Benefits Street

[Strokes]

I'm well aware that the most sever cases of depression and bi-polar can prevent people from working. What I find hard to believe is that she suffers from either of them, certainly not serious cases. She appeared as a happy-go-lucky mother of a street in a televised documentary, followed by numerous interviews and a televised debate. Not exactly the behavior of someone who suffers from serious, debilitating depression. Also, the condition seems to have appeared at an incredibly convenient time, right after her lifestyle has been publicly scrutinised. She is also a proven liar.

All things considered, I'd say she is definitely lying.

There's many people who have severe depression and bi-polar that have sucessful careers, so as a condition on its own shouldn't prevent them from being evaluated and debated upon.

[Buce]

There's many people who have severe depression and bi-polar that have sucessful careers, so as a condition on its own shouldn't prevent them from being evaluated and debated upon.

There are many more who don't.

I have no idea whether this woman does suffer with depression or not, nor whether it is severe enough to prevent her from working. That's my point: it is impossible to make an evaluation based on what little you see of her on the tv. No psychiatrist would dream of doing so, so neither should we.

To have an opinion on the feckless and the workshy is one thing; to make assumptions on someone's mental health, without psychiatric training or being in possession of the facts, is something completely different.

[Guest MattP]

If the fat waster is bipolar let's hope at least one of her mood changes ends up with her wanting to earn rather than sponge.

Be surprised though.

[Strokes]

There are many more who don't.

Are there more? Have you got figures to back that up, I do hope you aren't assuming.

[Rincewind]

Moose based his conclusion on watching a TV programme.

[Captain...]

She said she was bi polar. I didn't realise that qualified you for a life on the sick now.

That said, she's a compulsive liar. What a shame no one asked her how she can afford sky, ipads, fags and smartphones or why she gave out super strength lager to alcoholics.

I suppose this show was far too balanced to ask any real questions of these people, let's talk about working mothers, bankers and landlords instead.

Detract from the actual issue supposed to be being discussed.

I would have liked her answer those questions too, I think it was Arabella Weir who came out with the comment on absent fathers paying, or in her case not paying, child support. How does that affect your JSA, is it at all means tested? Are you entitled to benefits if you have a couple of absent fathers paying you a fair amount every month to raise their kids.

Seeing as she has at least 2 kids that I can think of, and no father around, it is probably fair to assume she is entitled to maintenance, if she is receiving benefits as well, then she probably can afford fags and booze. She doesn't come off as wealthy, but she doesn't seem like she is living in poverty either. Not like fungi or the couple.

[Rincewind]

Do you work for ATOS Moose? This is a random search using 'atos and return to work deaths'

There was one woman who died after being told she was fit after having a heart operation. She was asked if she could get dressed and 100 minus 25. Did they look at her medical notes or just 'assumed' that she was lying? There are many other cases but they are no longer counted.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/28/linda-wootton-dies-after-being-judged-fit-for-work_n_3346582.html

[Strokes]

I would have liked her answer those questions too, I think it was Arabella Weir who came out with the comment on absent fathers paying, or in her case not paying, child support. How does that affect your JSA, is it at all means tested? Are you entitled to benefits if you have a couple of absent fathers paying you a fair amount every month to raise their kids.

Seeing as she has at least 2 kids that I can think of, and no father around, it is probably fair to assume she is entitled to maintenance, if she is receiving benefits as well, then she probably can afford fags and booze. She doesn't come off as wealthy, but she doesn't seem like she is living in poverty either. Not like fungi or the couple.

child maintenance is for the costs of a child, it really shouldn't be for fags and booze.

[MooseBreath]

Moose based his conclusion on watching a TV programme.

I sure did. That's what we're talking about here Kenny - a tv programme. The same one you've "based conclusions" on despite claiming you didn't even watch it. If all you're going to do is criticise, maybe better to get your own story straight first no?

[Guest MattP]

Moose based his conclusion on watching a TV programme.

You mean the tv programme the whole thread is about?

[Captain...]

child maintenance is for the costs of a child, it really shouldn't be for fags and booze.

 

Completely agree, that is not my point, my point is people wonder how she can afford ipads and fags and booze on JSA, which is fvck all, I'm just speculating as to whether she has an 'income' from child maintenance, and whether that could account for her lifestyle. I have no idea how much that could be, and I assume it is means based on the father. It could explain how she can afford not work and have luxuries.

[Guest MattP]

I would have liked her answer those questions too, I think it was Arabella Weir who came out with the comment on absent fathers paying, or in her case not paying, child support. How does that affect your JSA, is it at all means tested? Are you entitled to benefits if you have a couple of absent fathers paying you a fair amount every month to raise their kids.

Seeing as she has at least 2 kids that I can think of, and no father around, it is probably fair to assume she is entitled to maintenance, if she is receiving benefits as well, then she probably can afford fags and booze. She doesn't come off as wealthy, but she doesn't seem like she is living in poverty either. Not like fungi or the couple.

Yep, would have liked to have heard that as well.

I'd say she comes off as fairly wealthy, I wonder what percentage of families own satellite tv, all have smartphones and have an ipad knocking around the house while smoking and eating non stop?

Certainly a wealthy life for a person who doesn't work anyway.

[shade]

poverty porn to get people with jobs who pay extortionate taxes angry at people less fortunate than ourselves. do an nhs-porn show about how much money the government wastes on crap computer systems etc. the people on this street, whilst obviously not ideal, represent a tiny minority of benefit claimants - the vast majority of benefits are claimed by people in work - whose poverty wages (from big companies like amazon that don't even pay taxes) aren't enough to live on.

 

why do people get so mad at the people who don't work? did you seriously watch the program? woud you honestly want to be in the position any of them are? does it look like paradise or something? raaaahhhh rahhhhh i pay taxes, rahhhhh rahhhh they're lazy and idle.

[Alf Bentley]

I thought there was one more programme followed by the debate. Never knew about this. But Dee and others said they wouldn't appear on that.

 

There is one more programme (C4, Mon. 10th Feb, 9pm), plus a C4 debate to follow some time.

 

I didn't see the C5 debate so can't comment on that, but whatever its merits/failings it was clearly a "spoiler". For some reason there was no episode of Benefits Street on C4 this week. So, knowing that some participants are dubious about the C4 debate, C5 have obviously jumped into the gap to piggyback on the high ratings of the series. They presumably set this debate up at short notice so as to get a few viewers and to generate some extra advertising revenue, invited a few controversial guests to mouth off, hyped up the studio audience and off you go...very cynical.

 

Look forward to the final episode on Monday, and hopefully to a good C4 debate some time after.

[Rincewind]

poverty porn to get people with jobs who pay extortionate taxes angry at people less fortunate than ourselves. do an nhs-porn show about how much money the government wastes on crap computer systems etc. the people on this street, whilst obviously not ideal, represent a tiny minority of benefit claimants - the vast majority of benefits are claimed by people in work - whose poverty wages (from big companies like amazon that don't even pay taxes) aren't enough to live on.

 

why do people get so mad at the people who don't work? did you seriously watch the program? woud you honestly want to be in the position any of them are? does it look like paradise or something? raaaahhhh rahhhhh i pay taxes, rahhhhh rahhhh they're lazy and idle.

good points. I was going to watch Benefits street and give it one more go. I cannot see anything on it making any difference to the viewpoints that are set in in stone of the few but hopefully it may raise awareness and bust the myths and stereotyping that goes on and supported by certain sections of the media.

[Guest MattP]

poverty porn to get people with jobs who pay extortionate taxes angry at people less fortunate than ourselves. do an nhs-porn show about how much money the government wastes on crap computer systems etc. the people on this street, whilst obviously not ideal, represent a tiny minority of benefit claimants - the vast majority of benefits are claimed by people in work - whose poverty wages (from big companies like amazon that don't even pay taxes) aren't enough to live on.

 

why do people get so mad at the people who don't work? did you seriously watch the program? woud you honestly want to be in the position any of them are? does it look like paradise or something? raaaahhhh rahhhhh i pay taxes, rahhhhh rahhhh they're lazy and idle.

 

Is that a serious point?

 

You genuinely think this should be a lifestyle choice?

 

Do you think people who don't work should be better off than those who do?

 

Your opinions are everything that is wrong with this country and exactly why streets like this are becoming more and more the norm.

 

You are a disgrace.

[Captain...]

good points. I was going to watch Benefits street and give it one more go. I cannot see anything on it making any difference to the viewpoints that are set in in stone of the few but hopefully it may raise awareness and bust the myths and stereotyping that goes on and supported by certain sections of the media.

 

The first episode really was a bit of a hatchet job, it crammed all the worst bits into a one hour show, without going into specifics. They managed to include drugs, shoplifting, benefit fraud, alcoholism and portrayed pretty much everyone as workshy lazy scum, except the 50p man. It worked they stirred up a storm.

 

Since then they have looked a bit deeper, the problems faced by working mothers, immigrants being exploited (and not claiming benefits), attempts by certain memebers of the community to have a positive impact on the street etc.

[Guest MattP]

And who the fcuk actually repped that post?!

 

edit: of course

[Rincewind]

Yes I suppose you are right CPF. i watched the second one but as I was expecting the worse I did not take all of it in. The third I missed because I watched a series on the first World War and could not be bothered to record one or the other. Tuesdays I was going to watch but it wasn't on and found that Channel Five thing. I agree that it seemed rushed and put on to fill a gap. I wonder if they came to an agreement with Channel Four/ Having a debate second may be better for them and they would not want to air Benefits Street at the same time.

[Alf Bentley]

Yes I suppose you are right CPF. i watched the second one but as I was expecting the worse I did not take all of it in. The third I missed because I watched a series on the first World War and could not be bothered to record one or the other. Tuesdays I was going to watch but it wasn't on and found that Channel Five thing. I agree that it seemed rushed and put on to fill a gap. I wonder if they came to an agreement with Channel Four/ Having a debate second may be better for them and they would not want to air Benefits Street at the same time.

 

"Spoiler" programmes, whereby one channel rushes out something they know another channel is planning to broadcast, are an established (and cynical) part of TV broadcasting. I'd be surprised if there was any agreement between C4 and C5. Much more likely that C5 saw the main chance to get some ratings and advertising revenue as C4 had taken a week off for some reason.

 

Benefits Street has been an interesting, good quality series - and I bet they deliberately made the first episode controversial so as to get public debate going, get people tuning in etc. I look forward to next week's episode and any C4 debate.

 

By the way, assuming you have Freeview, you can watch both the programme about WW1 and Benefits Street - just tune into "Channel 4 + 1" at 10pm for Benefits Street ("C4 + 1" is just C4 programmes broadcast an hour later). 

[Captain...]

Is that a serious point?

 

You genuinely think this should be a lifestyle choice?

 

Do you think people who don't work should be better off than those who do?

 

Your opinions are everything that is wrong with this country and exactly why streets like this are becoming more and more the norm.

 

You are a disgrace.

 

 

A bit over the top. He was asking why people get so worked up, not saying it is a valid lifestyle choice.

[Rincewind]

Was that comment made at me? My whole point was their lifestyle is not a choice. No, the ones that do not work and on benefits should not have more than those working and on benefits but should have an income that does not force them to choose between heating and eating and the same goes for those on minimum wage, part time work and zero contract hours. Everyone should have the access to basic human rights and not penalised because they were born in a different part of society.

[Guest MattP]

 

A bit over the top. He was asking why people get so worked up, not saying it is a valid lifestyle choice.

 

His comments were clearly indicated he feels this is fine, no one should be bothered, we should all ignore it, he even managed to end it with a go at the people probably pay his benefits, you couldn't make it up.

 

Was that comment made at me? My whole point was their lifestyle is not a choice. No, the ones that do not work and on benefits should not have more than those working and on benefits but should have an income that does not force them to choose between heating and eating and the same goes for those on minimum wage, part time work and zero contract hours. Everyone should have the access to basic human rights and not penalised because they were born in a different part of society.

 

For someone who consistently goes on about needing to know the facts, actually watching the program, making sure you have seen all the evidence you have been absolutely priceless in this thread.

[Rincewind]

This is a worthwhile petition. It will make the way ATOS work more efficient fairer to those being assessed and save money with less appeals going to court.

 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/47554

[Jon the Hat]

This is a worthwhile petition. It will make the way ATOS work more efficient fairer to those being assessed and save money with less appeals going to court.

 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/47554

 

GPs dont want that responsibility so that is not easy to achieve.  You could also argue that it would be very expensive to take it off assessors who are paid little and give it to GPs who are paid a lot.