Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I can see exactly why you's think that BUT (and at the risk of coming across all patronising) what else do many of these people have? If I had to get by on JSA and had, say, £30 per week to spend once my housing and essentials had been taken care of, then I doubt I'd be stocking up on expensive organic fruit and veg. I'd be sorely tempted to stock up on some farmofoods basics and have some cash left over to get blotto a few nights a week and smoke some baccy. It's not like I'm going to be able to afford other mainstream forms of enjoyment, like gigs, eating out, theatre, a football season ticket, etc. Fucking let those that want to drink and snoke, I say.
even if it was a pretty silly thing for a health Minister to get caught saying.
I doubt many people on JSA have the luxury of £30 per week.
I think it's far more patronising to be telling people they can't spend their money on something because you personally, with no understanding of them or their lives, doesn't think they should. So, in short, I agree with your post.
the internet is an essential and cuts costs for people on low incomes, helps them find opportunities for employment, education etc. more poor people should have the internet.
It's how I keep in touch with friend and family, how I study. I wouldn't be able to do my degree if I didn't have the internet.
But... (shit, I've become one of them)
I find it a bit more difficult to muster much sympathy for a lot of the people who are presented as examples of hardship on, say, the news, when they're doing an interview in their living room. Sat on their lovely big leather sofa. With their big telly on the wall. With the consoles stacked underneath (and sky dish just out of view). And their three kids. And their 'designer' clothes. And their jewellery. And their... well, you get the picture.
And then I think back to those recent documentaries on BBC Four about hardship in the mid-late 20th C. And how they were burning their furniture to keep warm.
And then I think: would I swap my life for theirs? Would I fuck. And I remember who it is that deserves my ire. And the moany divs who've put themselves up on the telly as an example of poverty should be ignored as an insignificance in the grand scheme of things.
Divide and rule. It's an easy easy trap to fall into.
to clarify: re:"And then I think: would I swap my life for theirs?" Where "they" are the folk on the news (rather than ye olde documentary folk, but also those as well.).
clunky point being: If they've got such an easy ride, why don't you do the same?
note to self: write betterer
I've never understood the concept of working tax credits.
Why not just tax properly in the first place?
I thought rich people were pretty canny at claiming their dues, and poor people were uninformed on what they qualify for.
That aside, and either way around, it seems like a poor premise for a system.
It's a percaption thing though, is it not? the perception of these people from the outside looking in (where people say LOOK at the size of that grotesque telly, how can they say they're poor? When of course, the person passing judgment feels hard done to, perhaps because they can't 'afford' such a large TV- because presumably their cash is being spent on having a proper social life, giving kids music lessons, having a holiday, being a member of a gym. (Case in point- to me, gym membership is a higher priority than any amount of electronic goods or clothes. This is *my* priority.)
But from the inside looking out, and because I have different wants in life, it's not much of a life these people have. Surely to goodness many of them do want a life that doesn't involve haviong to scrape every peny of dole money to pretend to the neighbours that they're somehow still flash? Also, another thing re. the big telly etc- presumably they've saved up for these things (unless I'm being super naive) so why shouldn't they save a little of their benefit in order to have 'nice things'?
I don;t know, I'm possibly just going soft in my old age here, and I in no way want to retract from the horrific squeeze that's afflicting ordinary WORKING folk these days, but I don't think people who are genuinely on the dole because they can't find work will ever be without my sympathy. No matter how many pairs of shiny new trainers they appear to have.
™Needy british people.
Personally the <£20 I spend a month on landline & broadband would be about my first priority after rent, food and bills.
or the tv's will be from those shops where you go in and pay a fiver a week till the end of time.
there was a thing in the Standard the other evening about ``squeezed middle`` types, and featured a childless couple aged 27 with a household income of £59k, and a family with one young child and a household income of ~£70k, and they were both moaning about being able to `get by`, and I just thought fucking hell these examples are both well above average incomes. What about featuring actually squeezed people?
I might have a little moan about being skint from time to time. But, give or take the odd thou, or year of age, my household matches your first example. And I deserve precisely zero minutes of airtime as an example of who the gov's policies are hitting hardest.
Similarly with the second example. If they're in work to the tune of £70k, they can fuck off just as much as I can as an example of hardship, child, no child, or a whole house of fucking kids.
and if you haven't got a job, you'll need it to look for jobs because most jobs are online these days.
And yes it is. As someone looking for a low skilled, low paid job (which is obviously only what unemployed people are worth) there were quite a few options and not only temp jobs....i.e. shut up.
Maybe bar work / waitering too. There's a reason the jobcentre makes JSA conditional on you searching the directgov database a couple of times a week.
Obviously I'm only replying to your second sentence, cos the first is completely unconnected either to the second or to reality.
it's all quite boring really.
He keeps trolling the boards by posting these dead clever links that take you to a random post in another thread and make you ^This it. LOL!
for the account davidluiz, effective as soon as that account is created?
what the actual fuck like
love this post.
he's currently switching between three usernames, because he's a massive belter.
at understanding class, politics and technology in the slighest
Dicking around on forums- a luxury
Having access to the internet- more and more of a necessity
It could be used instead of a phone and a TV, it has become a pretty essential communication / information gathering device.
In which case, I wholeheartedly agree. You'd have to be very, very rich.
That's how it works, right?
is when you see families on TV that say "I can't afford to clothe/feed the kids etc..." and they have a 32" LCD TV screen with Sky, pets and they're covered in shit jewellery and smoking.
Surely any sane person would give up cigarettes to be able to provide food, shelter and clothing for their children?
Eliminates an ongoing expenditure and provides a tasty, nourishing meal.
but it certainly seems to be the stereotype, not sure how much it exists in reality. I'd say smoking - definitely dump that, it is not even pleasurable, it is just feeding an addiction. Large screen TV? Not too much of an issue, it was probably second hand and it is a one-off purchase anyway. Sky - ditch that, get a freeview box. Shit jewellry - could be gifts, sentimental value.
I think it shows actually how great a country this is, people are so well looked after that even someone with a home, food, warmth, free schooling, free healthcare can be considered poor.
up until recently (this year) was working for one of them loans companies that offer weekly shit loans. He used to have to traipse around estates in Liverpool getting money out of this sort of family.
It is not a stereotype. There are fucking tons of families exactly like this. My Dad would tell me that in almost every house, each piece of electrical equipment and clothing was far superior (in cost) to what he owned, as a working man.
If families that are ticked up to their arsehole on credit are buying expensive consumer goods they can't afford, then clearly everyone is. If only loan sharks like your dad would only lend to people who'd spend the money on food and second-hand clothing we wouldn't be in this mess.
Just saying its far from a stereotype. My dad did this job for over 25 years. It might be a 'representative sample', but I can say he saw it thousands of times.
And my dad was not a loan shark. Pretty much all of their new business is created through recommendations from existing customers.
Of course there are thousands of families that fit this description, that's why the stereotype exists. There are also thousands of families whose only furniture is the mattresses they sleep on, an empty fridge and - yes - maybe a rented TV (which, as mentioned already, becomes a priority when you don't have any other entertainment /social life). That's why there's also the opposite stereotype of everyone on JSA being a half-starved breadline scavenger. But they're both just stereotypes, and making any kind of policy decision or sweeping judgement based on either is sheer muppetry. Not that you were, really, but y'know.
But I bet they never go on a foreign holiday. They won't own their house, they won't have anything to retire on. They can't send their kids to uni. So they may as well just spunk it on tracksuits and clown necklaces.
that's probably a clue.
Profligate scum. They should sell them and buy gruel.
it comes as part of the Sky package
true to an extent, but not as much as you'd think. From page 98 in the text:
Thi is from like 7 years ago. Quite a lot of other research has said the same thing. As an interpretation, I'd say that prioritising having the internet over some other essentials (say, cutting back on food bills to pay for it) is something that people may well do, because of the economics of it; it allows you to save or make money on other things (online shopping, casual work that can be done from home, travel costs for picking up things available online, etc). You could argue the position that you're wasting money by -not- having the internet.
You can get broadband for like £6 a month now, and an old computer for like £50. It's increasingly becoming a necesity, especially if you have kids at school
and printer....and enough dosh to print pointless projects on paper
why are you still working? Shouldn't you also be on the free money gravy train?
and I would have to traipse off to the library if I wanted to do similar. I actually remember a point where my dad got pissed off because a teacher specified we do something online when we didn't have a computer, and he claimed this was unreasonable as not everyone could be expected to have one.
I imagine nowadays, kids without computers are at far more of a disadvantage than I was, plus the libraries are all closing.
it was all about the kids who had Encarta vs those of us who had encyclopedias that still listed Tanganyika as a country.
I know it's true ^__^
I hate all of you.
but meo's post is still missing. HAS MEO BEEN DELETED FROM DIS? Probably not. Maybe a poor person ate it.
There's "poor" and then there's "destitute", surely? And internet access is increasingly becoming something so necessary that only those in the latter group won't have it.
apart from the direct.gov point above which makes a bit of sense and also job seeking etc is easier what other reasons are there for claming it's essential?
I'm not saying this in a 'grrrr modern technology is rubbish, I'm off to the shed' viewpoint, I'm just curious?
The majority of the type of jobs I'm after are all posted online. Plus there's getting in touch with businesses if you need to, instead of having to spend money that as a poor person you won't have waiting on hold for forty minutes.
then how would you suggest they entertained themselves?
As we all know, the rioters were only looting basic essentials to allow them to survive in this Tory-ravaged nation of ours.
ahh hope there are some more riots, i enjoyed those threads.
wasn't going to get dragged into it but okay. the internet is a HUGE necessity.
jobhunting, of course (assuming the poor are unemployed - lots of jobs don't pay a living wage).
online shopping/banking/billing (a lot of poor people also have mobility issues).
communication (a thirty second conversation on facebook, using something like a 12.50/15.00 per month bb deal, can save them hundreds of pounds a year in what they would have spent on phonecalls)
online schooling/career training (massively helpful)
entertainment (tv, films, yes, even a browse on wikipedia)
arguing on music forums
He would know not to say gotten.
Do you know what it's really easy to do in there? Find a job, apply for a job, look (wait for it) online for a job. Loads of stuff to do with jobs. They also have these things called "Job Papers" which come out every week and don't cost nearly as much as the internet. I know, futuristic.
you know what? it's just easier to call you an idiot.
It's easy. Cheers.
to find a job in a Job Centre that just using a home internet connection. What would be the point in Job Centres otherwise?
to find the item you require in a high street shop than just using a home internet connection. what would be the point in shops otherwise?
to book a holiday in a travel agent's office than just using a home internet connection. what would be the point in travel agents otherwise?
to buy long-distance train tickets in a railway station ticket office than just using a home internet connection. what would be the point in railway station ticket offices otherwise?
DO MORE!! DO MORE!!!!!
you're so eloquently trying to make.
would you like me to draw a diagram instead?
cos i'm a filthy student sponger who gets my university fees and bursary paid out of YOUR TAXES!!! just to sit on the internet having inane arguments all day)
'the internet has a bunch of useful stuff on it' was a key principle of the swp
that having home internet access is a necessity for the purposes of getting a job.
andyvine pointed out that Job Centres exist and I suggested that they /probably/ have resources to assist people in getting jobs. The internet is but one of those resources.
Your reductio ad absurdum is an absurd attempt at trolling.
to find a job in a job centre than on the internet, or else they wouldn't exist. that was a pretty absurd claim. having the internet isn't 'necessary' to getting a job but it's definitely a huge advantage with a much greater variety of resources than a job centre... and i thought we wanted our benefits scroungers to be spending every waking hour desperately trawling every possible avenue of employment opportunity anywayz
should def have left it at the headshaking
one of the tutors there told me that only 1/3 of all jobs are advertised through the jobcentre. most are online or through agencies. most agencies only want people to sign up...online.
you can look online for a job in a JobCentre. Is that not the case? If it is, you have the resource you would have at home PLUS other resources provided by the JobCentre. Therefore "far more resources" than JUST the internet. It surely wasn't that hard a point to grasp?
the internet is cheaper than the travel cost of getting a bus to and from the nearest job centre once or twice a week
plus there's plenty of stuff that you can get from the net that you can't get in a Job Centre
considering how quickly positions get filled. being able to do a new search every day is going to massively improve your chances. again: for all the handwringing that goes on about the unemployed being unemployed because they just don't TRY HARD ENOUGH to find work and sit at home all day instead, you'd think we would want to make home internet access universal
SUCH HYPOCRITES, TRYING TO FIND JOBS!!
It doesn't sound like it.
i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and imagining that you have just made your point spectacularly badly and it's not at it's heart abject stupid nonsense.
I'll wait for you to catch up.
I UNDERSTAND IT BUT IT'S DUMB AND I'M MAKING FUN OF IT AND YOU ON THE INTERNET FOR MY AMUSEMENT AND THAT OF OTHERS. THAT'S WHAT WE DO ON THIS THING.
as well as look for jobs obviously.
You can type some more unfunny stuff in capital letters if you want though.
is entirely based on andyvine's claim that you can get free internet access in them to look for a job online. If that's true, then how is home internet access absolutely essential for job seeking?
it's just monumentally more useful, convenient and likely to actually find you a job. for the fraction of unemployed people who happen to live minutes walk away from a jobcentre that has plentiful access to the internet and that doesn't mind them sitting in there for many hours each day, sure maybe your point kind of applies. for most people, internet access is a pretty necessary investment for jobseeking. which ISN'T EVEN THE POINT because the infinite other things the internet provides make it beyond worth spending money on, unless you think 'poor' people don't deserve anything but the bare minimum of survival
it's absolutely essential, actually. Which is why I was making the point.
Your last sentence is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. Cheers.
and you can still be genuinely poor by UK standards and still afford it and the only reason anyone would question that obvious fact is due to cognitive dissonance about having to treat poor people as humans with actual reasons for being poor, rather than lazy evil animal Others.
/thread DONT MENTION IT RAANRAALS UR WELCOME X
of the "other" viewpoint. Which is a ridiculous way of debating anything.
oh and the rest of the thread.
you've typed has nothing to do with most of the viewpoints espoused in this thread apart from the obviously trolly ones.
It's just a really irritating way of contributing, that's all. I was trying to ask a serious question and make a serious (limited scope) point.
The times I remember visiting the job centre, all the jobs advertised were already filled. In fact, I later found out, that it was pretty common for the job centre to keep filled posts up to make the number of jobs seem greater.
Don't get me started on the recruitment companies that invent jobs so that you register your details with them.
It's good to see how easy it is for stuff on the internet to be taken out of context by people trying to shout each other down. All I was saying is the internet isn't essential for finding a job. I found my last job by looking in the job paper. You know what? Sometimes it's just nice to go outside too, you bunch of fucking virgins
finding a job....... IN A JOBCENTRE :D
poor people who have the 2011 commonplace and not at all expensive resources of a PC and the internet should..... get rid of those things so you personally feel better about your weird hypothetical imagining of them cap in hand at the jobcentre....??? No you just don't make sense at all.
he's trying to arbitarily redefine what 'poor' means so he can, for some weird reason that obviously makes him feel better, live in a fantasy where 'masses of people with financial and social problems' becomes 'LOL DUMB UNEMPLOYEDS SPONGING OFF THE STATE WHY CAN"T THEY LIVE IN A CAVE HOW DARE THEY HAVE CLOTHES AND PHONES AND TRY AND FIND A WAY TO LIVE IN RELATIVE COMFORT'
as a bit of a cunt here.
in capitals. People arguing (non-trolling) against internet access as a fundamental human right aren't saying those things at all. You're just wilfully misinterpreting their views.
I'm not wilfully misinterpreting their views I'm satirically exaggerating their really obvious subtext.
that were obvious troll comments? Well done for focusing on them in your debating.
but I think you know that. I know The Man wants everyone to think that the internet is essential to bring up the quality of life in the country and attract more bluechip companies or whatever, but I can't think of anything you can do on the internet that you can't do In Real Life. And that mean's it's not essential
5pm headshaking in 100+ reply threads is more of a Cementimental thing.
I wish every person I tried to engage in any sort of debate with had your sparkling wit!
POOR PEOPLE SHOULD BE MORE POOR WHAT IS WRONG WITH THOSE IDIOTS!?
POOR PEOPLE are a distinct group
they are not
people's economic situations fluctuate
NOBODY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING THEY CHOOSE TO DO
WHY DO THE 62,262,000 HUMAN BEINGS LIVING IN THE UK NOT ALL CHOOSE TO SHARE MY ABSOLUTE OPTIMUM IDEAS OF HOW A HUMAN BEING SHOULD LIVE THEIR ENTIRE LIFE IN THE UK! >_<
is it really
REALLY REALLY mean that that's what people are REALLY saying. REALLY. And if I'm not REALLY literally correct them I REALLY appreciate people bringing this error to my attention. It's REALLY HELPFUL AND AMUSING.
they probably aren't
*but 7pm, obv.
whereas i'm mint
in this thread
but you did
half tempted to say something about vikram and gotten it deleted