Have you noticed how some words denigrate those who are worse off? 'Poor' is often used to mean 'not as good' eg 'poor results', 'poor timekeeping', 'poor at their job' etc.
As if it's not bad enough having so little to spend that the choice is often between eat or heat.
As if it's not bad enough that the mostly right wing media is currently doing it's damnedest to convince everyone else that those on benefits are 'all lazy scroungers'.
As if it's not bad enough being continually insulted by well off hypocrites with comments like 'frittering away your benefits on fags & booze' whilst they of course do just the same with their money on expensive clothes, cars & houses.
As if it's not bad enough being taken advantage of by loan sharks - legal as well as illegal - who know you are so desperate for money to feed your family that you cannot see further than the supposed 'friendly' face at the door or on the website. They offer help and make it so easy 'you'd be a fool not to accept it'. But of course this apparent 'solution' is only short term which quickly spirals downwards into a horrible long term nightmare.
On the other hand the word 'rich' does the opposite such as 'has a richly rewarding life', 'enjoys rich food', 'his award is richly deserved'. Well lets turn this round and condemn some of the 'rich' ...
those who squirrel their money away offshore to avoid paying tax in the UK
those who award themselves ludicrous bonuses when the company itself has made a loss and making people redundant
those who are so greedy that even though they have money coming out of their ears still go on to commit fraud and sadly all too often don't get caught
those who get knighted and for what, well just being rich it seems to me!
PS What's the difference between a Loan Shark and a real shark? One is a nasty creature which will 'bite off your hand' if you are unfortunate enough to get too close, whilst the other is a much maligned animal that swims the ocean which will also bite your hand off but only if you are dumb enough to get too close!
Les
Thursday 21 August 2014
Saturday 3 May 2014
Always two ways of looking at it
There have been two TV programmes over the past few months which have highlighted the situation for many on low incomes and/or benefits, namely Benefits Street and Dave, Loan Ranger.
Sadly as is so often the case, the producers of the former have reduced it into the usual lowest common denominator reality TV fodder, ending up simply vilifying those on benefits. As if we haven’t got enough of the media already trying to con us all into believing the worst of anyone in receipt of welfare.
Not surprisingly those who agreed to appear on it feel pretty aggrieved at how they have been portrayed. But what makes me so angry is that this gives such an atrociously skewed view of those out of work. The truth is that the vast majority do NOT WANT to be on benefits, but DO WANT to be in work providing for their families.
In total contrast the latter has actually shown that trusting people can pay off. People in low paid work, as well as on benefits, often need a loan to tide them over. The eponymous Dave risked £25000 of his own money lending it to them at a reasonable rate of interest instead of them having to use loan sharks or payday lenders. In effect what Dave is doing is his one-man equivalent to a credit union – people helping people not taking advantage of them.
And guess what? They all paid him back!
Les
Sadly as is so often the case, the producers of the former have reduced it into the usual lowest common denominator reality TV fodder, ending up simply vilifying those on benefits. As if we haven’t got enough of the media already trying to con us all into believing the worst of anyone in receipt of welfare.
Not surprisingly those who agreed to appear on it feel pretty aggrieved at how they have been portrayed. But what makes me so angry is that this gives such an atrociously skewed view of those out of work. The truth is that the vast majority do NOT WANT to be on benefits, but DO WANT to be in work providing for their families.
In total contrast the latter has actually shown that trusting people can pay off. People in low paid work, as well as on benefits, often need a loan to tide them over. The eponymous Dave risked £25000 of his own money lending it to them at a reasonable rate of interest instead of them having to use loan sharks or payday lenders. In effect what Dave is doing is his one-man equivalent to a credit union – people helping people not taking advantage of them.
And guess what? They all paid him back!
Les
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)