To think This Morning was wrong to shame this woman?

[MrsMattBomer]

www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/phillip-schofield-blasts-benefit-scounger--9561308

Sorry, but what business does he have to decide what someone spends their benefits on? So what if she bought a bottle of Prosecco?

He says he doesn't care about the Prosecco but it's so obvious that he does. This is a man worth £2million sitting in his ivory tower and shaming a woman for buying a £4.99 bottle of Prosecco.

Is this what this country has become? A country where we deny people any pleasure or fun because they are on benefits?

But its pouring into a very very classist/elitist mix that already exists on daytime television and they do have a responsibility...where are the conversations about how the CSA had to abandon ship as it was so ineffective

I don't think the media has a duty of care to someone who makes it their lifes work to get into the public domain, ie Katie Hopkins, this Deborah woman etc.

I do think they have a duty of care to people who categorically wanted nothing to do with the media but were hounded anyway because of a runaway comment they made i.e Brenda Leyland.

No one is forced into the spotlight.

No one is forced into the spotlight

What about her children? Is there a duty of care there?

No. That's why children of celebs faces are often pixilated I the parents dont wish them to be recognised.

PS asked her about how her children felt about all of this given the bullying one had had to endure. Her reply was that ALL her children knew all about it, understood, and were more than happy for her to do this.

I very much doubt her 3yo understands the implications of putting yourself out there.

This Morning may be many things, but 'elite' isn't one of them - certainly no more than the Sun.

I do think he's a bit of a hypocrite though if this has any truth to it.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/a1389813-Philip-off-This-Morning

Being on benefits doesn't mean you should have to live a sub-human existence. Food, shelter and warmth...you may as well be an animal sleeping in a nest.

Human beings are complex - we require entertainment, a social life, enjoyment. You don't suddenly stop being a person when you go on benefits.

Or are you saying that because she has chosen to live through social media she has placed her children at risk and therefore there is a duty of care to remove them from this risk

I think that appearing on programmes like This Morning will have an impact on her DC that they will not be able to understand - and that the producers know this but don't really care as it gives good ratings.

Just as other media outlets are more than happy to exploit people who appear in their papers - yet you never hear about the impact their parent's media appearances have on their children (yes, Hopkins, you)

I watched it. She was there to talk about her books. I was very much on Phil's side on that one. She was being completely irresponsible, had spent thousands on credit cards, put her family into debt over Christmas presents. She had no plans to pay it back, it was clearly a publicity stunt as she kept describing herself as a "writer"

I cannot abide people like her. I think I might come out in a rash if I had to watch her onscreen. Luckily I can avoid that.

the primary duty of care to the children is hers

I agree Francis. She appears to come across as one of those people who wants to be famous for being famous and doesn't give a toss who she upsets along the way. Why would you be talking about this days after you've had strips torn into you for saying cheers taxpayers. (excuse the daily fail link).

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4094614/Benefits-mother-four-splashes-1-000-makeover.html

It would have been more sensible to lay low and let things die down for a while but then publicity wouldn't get your upcoming books sold doesn't have to be good to work I suppose.