iamnumerate Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 [ So you group them together in your head because you can classify them both as "benefit fraud". I dunno that seems a bit contrived to me as they are both quite separate issues. And it is definitely possible to simultaneously be unhappy with both so I don't agree with the "distraction" part. If we agree that problems in the benefit system have given rise to behaviour issues then it makes sense to tackle it regardless of other types of benefit fraud anyway. Ditto I am unhappy with both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybernoid Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Yep, would like to echo the views of the more recent less rabid posters. The idea that this is propaganda is bizarre, it was a documentary about a particular street chosen because it has an interesting population. It never pretended to represent everyone on benefits, at no time said that this is typical, these characters made it to the screen because they are characters, entertaining, etc. It wouldn't make for very compelling viewing otherwise would it? They are real however and therefore are representative of a proportion of benefit claimants. Thats just a simple statement of undeniable fact that some on here seem to have a problem with digesting. I think this is because it conflicts with their political views, that policies that give too much can result in those that take the pi$$. No-one reasonable is against compassion but a line needs to be drawn at where that ends, if only for practical reasons of a finite supply of housing etc. I have some sympathy with the rabid loonies perspective that it would be nice if we all got what we want but ultimately someone has to pay for it and if you take that pay away from those that earned it and give it to their neighbour who is taking the pi$$ then you remove the incentive to work at all and we all suffer etc etc etc. This is all very obvious stuff but I think it bears repeating in the face of such entrenched and illogical views of some of the less able posters on here. It was about what it was about. It is lunacy to seize on it and pretend it was about something else and then get angry about it, and yet that it was we have seen. I too am baffled at the idea that if there is another set of programs about bankers or some other symbol of capitalism then that would make the content of this program less objectionable, or less likely to be propaganda. It is utterly illogical, so much so that I just had to check that was indeed what was claimed. This is an individual program (or series?), it is about what it is about. There is no conspiracy to only show programs of a particular sort, its worrying paranoia to actually believe this and beliefs of this sort are within the realms of mental health problems in my view. Someone even said a particular framing in the show was 'engineered' to show an iphone and a tv, as though to incite the viewer in a particular way!? Thats away with the fairies stuff guys, seriously. If you are suffering from those kinds of paranoid thoughts I think you should have a serious think about how that conclusion was arrived at and whether you are actually ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Jib Fingers Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 The idea that this is propaganda is bizarre Yes excellent post. It's weird how people will happily admit that this sort of people exist, but any media actually showing what they agree is actually happening must have some sort of agenda to distract from something completely different. You have to wonder how they could have a documentary on this sort of person without it being classified as propaganda. Perhaps a five minute short film at the start explaining why bankers are worse that anything about to be shown or why the problem is entirely the result of Thatcher or something. They'd probably rather it just wasn't shown at all in all truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awaytogo Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 C4 is owned by the government - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Four_Television_Corporation Is it http://www.channel4.com/info/corporate/about Channel 4 is a statutory corporation, independent of Government, and governed by a unitary board made up of executive and non-executive directors, who are responsible for ensuring that Channel 4 fulfils its remit and delivers its financial responsibilities. Non-executive directors are appointed by OFCOM in agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. This system ensures our not-for-profit status; that we are held accountable and that all profit generated by our commercial activity is directly reinvested back into the delivery of our public service remit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) I too am baffled at the idea that if there is another set of programs about bankers or some other symbol of capitalism then that would make the content of this program less objectionable, or less likely to be propaganda. It is utterly illogical, so much so that I just had to check that was indeed what was claimed Would this show ever been made if those involved were black or muslim or from some other minority group in society? I suspect not- so some form of filtering is taking place here. Do white benefit claimants constitute a minority group? Not in the obvious racial or cultural sense that we understand term- but they are an identifiable social category. So perhaps the interesting question here is why it is deemed acceptable to create this kind of extreme portrayal of this particular group but not acceptable to make similar extreme portrayals of other sub groups. Compare and contrast the extremely careful way the media handled the revelation that a group of Asian men had exploited young white girls for sexual purposes- so are we to conclude that corrupting little girls for sexual purposes is a less offensive activity than scrounging off the dole? No- that's clearly not the case. So if you are white and poor and claim benefits you are fair game to be stereotyped as scum by british television- a form of stereotyping that would be seen as utterly unacceptable if applied to any other group in society. Edited January 7, 2014 by wonderpup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybernoid Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Again, an utterly incomprehensible illogical and irrational post. Bizarre in the extreme. Would this show ever been made if those involved were black or muslim or from some other minority group in society? I suspect not- so some form of filtering is taking place here. Some of those on the program were black. Do white benefit claimants constitute a minority group? Not in the obvious racial or cultural sense that we understand term- but they are an identifiable social category. They were colourful characters living on a street where most are on benefits. That is a minority group of people living on that street I guess. I suppose you could categorise them if you wanted. So what? So perhaps the interesting question here is why it is deemed acceptable to create this kind of extreme portrayal of this particular group but not acceptable to make similar extreme portrayals of other sub groups. They didn't create an 'extreme portrayal', they filmed a group of people. What other sub groups? What on earth are you babbling on about? This is not an interesting question this is bull based on incorrect statements as I identified above. are we to conclude that corrupting little girls for sexual purposes is a less offensive activity than scrounging off the dole? No- that's clearly not the case. Righty-o then. And that has what to do with what? Is there something wrong with you? So if you are white and poor and claim benefits you are fair game to be stereotyped as scum by british television- a form of stereotyping that would be seen as utterly unacceptable if applied to any other group in society. They were people that lived on a street and they were simply being filmed. No stereotyping, no claim was made that these represented any larger group, white people, or people on benefits, or people that are fine with being on tv, or people that wear socks outside. Bizarre drivel. Get a grip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I'm particularly looking forward to next week to see what happens to the tea-leaf who nicked the local rastas' weed stash. Hopefully something akin to the finale of a typical Dexter episode! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10556970/Police-examine-Benefits-Street-documentary-after-alleged-criminal-acts-are-broadcast.html Police examine Benefits Street documentary after alleged criminal acts are broadcast Quelle Surprise. Some great tips with the tin foil though!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy soy Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Fatcher! You're not wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ah-so Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 It is shocking the way it concentrated on a handful of claimants who do not represent typical benefit recipients. Much like certain bankers' wrongdoings are taken to represent the whole of the banking profession. Interestingly, my next door neighbour is just like the men on Benefits street. He may be a waste of space but he is pretty unusual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy soy Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Again, an utterly incomprehensible illogical and irrational post. Bizarre in the extreme. Some of those on the program were black. They were colourful characters living on a street where most are on benefits. That is a minority group of people living on that street I guess. I suppose you could categorise them if you wanted. So what? They didn't create an 'extreme portrayal', they filmed a group of people. What other sub groups? What on earth are you babbling on about? This is not an interesting question this is bull based on incorrect statements as I identified above. Righty-o then. And that has what to do with what? Is there something wrong with you? They were people that lived on a street and they were simply being filmed. No stereotyping, no claim was made that these represented any larger group, white people, or people on benefits, or people that are fine with being on tv, or people that wear socks outside. Bizarre drivel. Get a grip. The majority of the streets residents are on the rock and roll and yet the program focused on young, white and criminal welfare recipients, giving the impression that the rest of the street and other welfare recipients are seen in the same unflattering light. The aim of the show may have been just pure entertainment, but the producers and directors could not have been so naive as to think that by filming carefully selected, extreme members of this little section of society with the express aim of scrutinising benefits claimants that it would not provoke negative responses to all benefit claimants in the street and country as a whole by viewers. The show was called benefits street, but it was so unbalanced it showed only a criminal minority of the street to sensationalise the issue, an issue that is also being used by the right wing media and tories to use as a vector to attack all forms of benefits as a whole, as this issue is a massive vote winner for the tory voter base, older, southern voters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 It is shocking the way it concentrated on a handful of claimants who do not represent typical benefit recipients. Much like certain bankers' wrongdoings are taken to represent the whole of the banking profession. Interestingly, my next door neighbour is just like the men on Benefits street. He may be a waste of space but he is pretty unusual. I can assure you these people are entirely typical of a stratum of residents in Winson Green/Lozells! In fact, I could name half a dozen places in/around Birmingham exactly the same. In many ways it's far from the worst, the City's famous Jewellery Quarter is a mere five minutes' walk away over Soho Hill. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulfar Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) I can assure you these people are entirely typical of a stratum of residents in Winson Green/Lozells! In fact, I could name half a dozen places in/around Birmingham exactly the same. In many ways it's far from the worst, the City's famous Jewellery Quarter is a mere five minutes' walk away over Soho Hill. . While there are people like this all over, they do not represent the majority of benefits claimants. Therein lies the problem, benefits claimants as a whole are being demonised in a completely cynical way by the media and government. Even if all the unemployed found a job tomorrow it wouldn't solve the deficit. Look at the measure of disallowing under 25s from claiming benefits, this is going to save 1/4 of a percent of the cuts Osborne is talking about, where are the rest to come from ? What is also telling is at this time we have villages cut off from the outside world by floods, which the authorities are doing nothing to help and you can see in the faces of some of the villagers in interviews that they are questioning what the authorities are for ? Edited January 7, 2014 by Ulfar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I can assure you these people are entirely typical of a stratum of residents in Winson Green/Lozells! In fact, I could name half a dozen places in/around Birmingham exactly the same. In many ways it's far from the worst, the City's famous Jewellery Quarter is a mere five minutes' walk away over Soho Hill. . They are not exceptions. Manchester has its own share. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybernoid Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 The majority of the streets residents are on the rock and roll and yet the program focused on young, white and criminal welfare recipients, giving the impression that the rest of the street and other welfare recipients are seen in the same unflattering light. If this is a part of a series it is too early to say what types of people the remainder of the series will cover. However this extrapolation from these individuals to the rest of the street or indeed to the rest of people on benefits is a leap purely of your own. I will repeat, once again, that the show never claimed they were representative of any grouping. It is also a leap of your own to assume that is what everyone else thought who watched it. I didn't make that assumption. The show was called benefits street, but it was so unbalanced it showed only a criminal minority of the street to sensationalise the issue, an issue that is also being used by the right wing media and tories to use as a vector to attack all forms of benefits as a whole, as this issue is a massive vote winner for the tory voter base, older, southern voters. They called the street benefits street because 95% of the people living there are on benefits. Then they filmed some of them. It was about what it was about. It cannot be unbalanced unless you assume you know what its make up ought to be. Is an orange wrong because it doesn't have any carrot in it? You are arbitrarily deciding what the show should be about and then complaining it isn't about that. Well it wasn't supposed to be. No claim was made at any stage that this was in any way an examination of people on benefits, just that they were filming SOME of the people on this street where there are a lot of people on benefits. All these other jumps are your own, the conspiracy theories etc make the left on this forum just sound barking mad. Which frankly, they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 If this is a part of a series it is too early to say what types of people the remainder of the series will cover. However this extrapolation from these individuals to the rest of the street or indeed to the rest of people on benefits is a leap purely of your own. I will repeat, once again, that the show never claimed they were representative of any grouping. It is also a leap of your own to assume that is what everyone else thought who watched it. I didn't make that assumption. They called the street benefits street because 95% of the people living there are on benefits. Then they filmed some of them. It was about what it was about. It cannot be unbalanced unless you assume you know what its make up ought to be. Is an orange wrong because it doesn't have any carrot in it? You are arbitrarily deciding what the show should be about and then complaining it isn't about that. Well it wasn't supposed to be. No claim was made at any stage that this was in any way an examination of people on benefits, just that they were filming SOME of the people on this street where there are a lot of people on benefits. All these other jumps are your own, the conspiracy theories etc make the left on this forum just sound barking mad. Which frankly, they are. Ah right so this show won't generate a general negative view of all benefit claimants then among the general population? I'm sure too that all the press articles and other shows about the minority of benefit claimants that act in this way, didn't in any way influence public opinion about all others claiming..... oh and I have a lovely bridge I want to sell you, just off the coast of San Francisco if your interested...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy soy Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 If this is a part of a series it is too early to say what types of people the remainder of the series will cover. However this extrapolation from these individuals to the rest of the street or indeed to the rest of people on benefits is a leap purely of your own. I will repeat, once again, that the show never claimed they were representative of any grouping. It is also a leap of your own to assume that is what everyone else thought who watched it. I didn't make that assumption. They called the street benefits street because 95% of the people living there are on benefits. Then they filmed some of them. It was about what it was about. It cannot be unbalanced unless you assume you know what its make up ought to be. Is an orange wrong because it doesn't have any carrot in it? You are arbitrarily deciding what the show should be about and then complaining it isn't about that. Well it wasn't supposed to be. No claim was made at any stage that this was in any way an examination of people on benefits, just that they were filming SOME of the people on this street where there are a lot of people on benefits. All these other jumps are your own, the conspiracy theories etc make the left on this forum just sound barking mad. Which frankly, they are. You do not think the show was designed in a way to paint all inhabitants of "benefit street" in a negative light. The death threats and public backlash against the stars of the show suggests that he wider public do not share your view. Whilst there may be no link to the right wing in any way with regards to the producers of the show, they way in which they have aligned the programmes content to match the current right wing media camaign in demonising working age welfare claimants is no fantasy, just a cynical ploy to chase ratings. I will repeat, once again, that the show never claimed they were representative of any grouping. funny I thought they were supposed to represent a street of benefits claimants. They called the street benefits street because 95% of the people living there are on benefits Glad you agree, so why did they focus on only the small criminal element of the street for the entire show, which prompted death threats to the people filmed? surely you cant believe the great british public can watch such a manipulative show and not react? me? guilty as charged, but the evidence seems to agree with me. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/benefits-street-residents-subjected-to-death-threats-after-channel-4-show-airs-9043932.html It cannot be unbalanced unless you assume you know what its make up ought to be And I do know, as you stated yourself the show is about a street where 95% of the residents are on benefits, so we know the majority are on benefits, but until I see the other 90% of benefits claimants and get to see their circumstances then the show is unbalanced.Which seems to be the aim, as interviewing 30 odd grannies on the pension does not sensationalise the content and get people reacting to the show.I doubt we will see balance, just varying degrees of exploitative film making. Maybe I am wrong and its the tip of the iceberg and everbody on the street is engaging in criminal activity, but the odds seem slim. As of episode one it was a manipulative show which aimed to vilify benefits claimants, mission achieved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Bear Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Vested interest in picking litter up? There aren't any wheely bins on show so it might be they haven't got any. Perhaps wheely bins tend to mean less rubbish strewn about the streets - they aren't ripped into by dogs etc. We pick bits of litter up from outside our house. I pick up litter at the local bus stop. I get some very funny looks - who is this mad old bag tutting about beer cans and fag packets they can't be arsed to put in the bin a few feet away... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I pick up litter at the local bus stop. I get some very funny looks - who is this mad old bag tutting about beer cans and fag packets they can't be arsed to put in the bin a few feet away... councils job innit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybernoid Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 funny I thought they were supposed to represent a street of benefits claimants. So you keep saying, and again no they weren't. The rest of your post just repeats what has been said before which I have already responded to. Read my other responses, I'm not going to type it all again. As to the claim that a minority of viewers apparently responded badly, again so what. Did they really, how do you know, and if they did what proportion of total viewers do they represent? Did they mean it? Was the proportion that responded badly an unusual proportion to those that respond badly to programs of a different nature? etc. I watched the program, and all that has been inferred on this thread by the loonies is make believe nonsense verging on mental illness. The people were real, they were filmed, it made interesting tv. That was it. No agenda. No conspiracy. These people and people like them exist, as others have pointed out. Now I understand that those with the leftie bias don't like to be confronted with the negative consequences of the policies they have convinced themselves are 'the answer' and so we see a denial of that truth whenever it is presented. I would urge them however to consider accepting the possibility that they don't in fact have 'the answer' and that the best solution will be the least worse of all available options, and perhaps they haven't got 'the answer' after all. Consider that there isn't a perfect answer. Until that mental step is taken we will continue to see the same nuts with an agenda they already had seeing opportunities to validate their own prejudices, jumping on 'opportunities' to do so and simply not making sense. They attempt to bend reality to fit their preconceived notions of what the world is about. I don't know why, I'm not a psychologist. Perhaps those that see conspiracy everywhere they look ought to consider the possibility that they are wrong, and open their mind to other more realistic ideas and options. Unfortunately I just think they're too dim to get there. Unfortunately for them. I couldn't give a dingos kidneys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wherebee Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I've kept out of this thread so far....but I would say that the media, especially TV media, does make the middle classes believe that the government debt and high taxes are linked to fecklnesses amongst the poor and unemployed. My sister phones me up after watching stuff like this (in fact tried to call me after 'benefit street' but I was busy). She shuts up when I point out over half the 'benefits' bill goes to OAPs, including millionare OAPs, and that poeple like Ian Ducan Smith have family members getting over a million pounds a year in 'benefit'. BVut she never remembers that. Why? BECAUSE IT IS NEVER COVERED IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA THAT THE AVERAGE JOE WATCHES. Yes, welfare policies are insane and do not help people in ways they should be helped. However, I see a real inbalance in reporting on where the money is being shovelled out in the UK.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Blizzard) Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I don't think so. I'd happily see the money taps to the banks turned off and any criminal activities prosecuted. I just don't believe that bankers actions excuse the behaviour of other people. It's not about a 'behaviour' that needs to be 'excused' - God help us this isn't mumsnet. The underclass is a social phenomena that needs explaining. The point is that you cannot separate the existence of the underclass from the society - the economy - that created it. The dysfunctional rentier economy and the expanding underclass are the exact same problem. There's no point discussing one without discussing the other. We've seen this before, we saw it in Victorian era, which is probably where we are headed. As to the propaganda question, start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Om0DFbR0w Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byron78 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I've kept out of this thread so far....but I would say that the media, especially TV media, does make the middle classes believe that the government debt and high taxes are linked to fecklnesses amongst the poor and unemployed. My sister phones me up after watching stuff like this (in fact tried to call me after 'benefit street' but I was busy). She shuts up when I point out over half the 'benefits' bill goes to OAPs, including millionare OAPs, and that poeple like Ian Ducan Smith have family members getting over a million pounds a year in 'benefit'. BVut she never remembers that. Why? BECAUSE IT IS NEVER COVERED IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA THAT THE AVERAGE JOE WATCHES. Yes, welfare policies are insane and do not help people in ways they should be helped. However, I see a real inbalance in reporting on where the money is being shovelled out in the UK.... Agreed. Also why was there not a discussion about why there are so many out of work in the area? I'm guessing quite a lot of factories and things round that way went to the wall (or moved to China) in the 80s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Also people don't want to, or can't understand that by the law of averages 1% of the population are going to be feckless idiots and be in the bottom 1%. It boils my blood that everyone thinks everyone has the same opportunities that they have. :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Agreed. Also why was there not a discussion about why there are so many out of work in the area? I'm guessing quite a lot of factories and things round that way went to the wall (or moved to China) in the 80s? Correct. Car industry primarily. Leyland's Longbridge plant was the biggest in the world in the late 60s when it employed something like 250,000 men directly and provided work for perhaps another 750,000 in component manufacturing throughout the Midlands. A combination of Red Robbo and the Japanese did for the company ultimately, after it had been nationalised, but the writing had been on the wall for years. Leyland's shortcomings were those of every other postwar British manufacturing failure: an underinvestment in skills and technology, poor or non-existent quality control, cultural insularity and overmanning. Successive UK govts, including Thatcher's, threw money at the company but only ever managed to slow its decline never reverse it. Blair and Brown let MG Rover (as it had then become) fail with little fanfare in 2005 with the loss of the last 6,000 jobs. Edited January 8, 2014 by zugzwang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.