I only saw part of it but could not understand why the young blonde mum (who had her blonde mum consoling her) was refusing to pay the small rent top up (most was paid by housing benefit) on what looked like a very attractive (and well maintained flat) because she seemed to be unhappy about some minor details and she was upset that she thought she deserved better. The flat looked like the sort of flat that £30000 a year single professionals in major cities would not be able to afford.
My guess is that many watch such programmes in order to feel superior and look down their noses at the people portrayed. Were the makers to show people doing their utmost to attain employment, it would not appeal to them. It would not fit in with their stereo-typical idea of people who receive benefits. You know, the work-shy father with 100 kids, the job-dodger with his flash car, 90" plasma screen tv and smart, smart phone, or the perma-tanned, bottle blonde single (teen) mother, who dresses her child in designer gear. There but for the grace of.............. whoever.
I think she was moaning about,,,,,,,,, insects infestation eating her furniture, in a bedroom under the carpet was nothing but fresh air, behind her boiler fresh air.
Yes- not very nice but even !0 Downing Street has mice and Buckingham Palace has rats. Many homes (council/privately rented, mortgaged) have damp and mould and gaps like this one. Not very nice i know but not at all uncommon. I just felt that on balance the accommodation was excellent and it;s unlikely any alternative would be better
Ken4155 - //My guess is that many watch such programmes in order to feel superior and look down their noses at the people portrayed. Were the makers to show people doing their utmost to attain employment, it would not appeal to them. It would not fit in with their stereo-typical idea of people who receive benefits. You know, the work-shy father with 100 kids, the job-dodger with his flash car, 90" plasma screen tv and smart, smart phone, or the perma-tanned, bottle blonde single (teen) mother, who dresses her child in designer gear. There but for the grace of.............. whoever. //
I entirely agree.
These programmes are little more than hate-bait designed to whip up the viewing populace into a lather of righteous indignation.
I think it's more enlightening simply to avoid them altogether - the programmes that is.
We do see some programmes that are sympathetic to the real struggles and there are some that go too far the other way. These C5 programmes do focus too much on the extreme cases to wind us up but I don't think that the issues they raise about a sense of entitlement or abuses of the system or the miserable life some parents force on their children should just be ignored. Maybe a single more balanced programme would be better.
Actually that's where your wrong Annea, the Queen does worry about the bills of 'Buck' house as you call it, she has been know to turn off lights and she keeps the heating only in rooms used. It is well known that the palace is very draughty.
Also of you look at pictures on the news etc, the rooms the Queen uses have 5 bar electric fires in it!
I'm not sure what the Queen has to do with this, was she featured? Anyway don't watch much but I'm not sure those who do feel superior.There are good and bad but it is a fact that those Ken described do in fact exist and perhaps these programmes whip up anger about the system that allows them to exist.
And yes many hard working people without any benefits struggle to keep warm and fed.
The mother in the nice flat claimed her child couldn't sleep in the bedroom because she got very badly bitten by an insect infestation which is also destroying her furniture. She commissioned an independent report to prove her point and refused to pay the rent until that and other problems were dealt with. She was working until she had her child and she was paying a top up rent of £300 per month, or should have been.
I think in reality there was problems with the flat but she couldn't afford the extra rent.