To wonder why all the people on Jeremy Kyle are so strange.

[rainydaysarebad]

I'm no super model myself, but why do these people have bad teeth, bad skin, bad hair, loopy eyes like they're not with it? Many a time I have heard some of them refer to their partners bad hygiene too. They talk roughly and the women wear clothes that are too tight for them.

Ive been at home alot recently and am catching episodes of it all day. I am thoroughly shocked to say the least. Are these people really a true portrait of Britain's working class? I know it's stupid TV, but I am genuinely intrigued by these people and often sit mouth wide open at the stupid things they come out with and their stories in general.

I am not saying it is the individual child's fault MM I am saying it is the individual parent's fault.

What a terrifically depressing thread.

Programmes like this are very exploitative. I don't know why they're allowed to get away with it. Ruby mentioned the Jon Ronson book - they look for people who are a little bit mentally ill but not too mentally ill. That just about sums it up.

To answer the OP's question, these are not working-class people. They are an underclass - an underclass that seems to have grown since the 1980s - people who have never worked, never been able to sustain a relationship, have children by multiple partners, take drugs, have mental health issues etc.

But really, OP, don't watch it. Turn on the radio instead or bake a cake.

Nesw my oh grew up where you did . Very harsh .

I did have access to school, on the days I didn't need to look after three younger siblings one just a baby. But I didn't have any food or uniform and if any letters came home about it my mum would be up there threatening the teachers so I was just left alone .

I did make it to university and was one of the few children from the care system to go, because my foster parents made me as I would have had nowhere else to go as I was no longer their responsibility and they would not get any more money for me.

Once I got there I had a suicidal breakdown due to all to all the abuse.

And that's just little old me. These people do not seem to know any better so please don't judge . You have no idea.

I haven't set out to cause offense with this thread, I just wanted to know why these people act like they do on the show. It makes sense now how they must be exploited; provided with incentives to come on the show and lash out.

I do agree there are some people with mh issues, but not all of them.

I also apologise for using the term working class.

I am very sorry to hear that Ellovera.

Ok so it's the parent's fault. How may generations do you want to go back? The people on there now, did their parents get a proper education? Did they live in nice homes with loving parents? Did they know the true dangers of drug and alcohol abuse? Did they have any violence at home, either parental or partners? Do they have MH problems? Without knowing these and a hundred other factors, how can you blame and judge them? Or their parents before them? It is a societal problem.

You said "Plenty of them are not vulnerable with MH issues though. Some of them are just shouty wankers." Does this not mean that the "shouty wankers" are not vulnerable? What does it mean then?

The fact is, whatever their backgrounds or the reasons for their behaviour, it's not very nice to belittle other people, is it?

They've probably never seen the ocean.

I think a PP mentioned that we seem to judge when these kids hit 16 or adulthood and stop being kids that are pitied for being products of "broken homes". What people fail to grasp is that the parents of these kids grew up in equally broken homes - its a cycle that sadly so often repeats itself through generation after generation.

I have also found that often those that come across aggressive or whatever language you have used in your posts are not so much when you sit down and talk to them. A lady in refuge was scary - really violent, really aggressive. She sobbed on my shoulder about how her skull had been fractured, 3 ribs broken etc at the hand of her husband. She told me "no-one is ever going to hurt me again". She wasn't a nasty person, she was scarred by her experiences. As Ive said above, nothing is ever black and white.

rainyday - some people will do anything for money.

That's really what it boils down to i think.

I disagree actually MM. I think sometimes too much acceptance of appalling behaviour and not enough shaming just perpetuates it. More shame, I say.

(ok, I am being a bit facetious now, I admit, but I am only half joking.)

Still waiting for evidence that children from low income families have been unable to access university because they can't pay. Anyone?

x-posts messy who has expressed what I was trying to get across in my train of rant!!

My husband and his sister were brought up on a very rough council estate which my MIL still lives on and my husband got an apprenticeship when he left school, has two degrees and a professional career and his sister has ran her own business. It's about FAR more than economics surely???

I think it's fair to say that those from low income families may not access higher education in the traditional sense (ie. school, a levels, university) but I don't think it's fair to say they don't access further/higher education as most people I know from working class households have done eventually, they just had further to climb up the greasy pole.

I do understand my experience is not a comprehensive study

That's what I was trying to illustrate hilly. Education is not a priority , survival is.

Most of my peers didn't go to university full stop. One girl dropped out because she was having to work 3 part time jobs on top of studying to make up the cost. Parents were assessed based on income and the loans she got reflected that. What wasn't taken into account was her parents drinking which cancelled out most of the income meaning they had none to give her, and tbh were glad to see the back of her.

Hilly your attitude of "shaming" just proves to me that you are failing to grasp the quality of life being descibed to you. Shaming people whose quality of life is already low, who can't cope with parenthood is counter-productive. Its actually no better than jeering at them on live TV.

NaughtyElephants I completely agree with your post of 9.54.

Just as an aside, according to "99 things I hate about 1999" last night, Jeremy Kyle is married to the woman who married a total stranger via a radio station publicity stunt. He worked for said radio station at the time. The presenter commented that "my wife married a stranger for money" might be a good name for a JK episode!

yy it was in Brum

Jeremy Kyle is the single worst thing about the Jeremy Kyle show. He is thick but about 50% more intelligent than half of the poor dimbos that appear on "his stage", therefore he finds it easy to trip them up, run rings around them and make them look small. He's a cuntbag. He really needs a slap up the head by me.

Naughty I realise students are expected to make up any shortfall between loans/grants by working. So are all students, unless their parents are wealthy/willing enough to supplement them. But the MC (or not necessarily MC but just the students who on paper have more affluent parents, or two parents living together even if they only have one fairly unspectacular income) start from a base of not having a grant that covers all/most of the fees, unlike students from proven low income backgrounds and most one parent families. The mother could earn nothing, or very little, but Dad could live around the corner, see his child daily, and earn £200k. Doesn't matter. If the student lives with the mother at the point of application then her income is the one assessed, and that student gets a grant. Another student from married parents who are just above the threshold for help gets nothing. Bonkers? Yes.

Maybe some parents just refuse to supplement them even if they can afford it, but that would not wash with the people who assess for grants, and that student would have to pay back an extra £3k per year, minimum compared to a low income student. So as I said, they start off (voluntary parental contributions notwithstanding), better off on day 1 than a MC student as far as incurred student debt goes. That is just a plain hard fact. You can look at it in every light and from every angle but it's still a fact.

I agree Buppy.

I remember that stunt! It was really something shocking at the time. It wouldn't pass muster nowadays. Which is worrying, really.

To clarify the sexual abuse/teeth link - there is some evidence that serious neglect of dental care is higher in young women who have been sexually abused, due to the paralysing and triggering fear of being vulnerable while a man puts objects in their mouths, I assume.
I am talking about serious neglect (20 year old with full dentures I know for example) not just a bit slack at brushing, and there are other factors at play with that level of neglect, poverty, diet and neglect as a child being some of them.

Not. About. Money .

That's interesting Erik, thanks. I get the correlation with neglect, poverty etc, and (presumably) a higher incidence of sexual and other types of abuse but it would be interesting to know whether there is a causal link that makes abused young women avoid dental healthcare.