tell that to the eu Go into most East Anglian towns and you'll find rooms crammed with 10 Chinese being dragged out to the fields by gangmasters at 3am in the morning, and they have nothing to do with the EU.
Webbo Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 Why is White Dee on benefits....Idleness? Given up? Couldn't earn enough for childminding? Wants to be F/T Mum? Tax/benefits trap? If you can believe the papers she was caught embezzling money when she was working for the council, which would put off a lot of employers off. I agree with you about child minding but there is lot of red tape involved in that now, not like the informal arrangements we had when we were kids. Then again maybe she's happy on benefits.
Mike Oxlong Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 Ebony Dee and Ivory Dee Live together in perfect harmony ...... Number one this week. You heard it here first.
MooseBreath Posted 14 January 2014 Author Posted 14 January 2014 The Romanian situation was pretty upsetting. Obviously they were working illegally, but to be working under threat from a gangmaster, is hideous. It's even more upsetting that the police once called have no organisation or authority they can refer this situation to. I understand there's not enough evidence to prosecute (although you wonder whether more senior officers than the officers who turned up could decide it it's worth the police spending time and money to investigate and set up a sting against the gangmasters), but there should certainly be an organisation that the police can refer the Romanians, who can then take some responsibility for the situation so that they can be helped home. The reality of the Romanians running away into the night helps no-one. The way I saw it was that they had a job offer so could come here legally. There probably is am organisation that deals with that kind of thing but they couldn't speak English and had no money or time
Alf Bentley Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 If you can believe the papers she was caught embezzling money when she was working for the council, which would put off a lot of employers off. I agree with you about child minding but there is lot of red tape involved in that now, not like the informal arrangements we had when we were kids. Then again maybe she's happy on benefits. Hadn't seen the embezzlement allegations; if true (big "if", knowing the papers), she'd be in a similar situation to someone convicted of dishonesty, then - hard to regain trust, except maybe through some "2nd chance" work rehabilitation scheme. With childminding, I suppose it's the old risk v. red tape dilemma. How much risk are you prepared to take v. at what point does regulation become obstructive? My mother went back to work when my brother started school and made an informal arrangement for an apparently trustworthy fellow mother to look after him for an hour after school...only to come home unexpectedly early and find him (age 6?) on his own in the house as the childminder had gone back to her own house. No harm came of it (apart from the childminder losing her position), but you can imagine the press furore if that happened now and a child died. I agree that there seems to be too much red tape now, but can understand why. We can't have our cake and eat it....
Alf Bentley Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 Not necessarily. The transitional controls were only relevant to certain fields of work. Go into most East Anglian towns and you'll find rooms crammed with 10 Chinese being dragged out to the fields by gangmasters at 3am in the morning, and they have nothing to do with the EU. The way I saw it was that they had a job offer so could come here legally. There probably is am organisation that deals with that kind of thing but they couldn't speak English and had no money or time Looks like you're both right. Here's some info: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21523319 -> "Bulgarians and Romanians gained the right to visa-free travel to the UK in 2007, when their countries joined the EU. But there were temporary restrictions on the kind of jobs they could take. Employers had to apply for work permits and migrants for an "accession worker card". Low-skilled workers were restricted to existing quota schemes in the agricultural and food processing sectors. These restrictions were dropped on 1 January, having been extended to the maximum period of seven years" The Romanians in the programme may still have been working illegally, but if not then surely the employer would be under a duty to keep proper accounts of pay, tax etc? If they'd applied for a work permit and the migrant workers had "accession worker cards", in theory the employers would be easy to identify and investigate - and the police should have done that!
Rincewind Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 I thought they were unable to give the bosses name. The language barrier was also a problem. I agree they should have been referred to someone who could help and investigate. Costs less in the long run.
breadandcheese Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 The way I saw it was that they had a job offer so could come here legally. There probably is am organisation that deals with that kind of thing but they couldn't speak English and had no money or time Fair enough. I'm not going to pretend that I know much about work permits for immigrants and just blanket assumed because it was filmed pre 2014, that they were working illegally. I guess it was frustrating that the police officers reached the limit of what they could do. There was a translator present when the officers were talking to them on the street (whether the lady went with the police or was another resident of the street, I don't know), so the language barrier wasn't an issue. So the only conclusion I can draw is that either the police don't know of the existence of an organisation to help the Romanians home / there is no protocol for referring it or there isn't an effective organisation. Edit: I guess there's border control agency, but then you're potentially criminalising a victim if they are here illegally and need help from a gangmaster as Border Control's remit would be to treat any case as two separate issues (people trafficking by the gangmaster and entering the country illegally by the victim).
ADK Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 Just goes to prove why having properly controlled borders would benefit everybody.
absolutelegend Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 Just goes to prove why having properly controlled borders would benefit everybody. yes, exactly what i was thinking. what's wrong with having to prove that you can either a) financially support yourself or b) have a legitamate job before you are allowed entry to a country. smacks of common sense to me. I know circumstances change but it would be a good starting point.
MooseBreath Posted 14 January 2014 Author Posted 14 January 2014 To be fair they didn't go into much detail about what the police did to help. The police said they were going to follow up on it by returning later (possibly having been told they would be given more information later), but we never saw whether or not they did (i assume they probably did, I doubt they would just lie with the cameras there) or what the outcome was. The Romanians didn't seem to want to give any information away that would have incriminated the 'gang' involved, so the police couldn't do a lot. The Romanians appeared to be seeking advice more than anything, and for that they should have found out what the relevant organisation was and gone to them. But with no English language and no money they were limited, and that was the risk they took. I assume the translater was there for channel 4, and maybe the producers did provide some assistance off camera, but they wouldn't have shown it because that's not what the programme is about.
BoneDog Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 I've only looked at a couple of random pages (a while ago) on this thread and have not seen the tv show. Didn't reply earlier as I had things to contend with. I noticed a couple of snarling beasts in the thread calling for forced sterilisation and other eugenics ideas. I hope you've volunteered your own children to the grand plan if you really yearn for such a thing. Oh how I laugh when I hear human beings embracing such anti-human schemes that have been dreamed up by a perverted branch of science. Your descendants will be ashamed of you. GOOD LUCK! Somebody also mentioned (maybe MooseB) that they thought the whole benefit system was some form of a trap to keep part of the masses down. That statement is true and if anybody checks the early history of the welfare system and the words of it's 'inventors' they will find it to be true. I forget her name, but one of the famous female 'inventors' of the welfare system was a reet evil, racist, eugenics supporting slut, who was into the psychology of how the elites could crush human inventiveness, among many other negatives. Historical fact. The same ho is venerated by modern idiots. CRACK ON.
l444ry Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 Even Ken can see that makes no sense at all as a comparison. What next? Buckingham palace has more French polishers than Benefits street? The House of Lords has more leather benches? The comparison is to highlight the actual amounts the state forks out to spongeing politicians, as opposed to the fictitious bullshit benefit figures that some half-wits seem to accept as fact.
Rincewind Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 I can't remembering saying anything about the difference between the two. There is good and bad at both ends but those at the lower end are less likely to be able to fund any political party. or individuals sufficient;y to influence policies,
The God Emperor Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 I've only looked at a couple of random pages (a while ago) on this thread and have not seen the tv show. Didn't reply earlier as I had things to contend with. I noticed a couple of snarling beasts in the thread calling for forced sterilisation and other eugenics ideas. I hope you've volunteered your own children to the grand plan if you really yearn for such a thing. Oh how I laugh when I hear human beings embracing such anti-human schemes that have been dreamed up by a perverted branch of science. Your descendants will be ashamed of you. GOOD LUCK! Somebody also mentioned (maybe MooseB) that they thought the whole benefit system was some form of a trap to keep part of the masses down. That statement is true and if anybody checks the early history of the welfare system and the words of it's 'inventors' they will find it to be true. I forget her name, but one of the famous female 'inventors' of the welfare system was a reet evil, racist, eugenics supporting slut, who was into the psychology of how the elites could crush human inventiveness, among many other negatives. Historical fact. The same ho is venerated by modern idiots. CRACK ON. I believe it was me. although there will be some corrupt individuals working in government, due to positions of power being very attractive to corrupt individuals, I believe it is more to do with instinctive behavior of governments rather than sinister individuals.
ozleicester Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 Researchers discover that money makes people nasty A recent study by researchers at the University of California Berkeley Campus has found a clear connection between wealth and a disregard for a fellow person's feelings. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/money/researchers-discover-that-money-makes-people-nasty/story-fni0cms5-1226803197438
Alf Bentley Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 Researchers discover that money makes people nasty A recent study by researchers at the University of California Berkeley Campus has found a clear connection between wealth and a disregard for a fellow person's feelings. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/money/researchers-discover-that-money-makes-people-nasty/story-fni0cms5-1226803197438 I could have told them that at 13, based on research from my paper round! At Christmas, my tips came disproportionately from the smaller houses (my round took in a small housing estate and a load of large, detached houses). Most (not all) people in big houses gave no tip. Indeed, one large house owner pulled up next to me in his large car on Christmas Eve, as I was trudging uphill in thick snow to deliver his paper (Telegraph, I think) - and told me off for being a bit later than usual - true story! Mind you, if there are any prospective Bill Gates types on here wishing to indulge their philanthropic inclinations, I'll gladly accept your donations!
Captain... Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 I could have told them that at 13, based on research from my paper round! At Christmas, my tips came disproportionately from the smaller houses (my round took in a small housing estate and a load of large, detached houses). Most (not all) people in big houses gave no tip. Indeed, one large house owner pulled up next to me in his large car on Christmas Eve, as I was trudging uphill in thick snow to deliver his paper (Telegraph, I think) - and told me off for being a bit later than usual - true story! Mind you, if there are any prospective Bill Gates types on here wishing to indulge their philanthropic inclinations, I'll gladly accept your donations! I think it is the other way round, they have the larger houses because they don't give money to begging little toerags, As we saw on the programme poor people are often very bad with money, look at the couple on benefits giving Funghi money to buy a beer when they can barely afford to feed their own kids, generous and kind or stupid?
Alf Bentley Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 I think it is the other way round, they have the larger houses because they don't give money to begging little toerags, As we saw on the programme poor people are often very bad with money, look at the couple on benefits giving Funghi money to buy a beer when they can barely afford to feed their own kids, generous and kind or stupid? I wasn't a begging little toerag, but a member of one of those much-praised "hard-working families" (there's a phrase for the "things that grind my gears" thread!). I wonder where "Fungi" got his name from? Because he's undesirable scum? Because he's a "fun guy"? Because he grows on people?!
bovril Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 I wasn't a begging little toerag, but a member of one of those much-praised "hard-working families" (there's a phrase for the "things that grind my gears" thread!). I wonder where "Fungi" got his name from? Because he's undesirable scum? Because he's a "fun guy"? Because he grows on people?! Because he can be found at the bottom of school playing fields?
Nick Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-25750475
Rincewind Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 The first programme was to get people interested and pandered to the those who point fingers at stereotypes. Hopefully the others will be a fairer reflection but i doubt it.
Jon the Hat Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 The first programme was to get people interested and pandered to the those who point fingers at stereotypes. Hopefully the others will be a fairer reflection but i doubt it. You are so right. The chance of Channel 4 giving anything other than a left wing slant over the series are about zero.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.