famous, rich and hungry for sport relief

[misstiredbuthappy]

Anybody watching ? I watched it last year realy hit a nerve with me.

So what would you all do? Simply give them all more money? Do you all really believe that all these families would be eating healthy hearty meals every night in that case?

That that does not mean that all people in poverty as smokers with Sky and dogs so therefore let's punish them with shite like food tokens.

Is that clear enough?

The vast majority of poverty is in work poverty, hence, 80% of all those in receipt of LHA are in work. But no shows about the discrimination they face in housing (no children, no DSS, can't rent to you without a guarantor, etc etc), about the real problem of fuel poverty.

It's just the same old broken record and utter nuggets fall for it every singe time.

I don't know how many people on this threads were brought up on benefits/in a low earning family (I was) or have lived on benefits (I have).

It's not meant to be easy, and there isn't meant to be money for luxuries.

I can't bring myself to feel sorry for the people in tonight's programme, they are for the most part the authors of their own misfortune. I do have sympathy for those who are genuinely struggling (I know several people who lost wages or benefits unexpectedly, and were left with nothing to live on for weeks, months even). Also the elderly, many of whom don't claim their full benefit/pension entitlement and live in extreme poverty.

For all the genuine cases there are plenty of feckless ones too. Unfortunately programmes such as this rarely feature the non-feckless poor.

No, we don't .Maybe we are just sick of being told that thousands are living in poverty only to find thatit's relative and that poverty means not having a bloody annual holiday. Maybe some of us have lived or worked in true, hideous poverty and find the notion of people in the UK smoking and buying televisions whilst not feeding their children fucking obscene.

I don't have the answers .. but I do have empathy ... sadly lacking in some quarters on this thread.

Agreed velvet.

Benefits means no luxuries FGS. You cannot live on welfare and expect to be able to eat well, smoke, watch bloody sky and keep a great big dog. Why is that so difficult to comprehend. Benefits are SUPPOSED to be for the basics .

I wonder if this programme will increase or decrease donations to Sport Relief?

I'm happy to hav eno empathy for people who would rather smoke than feed their children and themselves. That isn't about poverty it's about having fucked up priorities. So, Sport relief food bank donations - Im out.

It's decreased it by £20 that I know of nono.

I've donated just to stick it up people like Whiney and her mate.

I thought Rachel Johnson came across quite well... Challenging the tubby teenagers, knowing the price of fags, in despair at the loan sharks, suggesting porridge instead of white bread for breakfast...

That's good usual . Bet you got a warm glow, didn't you?

its sad that people on here can judge some one from an hrs programme without living their life. knowing full story/ history.

the woman who lost a loved one probably smoked before ending up on benefits and its an addiction. and the dog looks pretty old so has been part of the family before (was it dad?) dad died. you don't know? why should they get rid/lose something else they love?

some people have pets and habits whilst working then lose their job it only takes you to lose your job to be in a similar position to have to decide on what goes and who gets fed.

im sure the lady with 3 kids didnt have being on benefits marked as a carer path! that she asked for this life style! ive been in the position where ive been promised a happy family lifestyle, fall in love, have kids, man provides, woman keeps the home... only for the man to piss off and leave me to it. so i understand.

tho i know there are some out there who 'breed for benefits' but thats another debate.

just my opinion.

First thing to do to change is to chase up fathers who don't pay for the children they make.

She came across as a patronising rich twat.

What should she have done then?

Not taken her to a poncy organic farmshop for a start.

mouses I am in my late 40's. Everyone I know ( including myself) smoked when we were young. None of us do now. And we all gave up before the days of ecigs ot NHS help or patches.

Millions of people stop smoking because they want to enough.

If you are married when you have children then you are more likely to be protected in divorce and provided fo rthan if you aren't - choices, again.

Yup - but she ran straight out when she saw the prices...

She did nono . As would have anyone sane!

So - she tried the local farming 'collective', then realised that it can't compete with the supermarkets, and went straight there for the veggies for the stew...

Being married doesn't mean jack if the father doesn't want to pay.

I know poverty shouldn't be used as entertainment.

I didn't know that there were families who couldn't feed their children.
I knew there were people who talked about it but I din't think it was real.

I don't care if the situations these families got themselves into are self inflicted (keeping up with the joneses) it doesn't make being hungry any easier to deal with. There are very few people I know in rl who haven't made some bum choices in their lives.

I liked it being on BBC1 as it would have caught alot of my Mum's generation who hark back to being poor in the 1970's as if it isn't possible any more.

And spent 7 quid on one meal...

I always feel uncomfortable watching these programmes, partly because I don't like seeing the poverty, and partly I find them slightly patronising. I know the celebs are well meaning, but you know they are probably being paid for the programme, and have far more money then the people featured. I prefer programmes such as The Secret Millionairre, whereby positive action usually results.