BBC's heartbreaking victim of "Tory cuts" exposed as a total scrounger

[longfingernails]

Benefits scrounger James Van-Cliff, who the BBC tried valiantly to make a sob story out of, has been exposed for what he really is - a layabout who quit his job because he was better off on the dole.

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3205439/Scrounger-cons-BBC-viewers.html

Well done the Sun! And shame, shame and shame on the BBC!

and he earned £93 a week! I wouldn't work for that either!

Oh and by the way - the Sun DID attempt an "investigation" into alleged BBC political bias during the election.

Their exhibit A was the fact that the Basil Brush Show had a school election which featured a cheat called Dave wearing a blue rosette.

The Basil Brush Show is the means by which the BBC are bringing down the Tory party? C'mon. You can't tell me if there was better evidence out there, the Sun would be reduced to trotting that out as the star turn of their "investigation".

Another protest was that footage of David Cameron fiddling with his hair during debates was "sneakily fed" to the media. Except that what the Sun failed to mention was that the organisation who took the footage and released it to the media was actually... Sky.

Here's the investigation in full - just so you don't think I'm cherry picking the most ridiculous examples. www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2898713/Sun-unearths-alarming-smears-against-Tories-by-state-owned-BBC.html

LFN, by 'The BBC is totally out of tune with the country at large' do you mean that it's, erm, totally out of tune with you? I can see no other reason for such a sweeping and unsupported statement...

As has been fairly well documented here and abroad, the reason the Sun and NoTW have broken such 'stories' has been down to their use of phone-tapping etc, which is illegal. As I'm sure you know, they are under quite a bit of scrutiny at the moment as it's been 'strongly alleged' that they were taping politicians and cabinet ministers without their knowledge - now that's what I'd call undemocratic.

Of course the BBC has its faults but I simply can't see the evidence for what you're saying - tho to be honest, I too would find Facebook more factually reliable than the Sun.

DF - my brother does - he's better off working for that than on benefits

TYV - that Basil Brush thing is funny

The £93 a week was obviously part-time - else it is well under minimum wage.

How about the fact that he refuses to get a new job, or go on training courses? I am sure there will be some creative excuses justifying that too .

madamimadam I was talking quite narrowly about the coverage of housing benefit cuts - though as it happens, I do think that the Beeb's coverage generally is out of touch.

"the sample size of more than 10000 employees lends a fair amount of credibility"

Except that (OK, OK, according to the Mail but hey, if we're going by Facebook as a serious indicator of BBC bias let's bring in the Mail as evidence) the sample size was more than 10000 employees of whom 1,340 staff were "liberal" or "very liberal" 120 were "conservative" or "very conservative" and 340 were "moderate". So well over 80% of the 10000 said nothing at all about their political leanings. As the sample size lends a fair amount of credibility then presumably that means that they have no political bias and that therefore the BBC has no political bias? No? Or at this juncture does the "Facebook study not really the best way to draw any serious conclusions" point start to carry more weight?

Also, of course, "liberal" includes Liberal Democrats, who are... oh yes... in the coalition government at the moment. In fact more FB "liberals" are/were LD voters than are/were Labour voters. And a handful of them are even Tory voters.

Well if you want to believe The Sun's version that he's said he refuses to get a job because he's better off on benefits.........

If that's really true then I feel a bit sorry for him, obviously not the brightest tool in the box otherwise he'd know that he was better off working.........

If he's on JSA and refusing to go on training courses they'll stop his benefits.

GuyFawkesIsMyLoveSlave I have never pretended that the Facebook data is perfect. It is anything but - but it is the best we have. The 80% just didn't declare their political affiliation - doesn't mean they don't have one. OK - if you like, let's say the effective sample size is 2000 or so - it is still instructive.

Incorporating the Lib Dems into "liberal" doesn't make much difference.

You can a flat in London for £93 per month????

I was thinking the same MissAnne.

Dooin - don't get too excited - I've just done a search on Rightmove and can't find anything for that price

What's so bad about being liberal?

And the BBC FB network will be open to anyone with a @bbc.co.uk email address, or anyone who has ever had a @bbc.co.uk email address, whether or not they have ever been or are currently a BBC employee. DH has had email addresses from four different companies in the last six months; he's not been employed by any of them.

And you can't just say the effective sample size is 2000 or so; it's a self-selecting sample of "people working in the media who are happy to make a public statement of their political leanings" which is pretty much meaningless, statistically. And this is "the best evidence for systematic BBC bias"?

I suspect Andrew Marr is right when he says that the BBC has a cultural liberal bias rather than a party political bias.

Cheapest studio flat in Bethnal Green is £170 pw and cheapest 1 bed flat is £190. Also he wouldn't get the full rate of HB as they'd only pay him the rate for a room in a shared house because he's under 25 (it will apply to anyone under 35 soon). So I'm assuming he'd have to cover some of his rent out of his benefits/wages.

I just find it incredibly sad that he's content living on benefits. It's not a life. It's an existance and that's a tragedy if he can't get himself out of the trap.

GuyFawkesIsMyLoveSlave Of course the only sensible measure is cultural bias - so few people are members of political parties these days anyway.

I am all too ready to admit that the Facebook experiment is flawed - but surely you must admit that it suggests that bias is likely? The BBC should of course investigate more scientifically, but has always refused to do so.

But how's he doing that if he's only getting £51 per week? He's gonna lose his flat anyway due to not being able to pay the extra rent, which the sun claims is £9 per week (I think?), which is still only £129 per month.

It's a very confusing, not very well written article imo.

And what they failed to point out is that if he was working for £93 per week, he'd still have had to claim benefits anyhow. Or are WTC not classed as benefits? And he would be having to leave his job when they raise the hours you have to work to claim WTC from 16 to whatever it is they are changing it to.

I doubt he is content living on benefits. More that he is poorly educated, inexperienced and has few other options available to him. Not to mention the fact that the Sun has probably paid him more money than he gets in a month to claim he will never work again.

Why should the BBC investigate more scientifically?

Now I'm REALLY confused.

LHA for Tower Hamlets (which includes Bethnal Green)

for 1 person shared - £100 a week

BUT he's living with his girlfriend if the Sun is to be believed - so they'd qualify for a 1 bed self contained.

Which is

£240pw

So where does £93 come from???

MissAnneElk I thought that left-wingers were all for quotas, to ensure representation in the workplace on the basis of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and other factors totally unrelated to merit? Isn't that the whole point of the Equalities Act?

The BBC seems to have a massive overrepresentation of demographics which tilt left, like urban Guardianistas. It should go out of its way to recruit amongst demographics which lean right. I suggest it hires only from the military, from business, and from rural areas until some balance is restored.

Ah the true Blues believing all the right wing nonsense about the BBC. Shurely not!

Longfingernails, the truth is that you think they should investigate to prove your theory that the BBC is full of nasty communists. I think it's true that the bias is slightly to the left. I think it's also true that their reporting is less biased than a 'newspaper' like the Sun. Very importantly the BBC do not pay for stories.

DooinMeCleanin - when I said 'content' I meant what you said but didn't word it as well as you. It's sad that he doesn't think he's capable of anything else for whatever reason.

I'm sure under 25's don't qualify for WTC? And does it say he's living with his GF? If so, surely they'd leap at the chance to point out they are 'raking in' over £100 per week between them? Or, dob them in for claiming fraudulently if he's claiming as a single person. I noticed the mention of chain smoking but no mention of a plasma screen TV! Tut tut.

even if the BBC is full of left wingers, not many of them have the ability to effect the actual programming. Most of those in the FB group will be doing bog-standard jobs where their political bias won't effect the output.