The Great Big Benefits Wedding Live

[Cherie]

:umm2: ....anyone else watching?

[Smithy]

Watched the first 20 minutes but it was ****, swapped to educating Cardiff :hee:

[Pete.]

I'm guessing this is on Channel 5

[Cherie]

Watched the first 20 minutes but it was ****, swapped to educating Cardiff :hee:

You did the right thing,

I'm guessing this is on Channel 5

Sure is, Matt Johnson signing the death knell to his career :umm2: it's hide behind the sofa stuff

[Kizzy]

I thought they were a lovely couple.

[smudgie]

Utter twaddle.
Matt was awful and I love him.:bawling:

[Cherie]

I thought they were a lovely couple.

The couple were fine although why they agreed to do this is anyone's guess, it's Matt Johnsons narration and him banging on about benefits and her dead parents every five minutes

[Livia]

Should unemployed people be given enough in benefits to pay for a wedding? No.

[Cherie]

Should unemployed people be given enough in benefits to pay for a wedding? No.

They took out a loan to pay for it, he has rheumatoid arthritis and is unable to hold a screwdriver so had to pack in his job 8years ago, though he manages to go fishing :shrug: there is no work in wales for the wife apparently

[Crimson Dynamo]

They took out a loan to pay for it, he has rheumatoid arthritis and is unable to hold a screwdriver so had to pack in his job 8years ago, though he manages to go fishing :shrug: there is no work in wales for the wife apparently


:laugh2:

[kirklancaster]

:laugh2:

:joker:

[Cherie]

:laugh:

[Alf]

I said on here after the election in May that channel 4 and 5 would put on programs about benifits every night, it's now nearly September and it's still going on.

Pure propaganda to turn people against innocent people that don't stand a chance in life.

I'd rather see a program of how Ian Duncan Smith spends £29 a day of tax payers money on his breakfast alone. A story that ran for a day and then was dropped.

[billy123]

Here is the schedule for C5 last night.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNVOo9fWwAAPfea.jpg

[Josy]

I never watched no but saw a few of the adverts for it, it said in one of them total benefits per year (for both I imagine?) £9000, that's not that much compared to what some are claiming is it? and if they took out a loan to pay for the wedding then it wasn't really a benefits wedding at all was it?

[armand.kay]

Yay another benefit show...

[user104658]

Here is the schedule for C5 last night.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNVOo9fWwAAPfea.jpg
I hope Kirk had a bottle of lube handy, that's a long evening.

[user104658]

I never watched no but saw a few of the adverts for it, it said in one of them total benefits per year (for both I imagine?) £9000, that's not that much compared to what some are claiming is it? and if they took out a loan to pay for the wedding then it wasn't really a benefits wedding at all was it?
Yes but they are on benefits. How DARE they fall in love or get married?? How exactly did they have time to meet or have a relationship? They should have been too busy, out looking for jobs.

Feckless lazy tax payers money the system immigrants hardworking contribute nothing handouts scam idle! And other associated buzzwords! I would know, I lived in a flat above 8 dozen of them for 12 years.

[Amy Jade]

I saw bits and they are theives in my opinion, he claims to be in too much pain it hold a tool such as a screwdriver or hammer but his 'hobby' is fishing? how is he able to fiddle about with that but unable to turn a screw?

and her excuse was worse 'there are no jobs in Wales' **** right off, I have two jobs at 17, one in a local farm shop and another waiting tables in a resturant - if I can walk into those jobs I'm sure she could clean or even sit behind a till

[Cherie]

Yes but they are on benefits. How DARE they fall in love or get married?? How exactly did they have time to meet or have a relationship? They should have been too busy, out looking for jobs.

Feckless lazy tax payers money the system immigrants hardworking contribute nothing handouts scam idle! And other associated buzzwords! I would know, I lived in a flat above 8 dozen of them for 12 years.

No body is saying that at all, the unfortunate thing for many people on benefits is that these programmes seem to weed out the "stereotype", this couple spent 30 quid on hiring a sunbed for a month, Im not sure that is a great use of taxpayers money and they should have had the brains to shut up about it as it's the sort of thing that gets people backs up when they are struggling to pay the gas bill, and why do the programme in the first place, they did it because they got a free honeymoon!

[kirklancaster]

I saw bits and they are theives in my opinion, he claims to be in too much pain it hold a tool such as a screwdriver or hammer but his 'hobby' is fishing? how is he able to fiddle about with that but unable to turn a screw?

and her excuse was worse 'there are no jobs in Wales' **** right off, I have two jobs at 17, one in a local farm shop and another waiting tables in a resturant - if I can walk into those jobs I'm sure she could clean or even sit behind a till

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[kirklancaster]

No body is saying that at all, the unfortunate thing for many people on benefits is that these programmes seem to weed out the "stereotype", this couple spent 30 quid on hiring a sunbed for a month, Im not sure that is a great use of taxpayers money and they should have had the brains to shut up about it as it's the sort of thing that gets people backs up when they are struggling to pay the gas bill, and why do the programme in the first place, they did it because they got a free honeymoon!

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[billy123]

It is designed to make working class people feel better about their lives even though they are a lot worse off than they have been for a long long time.
Giving them a section of society to look down on makes them feel relatively superior even though it isnt a true reflection of the world.
The sad thing is that so many are willing to put the blinkers on and lap it up like good little citizens.

[user104658]

No body is saying that at all, the unfortunate thing for many people on benefits is that these programmes seem to weed out the "stereotype", this couple spent 30 quid on hiring a sunbed for a month, Im not sure that is a great use of taxpayers money and they should have had the brains to shut up about it as it's the sort of thing that gets people backs up when they are struggling to pay the gas bill, and why do the programme in the first place, they did it because they got a free honeymoon!

Yes, they weed out the stereotypes, a miniscule minority, and the effect is the demonisation of all people stuck on benefits and a public mindset that wants to cut all benefits and persecute everyone on them.

It's trash telly at it's absolute worst, and a trash mindset.

[user104658]

It is designed to make working class people feel better about their lives even though they are a lot worse off than they have been for a long long time.
Giving them a section of society to look down on makes them feel relatively superior even though it isnt a true reflection of the world.
The sad thing is that so many are willing to put the blinkers on and lap it up like good little citizens.

Exactly. Working class pride. An effort to make people feel proud and superior just because "they go out to work", even if it's for peanuts. Keeps people quiet.

[Ammi]

...but then that's also stereotyping a 'public mindset' when a vast majority of the public do realise that it's only a tiny minority of people on benefits who aren't genuine and who are shown in these programmes...to describe 'public mindsets' as trash is equally stereotyping in a very negative way..no 'public' that I personally know is in any doubt that benefit fraud is a tiny percentage ...

[Cherie]

Exactly. Working class pride. An effort to make people feel proud and superior just because "they go out to work", even if it's for peanuts. Keeps people quiet.

Is that such a bad thing though that people should feel "pride" in earning their own money? These programmes are made because they are cheap to make and get reasonable ratings so its win win for the channel, I doubt there is a government initiative driving them, I would like a similar type of programme to be carried out on the Lords and how much money is wasted on them but I guess they are too canny to get involved.

[user104658]

...but then that's also stereotyping a 'public mindset' when a vast majority of the public do realise that it's only a tiny minority of people on benefits who aren't genuine and who are shown in these programmes...to describe 'public mindsets' as trash is equally stereotyping in a very negative way..no 'public' that I personally know is in any doubt that benefit fraud is a tiny percentage ...

So you are genuinely trying to tell me that in the last five years, there HASN'T been ANY trend toward the vilification of benefits and benefits claimants? Nothing about the recession has been scapegoated onto benefits claimants? There isn't an increasing atmosphere of animosity around the subject?

...are you asleep, Ammi? Are you actually asleep?

[user104658]

Is that such a bad thing though that people should feel "pride" in earning their own money?

It is if that stops them from realising that they are being exploited by people who are laughing at them all the way to the bank. Or if it makes them feel morally superior to anyone else.

I'm not a religious person... but "Pride" is considered to be a sin for a very good reason.

These programmes are made because they are cheap to make and get reasonable ratings so its win win for the channel, I doubt there is a government initiative driving them, I would like a similar type of programme to be carried out on the Lords and how much money is wasted on them but I guess they are too canny to get involved.

Yes, and there's a reason that they get those ratings. People whipped up and ready for a witch hunt. People realise that things are ****, it makes them angry, and they want someone to blame. That blame has been shifted - for obvious reasons - onto the people who are least likely to have the resources to do anything about it.

That's why you don't see three hours in a row of these shows about the lords or the corrupt MPs or unscrupulous bankers. They have the money to stop it.

[Ammi]

..that's not what I said though, that people on benefits aren't sometimes often portrayed in a negative way but that to also stereotype a public mindset as 'trash' is exactly the same as thing being objected to..?..in the same way as the majority of people on benefits are genuine..there is also a vast public who realise that and realise the slant of it/the programmes etc...


..I'll ignore the last little condescending bit of your post ...

[rubymoo]

I watched the first 5 minutes then thought..."why the hell are you watching 2 strangers getting married, who are on benefits????? Is this really what tv has come to????"

So i switched off, grabbed a glass of red wine and did a few suduko puzzles in silence:laugh:

[Cherie]

It is if that stops them from realising that they are being exploited by people who are laughing at them all the way to the bank. Or if it makes them feel morally superior to anyone else.

I'm not a religious person... but "Pride" is considered to be a sin for a very good reason.




Yes, and there's a reason that they get those ratings. People whipped up and ready for a witch hunt. People realise that things are ****, it makes them angry, and they want someone to blame. That blame has been shifted - for obvious reasons - onto the people who are least likely to have the resources to do anything about it.

That's why you don't see three hours in a row of these shows about the lords or the corrupt MPs or unscrupulous bankers. They have the money to stop it.


So anyone who goes out to earn a wage is being exploited? I don't feel morally superior for going to work, I go to work because I want to pay my bills, keep a roof over my head and have a certain standard of living and I would rather work for "peanuts" and I have done in the past than sit at home watching daytime TV. It used to be called a work ethic!


I think you underestimate the viewing public we are not all brain washed idiots, the programmes could not be made if people didn't want to be the next "White Dee" or see a freebie landing in their lap, so you have to lay as much blame on the participants as the programme makers.

[Cherie]

I watched the first 5 minutes then thought..."why the hell are you watching 2 strangers getting married, who are on benefits????? Is this really what tv has come to????"

So i switched off, grabbed a glass of red wine and did a few suduko puzzles in silence:laugh:

Do you watch BB Ruby? more strangers doing stuff on TV :whistle: :laugh:

[Liam-]

Yes, they weed out the stereotypes, a miniscule minority, and the effect is the demonisation of all people stuck on benefits and a public mindset that wants to cut all benefits and persecute everyone on them.

It's trash telly at it's absolute worst, and a trash mindset.

:clap1:

[rubymoo]

Do you watch BB Ruby? more strangers doing stuff on TV :whistle: :laugh:

:laugh:

Complete contradiction i know:hehe:

I'm bored of the whole benefits thing, Channel 5 needs to put something else on.

They could come round to mine and spend a day in the life of a mum/dog walker/wife:laugh:

[user104658]

..that's not what I said though, that people on benefits aren't sometimes often portrayed in a negative way but that to also stereotype a public mindset as 'trash' is exactly the same as thing being objected to..?..in the same way as the majority of people on benefits are genuine..there is also a vast public who realise that and realise the slant of it/the programmes etc...


..I'll ignore the last little condescending bit of your post ...

This is a stretch Ammi - I can't possibly be stereotyping or condemning "the entire public mindset" as, oddly enough, I am also a member of the public.

I am condemning the mindset of people who give these shows an audience as having a trashy mindset, and in supplying that audience, giving these trashy channels financial incentive to continue making these trashy shows.

I very much doubt it managed to scrape out a million viewers. Hardly the entire public, is it? But the point is, it is ENOUGH of the public to continue the undercurrent of distaste and villification surrounding benefits. One viewer is too many.

[Cherie]

This is a stretch Ammi - I can't possibly be stereotyping or condemning "the entire public mindset" as, oddly enough, I am also a member of the public.

I am condemning the mindset of people who give these shows an audience as having a trashy mindset, and in supplying that audience, giving these trashy channels financial incentive to continue making these trashy shows.

I very much doubt it managed to scrape out a million viewers. Hardly the entire public, is it? But the point is, it is ENOUGH of the public to continue the undercurrent of distaste and villification surrounding benefits. One viewer is too many.


I never watch any of these programmes I had never seen White Dee until she was on BB, I was drawn into this because of how car crash Matt Johnson was narrating it, I reserve the right to watch what I like without being called trash! After all if we all just watched quality high brow TV we wouldn't be on this forum!

[user104658]

So anyone who goes out to earn a wage is being exploited?

Anyone who works for a low to moderate wage for a large company is most likely being exploited, yes. I know that most people don't agree with or understand that, though.


I don't feel morally superior for going to work, I go to work because I want to pay my bills, keep a roof over my head and have a certain standard of living and I would rather work for "peanuts" and I have done in the past than sit at home watching daytime TV.

Yes, good for you, I go out to work for the very same reasons. That's hardly the point, and not what my post was about. My post was specifically about pride, or more importantly, this idea that going out to work might make someone, on some sort of moral level, "better than" someone who does otherwise. It doesn't.


"Dante's definition of pride was: love of self, perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbour."

I'd say this is fairly apt when it comes to these shows, and those who get jollies from watching them.

[Josy]

Yes but they are on benefits. How DARE they fall in love or get married?? How exactly did they have time to meet or have a relationship? They should have been too busy, out looking for jobs.

Feckless lazy tax payers money the system immigrants hardworking contribute nothing handouts scam idle! And other associated buzzwords! I would know, I lived in a flat above 8 dozen of them for 12 years.

:laugh:

They will no doubt be getting a ton of backlash for it but it wasn't exactly a big extravagant event, the woman bought her wedding dress for about £150 quid with her bingo winnings and ch5 were giving them a honeymoon but then how dare she go to the bingo :fist:

[user104658]

I never watch any of these programmes I had never seen White Dee until she was on BB, I was drawn into this because of how car crash Matt Johnson was narrating it, I reserve the right to watch what I like without being called trash! After all if we all just watched quality high brow TV we wouldn't be on this forum!

You can watch something (BB, for example) as a guilty pleasure whilst admitting that it's a steaming heap of garbage, surely?

Although in this case I stand by the notion that no one should watch it, whether they agree with the sentiments behind it or not, simply because giving it an audience means they won't stop making the damn things and they bloody well need to.

[Ammi]

....you were judging people negatively because you felt their mindset was to judge people negatively when you really don't know a 'general public mindset' on this, really you can't pick and choose ...my 'public' in that the people I know personally in 'the real world' don't have that mindset of judging anyone on benefits at all are thinking these programmes are representative of a majority or anything close to it...

...it's 'trash' TV, I agree/designed to be trash TV as are many programmes now on many different things and ...yeah, so far as viewing figures are concerned..?...well, you just have to look at 'negative threads' on forums to see that they attract more attention, more discussion, ,ore passion etc than more positive ones, so I guess Channel 5 just know their 'human nature' ...and here we are as well on a reality, so basically 'trash TV forum'...and many of us watching trash TV obviously...there is no point in saying..ughhhh, for watching these things to people because we all or most of us watch 'trash TV' ....


...anyways as is often sadly the case, discussions without becoming personal and derogatory in posts becomes impossible in this section so I'm opting out...

[Cherie]

You can watch something (BB, for example) as a guilty pleasure whilst admitting that it's a steaming heap of garbage, surely?

Although in this case I stand by the notion that no one should watch it, whether they agree with the sentiments behind it or not, simply because giving it an audience means they won't stop making the damn things and they bloody well need to.

It's a double edged sword, if they didn't get willing participants who want their 5 minutes of fame there would be no programme to make??

[Ammi]

I never watch any of these programmes I had never seen White Dee until she was on BB, I was drawn into this because of how car crash Matt Johnson was narrating it, I reserve the right to watch what I like without being called trash! After all if we all just watched quality high brow TV we wouldn't be on this forum!

..or basically what Cherie just said..:laugh:...

[user104658]

It's a double edged sword, if they didn't get willing participants who want their 5 minutes of fame there would be no programme to make??

That depends if you think the fact that there are people willing to be exploited is a good enough reason to go ahead and exploit them...

[kirklancaster]

That depends if you think the fact that there are people willing to be exploited is a good enough reason to go ahead and exploit them...

I did not want to be drawn into this because I have a huge backlog of work and a deadline of sorts to adhere to, but T.S - your posts are becoming increasingly illogical, confused, and nonsensical.

Your ranting and railing is irrefutably 'Strawman'.

I am not referring specifically to this program - which is undeniably less 'expose' and more 'entertainment', but to your comments on other threads pertaining to 'Benefit Cheats Exposed' and similar in general.

Since WHEN and HOW does a program which exposes despicable bastards who are exploiting this country's Benefits System; ie stealing hard-working people's tax money, become one which is attacking and degrading GENUINE BENEFIT CLAIMANTS - or as you misguidedly put it: 'vilifying benefits and benefits claimants'?

To claim as much is as stupid as claiming that a program exposing Drug Addicts and Dealers is 'vilifying' ill people on prescribed medication.

And to rail so vitriolically with your often presumptive, condescending and highly offensive remarks against those of us who welcome any program which exposes these scumbag Benefit Cheats is equally as ludicrous and totally unwarranted.

For the zillionth time; we are NOT against genuinely ill or needy people who legitimately receive vital aid via the Benefits System - we are emphatically against fit, able-bodied people who - by their OWN ADMISSION - CAN WORK but do NOT want to, and who feign debilitating illness in order to claim benefits which THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO, and which are FUNDED by the tax deductions of millions of ordinary UK citizens who DO WORK -- a lot of whom struggle every single day to make ends meet DESPITE WORKING HARD.

Your baffling inability to recognise the above difference, and your 'Quixotic' posturing concerning these Benefit Cheats, is compounded by the fact that a lot of those guilty of defrauding the system are raking in huge sums of illicit money by subletting much needed council/Housing association houses and other illegal sidelines. Some of these crooks are making more than £50,000 per year BUT STILL CLAIM BENEFITS.

If that is not CRIMINAL GREED and not NEED - what is?

And how can you or anyone else on here rail against any type of program which exposes these greedy bastards? Or against those of us who are pleased that these VERMIN ARE being exposed?

The MOTIVE behind the creation of these programs may differ widely - from an earnest attempt to educate the viewer as to the truth behind the headlines, to a desire to 'capitalise' on those headlines with a highly concocted B.S. show such as the one in the OP, but the motive is totally IRRELEVANT, because the hard facts are that every single one of these programs ACTUALLY EXPOSE GENUINE BENEFIT FRAUDSTERS the length and breadth of the UK.

NOWHERE in any of the dozens of documentaries that I personally have watched, does it castigate, denigrate or blame genuine Benefit Claimants so please answer me as to just WHY you object so vehemently to these programs?

I would like to raise another fact which is glaring from these programs - albeit one which I am already well aware of from my own DIRECT EXPERIENCES - and that it is, that there is a huge percentage of IMMIGRANTS and FOREIGN BORN NATIONALS who are perpetrators of 'High End' Benefit Fraud - mainly the abusing of the Housing Benefit System, and some of these scum are raking in HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS per year.

A lot has been said on here about the abusing and exploitation of 'poor immigrants' - well I say to you; IT IS IMMIGRANTS AND FOREIGN BORN NATIONALS who are the BIGGEST CULPRITS of this despicable practice.

The 'Connolly Undercover' program which you ridiculously lambasted and 'JUDGED' :shrug: without even WATCHING IT !!! highlighted just such immigrant Benefit Fraudsters exploiting other poor desperate immigrants by charging them £60 per week for a bunk bed alone, while others rented out mattresses on their free council house homes to other immigrants.

Of course, you don't have to watch these programs to KNOW the above - just drive past the dozens of immigrant-owned Hand Car washes that are still springing up in every town and city of the UK and watch the poor immigrants hand-washing the cars - even in freezing weather - then ask them how much per hour they are being paid.

If you want to continue seeing GIANTS in those WINDMILL ARMS, then fine T.S but do me a favour -- stop being offensive to those of us who actually SEE windmill arms.

[user104658]

I did not want to be drawn into this because I have a huge backlog of work and a deadline of sorts to adhere to, but T.S - your posts are becoming increasingly illogical, confused, and nonsensical.

Your ranting and railing is irrefutably 'Strawman'.

Stopped reading here. :sleep:

[kirklancaster]

Stopped reading here. :sleep:

You are increasingly proving just what a pseudo-intellectual you are and that you have no place on a Serious debates forum T,S if you judge programs which you have NOT watched and can repeatedly post offensive comments about other members who are discussing the very same program which they HAVE watched, then respond to a post written in earnest and highly relevant to the thread, with such a banal 'cop-out'.

[smudgie]

Anyone thinking of getting married would be well advised to watch the programme.
It was utter garbage the way it was presented (sorry Matt), the stopping and interviewing during the service etc, but the way the couple planned the wedding on a shoestring was amazing.
I absolutely loved the way the shop bought cake was customised to look simple but very classy, everything about the actual wedding looked amazing.
I don't see any problem at all hiring a sunbed for a month, works out at about £3.75 each a week, hardly excessive spending to make them feel good for the big day. Ok, they went into a little bit of debt to help pay for it, but they said they would cut back a bit to pay for it, they didn't ask for extra handouts.
The worst thing about the show was Matt constantly asking throughout what they think the public will think about them having a wedding on benefits, throwing a negative slant on it. Insinuating that they were wrong really.
I for one thought it was great, given the chance I reckon the wife could make a go of a business for budget weddings, talented lady the way she managed to make those little baskets etc out of next to nothing.
Good luck to the happy couple.

[user104658]

You are increasingly proving just what a pseudo-intellectual you are and that you have no place on a Serious debates forum T,S if you judge programs which you have NOT watched and can repeatedly post offensive comments about other members who are discussing the very same program which they HAVE watched, then respond to a post written in earnest and highly relevant to the thread, with such a banal 'cop-out'.

No Kirk, I;ve just heard you use the phrase "straw man" so many times that I already know exactly what follows, and it bores the **** out of me.

[Cherie]

Anyone thinking of getting married would be well advised to watch the programme.
It was utter garbage the way it was presented (sorry Matt), the stopping and interviewing during the service etc, but the way the couple planned the wedding on a shoestring was amazing.
I absolutely loved the way the shop bought cake was customised to look simple but very classy, everything about the actual wedding looked amazing.
I don't see any problem at all hiring a sunbed for a month, works out at about £3.75 each a week, hardly excessive spending to make them feel good for the big day. Ok, they went into a little bit of debt to help pay for it, but they said they would cut back a bit to pay for it, they didn't ask for extra handouts.
The worst thing about the show was Matt constantly asking throughout what they think the public will think about them having a wedding on benefits, throwing a negative slant on it. Insinuating that they were wrong really.
I for one thought it was great, given the chance I reckon the wife could make a go of a business for budget weddings, talented lady the way she managed to make those little baskets etc out of next to nothing.
Good luck to the happy couple.


Your maths are a bit out Smudge 30.00 for 4 weeks works out at 7.50 which would equate to about 10 per cent weekly benefit, I agree with your other points though I feel they would have been aware of the slant of the programme they just weren't bothered, I also think going into debt for a wedding is not the wisest move working or not!

[user104658]

I also think going into debt for a wedding is not the wisest move working or not!

That much is true but then, I've known working couples to go £30,000+ in debt for a wedding which as A) insane and B) irresponsible (both personally and socially). People just go overboard with weddings in general, IMO. Plus the catering at these expensive weddings, sometimes running to £50 a head or more, is utterly insane! It's never even good! Dry chicken and cold veg... and not enough of it... mmm! Put out massive platters of pizza and snack-sized sausage rolls (bag of 50 for £1 from Morrisons...) and everyone will be happier and fuller, and the happy couple will be better off :shrug:.

[kirklancaster]

No Kirk, I;ve just heard you use the phrase "straw man" so many times that I already know exactly what follows, and it bores the **** out of me.

What other way is there to describe your posts T.S.?

Description of Straw Man:

"A logic fallacy involving the purposeful misrepresentation of an argument in order to strike it down."

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

A) The SUBJECT of the programs in question is EXCLUSIVELY Benefit CHEATS.

B) You MISREPRESENT that subject as attacking BENEFIT CLAIMANTS.

C) This then gives you a perfect platform to repeatedly post your rants and show us all how clever you are.

The problem is that you also repeatedly denigrate those of us who hold a different viewpoint to you - a viewpoint, I might add.which is legitimate, based on the program's TRUE subject and not your MISREPRESENTED view.

[Kizzy]

It is designed to make working class people feel better about their lives even though they are a lot worse off than they have been for a long long time.
Giving them a section of society to look down on makes them feel relatively superior even though it isnt a true reflection of the world.
The sad thing is that so many are willing to put the blinkers on and lap it up like good little citizens.

:clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

[smudgie]

Your maths are a bit out Smudge 30.00 for 4 weeks works out at 7.50 which would equate to about 10 per cent weekly benefit, I agree with your other points though I feel they would have been aware of the slant of the programme they just weren't bothered, I also think going into debt for a wedding is not the wisest move working or not!

Nope, nothng wrong with my maths, I said it worked out at £3.75 each. ( unless they paid £30 each)
:laugh: We are both right.
The way the lady had everything in such tight control. I wouldn't be surprised if it had been budgeted for a good while.
I was well impressed with the £30 each for their hen/stag nights as well.
I am not into wearing a ruddy meringue and walking down the aisle so our wedding cost next to nothing, but I can see that a lot of people like to do it in style so as to speak, some people need a second mortgage just to pay for the day:spin:

[Northern Monkey]

I watched the first 5 minutes then thought..."why the hell are you watching 2 strangers getting married, who are on benefits????? Is this really what tv has come to????"

So i switched off, grabbed a glass of red wine and did a few suduko puzzles in silence:laugh:

Me too but i played some Xbox rather than the Soduko:)

[user104658]

What other way is there to describe your posts T.S.?

Description of Straw Man:

"A logic fallacy involving the purposeful misrepresentation of an argument in order to strike it down."

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

A) The SUBJECT of the programs in question is EXCLUSIVELY Benefit CHEATS.

B) You MISREPRESENT that subject as attacking BENEFIT CLAIMANTS.

C) This then gives you a perfect platform to repeatedly post your rants and show us all how clever you are.

The problem is that you also repeatedly denigrate those of us who hold a different viewpoint to you - a viewpoint, I might add.which is legitimate, based on the program's TRUE subject and not your MISREPRESENTED view.

You don't understand how a cheap show made by a cheap channel about "Benefits cheats" is a covert attack on all benefits claimants, and furthers a mindset of distaste towards benefits recipients in general. That's fine. I genuinely don't care that you don't "get it" :shrug:.

All I will say is that you failing to understand something does not make it a "deliberate misrepresentation", or, in fact, any sort of misrepresentation at all.

You're also being a hypocrite again kirk. Yes, on occasion, I despair when people hold opinions that I think are wrong and believe to be damaging and I don't shy away from saying so. However, I really have to point out that even if I am guilty of this... there is no one else more guilty of belittling people, by questioning their intelligence, their sincerity, or often both, for not sharing an opinion as... Errrr... You, Kirk. Your very self.