Dr The Singh Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 loved the debate on channel 5, it was such car crash. totally fancy katie hopkins, boy would see get it!!
Dr The Singh Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 Why didn't they show this side of the residents from the first week? cus nobody would watch it!!
Captain... Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 loved the debate on channel 5, it was such car crash. totally fancy katie hopkins, boy would see get it!! Flicked over in the adverts, saw Hopkins getting gobby, again, they had 2 hosts to try and control their guests, failed, and the last time I flicked over I saw Lee Jasper trying, but failing to storm off. Did anyone manage to make a point without being shouted over? The Channel 4 one wasn't much better, Bacon had some control, but there were too many people to actually get any coherent thread running through it with people chipping in but never actually getting to make their point. Someone from the audience suggested food vouchers instead of money and it got completely ignored, which is a shame as I would like to have seen the response from the "scroungers" and the politicians.
Dr The Singh Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 Flicked over in the adverts, saw Hopkins getting gobby, again, they had 2 hosts to try and control their guests, failed, and the last time I flicked over I saw Lee Jasper trying, but failing to storm off. Did anyone manage to make a point without being shouted over? The Channel 4 one wasn't much better, Bacon had some control, but there were too many people to actually get any coherent thread running through it with people chipping in but never actually getting to make their point. Someone from the audience suggested food vouchers instead of money and it got completely ignored, which is a shame as I would like to have seen the response from the "scroungers" and the politicians. I kept flicking between the 2, both were a mess and no point was really debated. Katie Hopkins is a nutcase, she totally would be a great shag, really some of her comments were borderline racist, I got what she tried to do, to open a debate about 'whites being called racist when they challenge such issues' but she went about it in a loony way. To put Amjem CHoudary on the show was brave but I thought necessary, I thought it might bring a consensus debate about how such people are adding to negative immigration thoughts, instead that twaat wanted to walk off!!
Rincewind Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 Missed the food voucher comment. Not too sure about that. Not really solving the problem. More of a sideways step.
bovril Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 What's Anjem Choudary got to do with immigration?
DennisNedry Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 Missed the food voucher comment. Not too sure about that. Not really solving the problem. More of a sideways step. It's easier for taxpayers to handle, seeing their tax going to fund food vouchers for struggling people and their children, rather than being spent on fags, booze and Sky+. What's Anjem Choudary got to do with immigration? An example of who should have no right to be in the country and should be deported right away?
Dr The Singh Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 What's Anjem Choudary got to do with immigration? Negative thoughts on islamic immigrants, ie all islamic immigrants want sharia law1
bovril Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 It's easier for taxpayers to handle, seeing their tax going to fund food vouchers for struggling people and their children, rather than being spent on fags, booze and Sky+. An example of who should have no right to be in the country and should be deported right away? Negative thoughts on islamic immigrants, ie all islamic immigrants want sharia law1 As far as I know he's a complete hate-filled shit-stain on the toliet bowl of humanity... but not an immigrant.
Captain... Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 It's easier for taxpayers to handle, seeing their tax going to fund food vouchers for struggling people and their children, rather than being spent on fags, booze and Sky+. An example of who should have no right to be in the country and should be deported right away? It's not just about pleasing the tax payer, you give an alcoholic/smoker/druggie, £70 a week, where do you think it will go. Fungi couldn't look after himself and was clearly not responsible enough to handle money. Give them the basic ingredients to provide healthy meals for themselves and their family, plus factor in a budget for clothes and other essentials in the form of credit to be spent in certain stores or online.
Guest MattP Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 Just tried to watch it and had to turn off. Bad enough seeing white dee from a distance let alone having close ups, lying her tits off again as well. So obvious. Glad I missed the c5 debate as well, wondered how they could top the last panelists and they've gone for Lee Jasper. I'm expecting Peter Thatchell on the next one telling us how young boys enjoy sex.
shade Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 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. 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. I've never been on benefits, nor have my family, you angry little man! I was obviously raised differently to you though. What is it you're so angry at? Genuine claimants who are entitled to benefits claiming them (in which case I assume you're against the welfare state), or people committing benefit fraud? The UK government estimates that total fraud across the whole of the economy amounts to £73 billion a year. UK government figures for 2012 estimate benefits overpaid due to fraud is £1.2 billion and tax credit fraud is £380 million. So just under £1.6 billion in total; less than 1% of the overall benefits and tax credits expenditure and less than benefits underpaid and overpaid due to error. I don't get angry at very poor people who are on benefits like you do, if i had to channel my anger somewhere, it would be at amazon, starbucks, and all the other companies you probably frequent regularaly, while you rant at people who live pretty crappy lives.
MooseBreath Posted 18 February 2014 Author Posted 18 February 2014 Nice pie chart, looks very official. How do you estimate fraud, and can you rely on the government figures?
Zingari Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 Nice pie chart, looks very official. How do you estimate fraud, and can you rely on the government figures? its best just to believe what you want to believe imo
Rincewind Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 MooseBreath, on 18 Feb 2014 - 10:12 AM, said: Nice pie chart, looks very official. How do you estimate fraud, and can you rely on the government figures? You believe government figures when they agree with your thinking.
shade Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 Nice pie chart, looks very official. How do you estimate fraud, and can you rely on the government figures? The European Union estimate the combined total of tax avoidance and evasion is £95 billion a year. Even HM Revenue and customs accept it's over £32 billion a year. Put simply...."Benefit underpayments save us more money than benefit fraud costs us. By the most conservative estimates, tax avoidance and tax evasion outweighs benefit fraud eightfold. But the constant target of argument – "scroungers", "benefit cheats", and more, isn't the well-heeled middle classes who knock a little off their tax return, or the high-rollers with elaborate offshore schemes."
MooseBreath Posted 18 February 2014 Author Posted 18 February 2014 The European Union estimate the combined total of tax avoidance and evasion is £95 billion a year. Even HM Revenue and customs accept it's over £32 billion a year. Put simply...."Benefit underpayments save us more money than benefit fraud costs us. By the most conservative estimates, tax avoidance and tax evasion outweighs benefit fraud eightfold. But the constant target of argument – "scroungers", "benefit cheats", and more, isn't the well-heeled middle classes who knock a little off their tax return, or the high-rollers with elaborate offshore schemes." I accept that tax evasion is an issue that should be and is being tackled. But you didn't answer my question re fraud.
Rincewind Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 I don't know how any middle to low earners can defend those that avoid paying taxes by moving their money offshore when they are paying the cost of hit. At least the few that scrounge at the bottom are paying taxes on booze and fags.
Tommy G Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 Couldn't stand that jumped up little socialist shit, who was on C4. Think he writes for the independent. Has some seriously flawed economic plans. think his name is Owen Jones Such as we should have a reactionery economic strategy where we build wind farms or flood defences as the weather is getting worse, and that will tackle the ''jobs crisis and unemployment'' what about disabled people and females? cant see either of them building flood defences can you, and would it be of any use anyhow?! Bloke is in cuckoo land. He says we don't pay enough given we are the 7th biggest economy. he clearly ignores evidence on how raising the minimum wage can put some businesses...out of business! Little cretin
Alf Bentley Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 Nice pie chart, looks very official. How do you estimate fraud, and can you rely on the government figures? You believe government figures when they agree with your thinking. Exactly. All such stats are estimates, but generally estimates produced by trained professional statisticians who apply specialist techniques, not just figures picked out of the air: e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271654/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system-2012-13_estimates-160114.pdf (pp.9-13 describe their methodology for calculating benefit fraud) The same applies to stats showing that "crime is down", "business is booming", "illegal immigration is rocketing" etc. Maybe I'm naive, but I assume that official stats are approximately accurate until such time as someone who seems to know what they're talking about comes along and suggests a good reason why they might be seriously inaccurate....and if they are way off beam, some such person usually will come along.
MooseBreath Posted 18 February 2014 Author Posted 18 February 2014 My point was that any estimate of fraud is necessarily exactly that, just an estimate. It is totally different to other figures like employment, inflation, growth etc as those calculations all have established and respected methodologies. Benefit fraud meanwhile can only be just a guess, and no government is going to give a high figure as it would just betray their own incompetence at tackling the issue.
Merging Cultures Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 Taking a break and watching the first episode. It's about what I expected. Danny is pissing me off. Haha! Fungi selling the 'Big Issue'!
Alf Bentley Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 Missed most of the half-hour "last word" programme after a regular fell ill in my local and had to be carted off by ambulance (sent from Nottingham, apparently, and took ages - not very reassuring). I'm told that Mark (of the couple) now has a job and that Fungi claimed to have suffered child sex abuse, which might help explain why he's such a mess. Debate: - Richard Bacon (Chair) had a difficult job, given the controversy, but didn't seem to know whether he wanted to be a rabble-rousing Jeremy Kyle or a disciplinarian David Dimbleby. Not disastrous, but very uneven. - The MPs: Not impressed with either of them. Chris Bryant (Lab) seemed out of touch with real life and just wanting to make party political points, while Mike Penning (Tory minister) had obviously been chosen as one of the few Tories without a silver spoon in his mouth, going on at length about his own tough life...though he seemed to understand the series more than Bryant. - Allison Pearson: What happened there? In response to her right-wing line, a Chamberlainesque Owen Jones waves a bit of paper about, claiming that she'd had to publish a public apology for lying; Pearson mumbles something like "at least I didn't steal £13,000" (reference to the allegation against White Dee, I assume)...then had disappeared after the ad break! - The Asian guy from Huffington Post presented the left-wing slant better than Jones; he had lots of snappy points and stats, whereas Jones needs to accept that some people DO take the piss out of the system...it would make his other points stronger. - John Bird: Would like to have heard more from him and his "a hand-up, not a hand-out" stance; he knows what he's talking about more than most of them, but wasn't given enough time. - White Dee: She came across as quite intelligent and articulate, well capable of a responsible job, never mind just "a job". Maybe her depression really does stop her working (we can't know that) or maybe she opted to be a single Mum at home while her kids were young or maybe she's got entrenched in an idle, hopeless, non-working life and needs encouragement and/or compulsion to get out of it. But does the Job Centre even do that? That's the biggest issue of all, I think. The comments made by the participants during the debate and the programmes backed up what I've been told by people who should know: the Job Centre just operates like a benefits/harassment sausage machine, doling out benefits and harassing easy targets, while neither going after serious fraudsters adequately nor offering proper support and guidance to those who want to work. Bird made the point that many long-term unemployed need a lot of support due to all sorts of problems/inadequacies (think Fungi, the abused alcoholic former armed robber!). For now, it seems, the solution is to dole out benefits to anyone jumping through the hoops while looking for easy targets to trip up and sanction....longer-term solution required! Might cost more in the short-term....but less in the long-term. Re. the ethics of C4 filming for 18 months, telling participants they were doing a series on "community spirit", then producing Benefits Street, starting with the controversial 1st episode... I'd back C4 to the hilt. The series WAS partly about community spirit, as well as life on benefits - and if they'd told people they were doing a series about life on benefits, many would have refused to take part. Professional photographers face the same dilemma: is it ethical to take someone's photo without first asking permission? Maybe not, but if they ask permission, they don't get the "real life" shots, just a load of posed photos. I'm also sure that C4 deliberately put out a controversial first episode to create a media storm and get high viewing figures for what was a reasonably balanced, very worthwhile series.... The producer was right to say he was proud of it.
Merging Cultures Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 OK, just seen 50p guy. He is brilliant. I am interested in his model. I've worked with microfranchising in developing countries. Which creates a supply chain and brand that provides appropriately priced products to the poor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microfranchising
Captain... Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 Couldn't stand that jumped up little socialist shit, who was on C4. Think he writes for the independent. Has some seriously flawed economic plans. think his name is Owen Jones Such as we should have a reactionery economic strategy where we build wind farms or flood defences as the weather is getting worse, and that will tackle the ''jobs crisis and unemployment'' what about disabled people and females? cant see either of them building flood defences can you, and would it be of any use anyhow?! Bloke is in cuckoo land. He says we don't pay enough given we are the 7th biggest economy. he clearly ignores evidence on how raising the minimum wage can put some businesses...out of business! Little cretin Women can't be involved in building wind farms? Firstly the process of building and developing renewable energies doesn't just mean getting some big blokes with their jeans hanging too low carrying bricks up some scaffolding. It is a whole industry with many types of jobs, research, purchasing, finance, planning etc, that people with all kinds of abilities will be able to do, there will even be jobs for women, they will need someone to make the tea... Secondly, investing in renewable energies will create jobs and will help address one of the big problems we have, which is the spiralling energy costs, not to mention the environment factor and reliance on finite enrgy sources. If we can become a world leader in renewable energies then we will have something to export, and strengthen our economy. You may not like the little shit, but if unemployment is a problem, then the government can try and stimulate employment by investing in industries in this country, or just pay benefits for people to sit on their arse. (They could also stop handing big contracts to foreign companies, because they will do it cheaper on the bottom line completetly missing the big picture, but that is another point).
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.