I read the Daily Mail today. Gobsmacked.

[best sheff]

I have read the Daily Mail for a good while, in short this paper is hell-bent on shaming anyone on benefits.

 

Not everyone on Benefits, wants to be there. This paper ought to be ashamed of itself, but no they'll be laughing at the dining table.

 

Rant out of my system.

 

---------- Post added 05-04-2013 at 23:55 ----------

 

Just noticed a thread already running on this very fact. I should look before I post. Mods merge this, sorry.

[Michael_W]

The problem with the Daily Mail, & several other papers for that matter, is that it invariably works to an agenda. It does so in order to appeal to it's particular readership which it characterizes as ' It's all the foreigners, immigrants,youth of today, benefit scroungers travelers fault' no matter what the question may have been, type of people. It does so in order to sell newspapers which is all it really cares about.

Now, if it was looking for an outside reason which may have had an impact on Philpots behavior & caused him to act in the way he did why didn't it look into the fact that he was an ex British Army soldier? Surely the impact of army basic training & the Regimental ethos encouraged & instilled by the army would have more effect on a persons character than living off benefits? There is also the fact that- according to a BBC program I heard last week-ex army personnel are three times more likely than other people to end up in prison. Now there's an interesting correlation which may have proven enlightening to investigate. But that wouldn't fit the Mails agenda would it? After all army personnel ex or otherwise are 'Our Boys' &' Heroes' to Mail readers.

 

The truth is of course it had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Philpot was ex army nor the fact that he took advantage of the benefit system. What caused Mick Philpot to act in the way he did was that he was Mick Philpot, a miserable excuse for a human being who's only thought was for his own self gratification.

 

That hasn't stopped the Mail, nor the Government, in trying to exploit the deaths of six innocent children for their own purposes.

 

Just about every media outlet has an agenda, including many posters on here, like the government, politicians of all flavours, and the media, they all demonise and exploit to score points and get their agenda across, nobody actually holds any high moral ground, it's all swings and roundabouts !

[best sheff]

Just about every media outlet has an agenda, including many posters on here, like the government, politicians of all flavours, and the media, they all demonise and exploit to score points and get their agenda across, nobody actually holds any high moral ground, it's all swings and roundabouts !

 

I don't like the Mail's PARK. I won't be using there Swings and Roundabouts again.

[mjw47]

Mister M. thanks. yes that occurred to me as well. The Government, through lax regulation & the financial services industry ,together with the Banks, have brought the entire western Democratic World to the edge of complete bankruptcy by complete unbridled greed & corruption.

The amount of debt accrued by these organizations totals far more than the assets required to cover it. Despite this, no one has been held accountable. Private debt has been bailed out by public money & bonus's have been payed to people responsible for complete disaster taking place on their watch.

 

Their culpability has amounted not to Billions, but to Trillions.

 

But hey! we're all in this together, & lets concentrate on those benefit scroungers who must be costing us a few million at least. OK, I accept that most people on benefit are probably genuine but there are definitely some 'working the system'. Lets get all worked up about them & ignore the collaboration between Bankers, Financial institutions & Governments that has the ordinary taxpayer covering the losses of greedy gamblers who would have kept all their winnings to themselves had they won, but have now arranged for us to pay for their mistakes.

 

Were I a cynic, I would suspect deflection & the 'three card trick' designed to distract our attention from the real villains of the situation.

Luckily I believe everything the 'media' tells me & agree we are all in this together & it will definitely be necessary to screw the poorer members of society in order to protect the lifestyles of those who got us where we are.

[I1L2T3]

The devil makes work for idle hands.

 

There's none so idle as a simpleton sitting on a multimillion pound trust fund and wondering what to do with their life. I think a lot of people like that end up as MPs.

 

---------- Post added 06-04-2013 at 10:46 ----------

 

Yes there is because I was replying to a post which made the statement "The devil makes work for idle hands". Sorry are you now a moderator to decide what's relevant?

 

---------- Post added 05-04-2013 at 21:29 ----------

 

 

Very good post mjw.

I did notice that in the wake of the regulator's report into HBOS, George Osborne or his mninions haven't taken to the airwaves to tarnish the name of bankers or culture of banking. Strange that.

 

It's not quick to round on the buy-to-let scroungers either who take tens of billions of pounds of government money in housing benefits to prop up their silly little 'businesses'.

 

For every Philpott claiming housing benefit there is a recipient of that housing benefit, somebody who is receiving the money. Very often it's a private landlord who has built a small business based on taking money from the state. Many of these buy to let people will be sitting there reading the Mail indignant at the Philpotts while at the same time state money is flowing into their own bank account.

 

Maybe the people writing the articles for the Mail even have their own buy to let businesses sucking money out of the state.

[mikem8634]

There's none so idle as a simpleton sitting on a multimillion pound trust fund and wondering what to do with their life. I think a lot of people like that end up as MPs.

 

---------- Post added 06-04-2013 at 10:46 ----------

 

 

It's not quick to round on the buy-to-let scroungers either who take tens of billions of pounds of government money in housing benefits to prop up their silly little 'businesses'.

 

For every Philpott claiming housing benefit there is a recipient of that housing benefit, somebody who is receiving the money. Very often it's a private landlord who has built a small business based on taking money from the state. Many of these buy to let people will be sitting there reading the Mail indignant at the Philpotts while at the same time state money is flowing into their own bank account.

 

Maybe the people writing the articles for the Mail even have their own buy to let businesses sucking money out of the state.

 

Hear, hear.

[MrSmith]

 

It's not quick to round on the buy-to-let scroungers either who take tens of billions of pounds of government money in housing benefits to prop up their silly little 'businesses'.

 

For every Philpott claiming housing benefit there is a recipient of that housing benefit, somebody who is receiving the money. Very often it's a private landlord who has built a small business based on taking money from the state. Many of these buy to let people will be sitting there reading the Mail indignant at the Philpotts while at the same time state money is flowing into their own bank account.

 

Maybe the people writing the articles for the Mail even have their own buy to let businesses sucking money out of the state.

 

Time to kill two birds with one stone.

[SevenRivers]

 

It's not quick to round on the buy-to-let scroungers either who take tens of billions of pounds of government money in housing benefits to prop up their silly little 'businesses'.

 

For every Philpott claiming housing benefit there is a recipient of that housing benefit, somebody who is receiving the money. Very often it's a private landlord who has built a small business based on taking money from the state. Many of these buy to let people will be sitting there reading the Mail indignant at the Philpotts while at the same time state money is flowing into their own bank account.

 

Maybe the people writing the articles for the Mail even have their own buy to let businesses sucking money out of the state.

 

Private landlords are also taking on big risks by renting out their properties:

 

Tenant from hell trashed home leaving landlord with £20,000 clean-up bill... but won't have to pay a penny

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2296341/Landlords-fury-police-trash-house-raiding-tenants-400k-drugs-operation.html

 

Who foots the bill when council properties are left in this state? It's the taxpayer isn't it? But private landlords have to foot the bill (or their insurer) even when their tenant is DSS. They also have the costs of maintaining the property. For public sector social housing, the taxpayer has the burden of maintaining the properties. Private rents de-risk public social housing provision.

[ronthenekred]

Private landlords are also taking on big risks by renting out their properties:

 

.

 

Not if they demand deposits as a condition of tenancy. If they don't then you would wonder why they take "big risks". Do the profits outweigh the risk?

 

Even good responsible tenants on leaving are conned out of their deposits.

[I1L2T3]

Private landlords are also taking on big risks by renting out their properties:

 

Tenant from hell trashed home leaving landlord with £20,000 clean-up bill... but won't have to pay a penny

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2296341/Landlords-fury-police-trash-house-raiding-tenants-400k-drugs-operation.html

 

Who foots the bill when council properties are left in this state? It's the taxpayer isn't it? But private landlords have to foot the bill (or their insurer) even when their tenant is DSS. They also have the costs of maintaining the property. For public sector social housing, the taxpayer has the burden of maintaining the properties. Private rents de-risk public social housing provision.

 

That's the biggest bull poo argument I've ever heard for the tax payer subsidising buy to let scroungers.