[user104658]

Finally got around to watching this the other night. I thought it had an important message to send and did so pretty well; illustrating how normal people who genuinely want to earn from their craft, or better themselves to do well in life, can be caught in a cycle that demonises and dehumanises them as "benefits scum".

... However... I have a major fact checking (at best) / sensationalism issue with the film? I mean, I assume the writers actually do know how the system works, but there are some major holes in the narrative there.

First is the character of Daniel himself. He has to come off disability and into Jobseekers allowance and immediately has trouble fulfilling the job search requirements from the word go.

Except... It's made clear that he is at least in his late 50's and is someone who, until his heart attack, had "worked his entire life". Which means he would definitely have full National Insurance spanning decades, and thus, would be getting Contributions Based JSA for several months before being shifted to Income Based JSA. Contributions based JSA has no job search requirement. Hum.

Then there's the other main focus; the single mum and young family. She has two kids and is a young mum. It's made out like her money supply is totally cut off because she's late for a Jobcentre meeting. Except that... as a parent, over 70% of her weekly income should be Child Tax Credits and Child Benefit. They would only be sanctioning the JSA element, they can't sanction the tax credits or child benefit. I'm not saying that people don't still struggle when whacked with a reduced income, I just have issue with bad fact checking, and they intimate that her whole money supply is cut off which is simply not possible .

I guess my main issue is that I *do* fully understand the hardship that people face, and it irks me that a movie designed to draw attention to the issue misrepresents the facts in a way that makes it easy for those who think there is "no issue" to tear it apart?

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Finally got around to watching this the other night. I thought it had an important message to send and did so pretty well; illustrating how normal people who genuinely want to earn from their craft, or better themselves to do well in life, can be caught in a cycle that demonises and dehumanises them as "benefits scum".

... However... I have a major fact checking (at best) / sensationalism issue with the film? I mean, I assume the writers actually do know how the system works, but there are some major holes in the narrative there.

First is the character of Daniel himself. He has to come off disability and into Jobseekers allowance and immediately has trouble fulfilling the job search requirements from the word go.

Except... It's made clear that he is at least in his late 50's and is someone who, until his heart attack, had "worked his entire life". Which means he would definitely have full National Insurance spanning decades, and thus, would be getting Contributions Based JSA for several months before being shifted to Income Based JSA. Contributions based JSA has no job search requirement. Hum.

Then there's the other main focus; the single mum and young family. She has two kids and is a young mum. It's made out like her money supply is totally cut off because she's late for a Jobcentre meeting. Except that... as a parent, over 70% of her weekly income should be Child Tax Credits and Child Benefit. They would only be sanctioning the JSA element, they can't sanction the tax credits or child benefit. I'm not saying that people don't still struggle when whacked with a reduced income, I just have issue with bad fact checking, and they intimate that her whole money supply is cut off which is simply not possible .

I guess my main issue is that I *do* fully understand the hardship that people face, and it irks me that a movie designed to draw attention to the issue misrepresents the facts in a way that makes it easy for those who think there is "no issue" to tear it apart?

Yes, it's a shame, because if people watching it realise even one fact is incorrect it throws doubt on the reality of the rest of the film.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Yes, it's a shame, because if people watching it realise even one fact is incorrect it throws doubt on the reality of the rest of the film.

That's my issue with it really. As soon as I said "... But that's not what would happen in this situation." I found it hard to engage with the rest of the narrative.

And there are so many ways that ill people ARE and have been screwed over by the system, I just wish they had tried harder to go for real accuracy.

[user104658]

One thing that was uncomfortably accurate was the attitude (and inconsistency) of some of the officials though. Just this week we had to deal with a lovely, err, gentleman from the HMRC as we got a notice of a £100 fine for self assessment for my wife, that would "dramatically increase" if we didn't file a return by may 1st (we got the letter on April 28th...)

My wife hasn't been self employed for 3 years, and deregistered for self assessment over 18 months ago.

But... Honest to God, the way this guy spoke to her over the phone . It ended thus;

HMRC: "you owe the money. Are you going to make a payment or not? And if you don't sort out your attitude I'm going to hang up on you."

(She was being perfectly polite, just firmly stating the facts)

Wife: "Excuse me? My attitude??"

HMRC: "Goodbye." and he hung up!


She called back, got a different person who laughed and joked with her, and had the whole thing sorted and the charge cancelled within 5 minutes.

We were sat watching the film thinking just how much some of the Job Centre people sounded like that first guy .

[Kizzy]

He had been on a disability benefit for the last 2yrs ( which is how contribution based JSA is calculated the previous 2 tax years)

Also you are presuming that the mother has near perfect finances, who has those? We are all robbing peter to pay paul, even if she did have her tax credits how are they alone enough to support a family she may have debts... council tax, water, phone, gas, electric.. finance company..loan shark.. that's before she's bought food.
It would not be enough to live on.

It irks me that even seeing the film it's presumed the writers have overlooked the bureaucracy involved as well as the complex nature of what it means to be living in poverty in England.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That's my issue with it really. As soon as I said "... But that's not what would happen in this situation." I found it hard to engage with the rest of the narrative.

And there are so many ways that ill people ARE and have been screwed over by the system, I just wish they had tried harder to go for real accuracy.

But you didn't know!...

You formed a very wrong assumption in your head, a 2 min search would have showed you that was wrong and yet you are content to not only convince yourself of this but others, this is how fake news works.. this is how ignorance spreads.. this is why people vote tory... because of misinformation.

Contribution-based JSA
You may get contribution-based JSA if you’ve paid enough Class 1 National Insurance contributions in the 2 tax years before the current benefit year.

National Insurance Credits can count for part of this, if you get them.

A benefit year starts on the first Sunday in January and ends a year later.

Example

You make a claim on 20 February 2016. This falls in the 2016 benefit year. This means your entitlement will be based on your National Insurance record for the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 tax years.

https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowa...t-type-you-get

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

He had been on a disability benefit for the last 2yrs ( which is how contribution based JSA is calculated the previous 2 tax years)

Ahh, I might have missed where it was stated that he had been on disability for two years beforehand. It felt like it was implied that his heart attack at work had been recent? My mistake there though if not.

Also you are presuming that the mother has near perfect finances, who has those? We are all robbing peter to pay paul, even if she did have her tax credits how are they alone enough to support a family she may have debts... council tax, water, phone, gas, electric.. finance company..loan shark.. that's before she's bought food.
It would not be enough to live on.

It irks me that even seeing the film it's presumed the writers have overlooked the bureaucracy involved as well as the complex nature of what it means to be living in poverty in England.

That was my issue, though (although she would not be paying council tax). I know that it does happen and I know the reasons; credit card and catalogue debt being major ones that push families into poverty. If they had even suggested that there were debt issues it would have solved that plot inconsistency for me. There was a prime opportunity when the daughter needed new shoes; this is exactly the sort of situation that leads to people turning to things like "Very" and ending up with catalogue debt, avoiding the payments, ending up with debt collectors etc. And as you say, this is the complex nature of poverty in the UK, that mean a shortfall in income CAN be disastrous. It's what needs to be recognised and addressed. They don't even hint at these issues, they massively over simplify it as her "getting no money in the first place" and basically... My problem with it is that it gives the naysayers scope to disregard the message.

"You can feed yourself and your kids and pay for gas and leccy on CTC and Child Benefits", they'll say. And that is, simply, true. You CAN'T when all of the other costs and pressures of modern life (clothing, transport, debts from an earlier life e.g. She was a student and likely, like most students, would have run up a huge overdraft and some credit card debt). The fact that they made it LESS complex is the major problem.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

But you didn't know!...

You formed a very wrong assumption in your head, a 2 min search would have showed you that was wrong and yet you are content to not only convince yourself of this but others, this is how fake news works.. this is how ignorance spreads.. this is why people vote tory... because of misinformation.

Contribution-based JSA
You may get contribution-based JSA if you’ve paid enough Class 1 National Insurance contributions in the 2 tax years before the current benefit year.

National Insurance Credits can count for part of this, if you get them.

A benefit year starts on the first Sunday in January and ends a year later.

Example

You make a claim on 20 February 2016. This falls in the 2016 benefit year. This means your entitlement will be based on your National Insurance record for the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 tax years.

https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowa...t-type-you-get

I know how JSA works but, like I said, either I missed the part that suggested he had been on disability benefits for while before the events of the film, or it simply wasn't made clear enough. Most of it seemed to suggest his heart attack (when he almost fell off the scaffolding) had been recent. Like he talks to a workmate who mentions what a scare he gave them. 2 years earlier? And this is the first time he's seen him since? It doesn't make a huge amount of sense. But it is better than them getting the entire benefits situation wrong, at least.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Ahh, I might have missed where it was stated that he had been on disability for two years beforehand. It felt like it was implied that his heart attack at work had been recent? My mistake there though if not.



That was my issue, though (although she would not be paying council tax). I know that it does happen and I know the reasons; credit card and catalogue debt being major ones that push families into poverty. If they had even suggested that there were debt issues it would have solved that plot inconsistency for me. There was a prime opportunity when the daughter needed new shoes; this is exactly the sort of situation that leads to people turning to things like "Very" and ending up with catalogue debt, avoiding the payments, ending up with debt collectors etc. And as you say, this is the complex nature of poverty in the UK, that mean a shortfall in income CAN be disastrous. It's what needs to be recognised and addressed. They don't even hint at these issues, they massively over simplify it as her "getting no money in the first place" and basically... My problem with it is that it gives the naysayers scope to disregard the message.

"You can feed yourself and your kids and pay for gas and leccy on CTC and Child Benefits", they'll say. And that is, simply, true. You CAN'T when all of the other costs and pressures of modern life (clothing, transport, debts from an earlier life e.g. She was a student and likely, like most students, would have run up a huge overdraft and some credit card debt). The fact that they made it LESS complex is the major problem.

There has been no council tax benefit since 2013

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

There has been no council tax benefit since 2013

It's still available, they just changed the name to Council tax reduction.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

There has been no council tax benefit since 2013

You've got the wrong end of the stick on that one Kizzy, CTB was replaced by a council tax reduction (of up to 100%) depending on circumstances. All it means is that rather than getting extra benefit per week to pay the council tax bill, you simply get a reduced (or zero) bill in the first place.

A single mother of two children under 18, in Newcastle, living in council accomodation would be on 100% council tax reduction.

I'm not being a Tory here Kizzy, you're fighting the wrong battle. My point is not that there isn't a massive poverty problem to address and horrendous things happening with disability - a bad ATOS assessment that took 18 months to appeal, I am 100% convinced, contributed to my own mother dying at 59.

My point is that these messages MUST be accurate. They have to be air tight. Because the holes are where people who do want to demonise those on benefits or advocate reductions will start picking and trying to unravel it.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I know how JSA works but, like I said, either I missed the part that suggested he had been on disability benefits for while before the events of the film, or it simply wasn't made clear enough. Most of it seemed to suggest his heart attack (when he almost fell off the scaffolding) had been recent. Like he talks to a workmate who mentions what a scare he gave them. 2 years earlier? And this is the first time he's seen him since? It doesn't make a huge amount of sense. But it is better than them getting the entire benefits situation wrong, at least.

He failed a work capability assessment..It's the whole premise of the bloody film!...

He wouldn't be having that if he wasn't on ESA would he?...

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

One thing that was uncomfortably accurate was the attitude (and inconsistency) of some of the officials though. Just this week we had to deal with a lovely, err, gentleman from the HMRC as we got a notice of a £100 fine for self assessment for my wife, that would "dramatically increase" if we didn't file a return by may 1st (we got the letter on April 28th...)

My wife hasn't been self employed for 3 years, and deregistered for self assessment over 18 months ago.

But... Honest to God, the way this guy spoke to her over the phone . It ended thus;

HMRC: "you owe the money. Are you going to make a payment or not? And if you don't sort out your attitude I'm going to hang up on you."

(She was being perfectly polite, just firmly stating the facts)

Wife: "Excuse me? My attitude??"

HMRC: "Goodbye." and he hung up!


She called back, got a different person who laughed and joked with her, and had the whole thing sorted and the charge cancelled within 5 minutes.

We were sat watching the film thinking just how much some of the Job Centre people sounded like that first guy .

Some people are definitely in the wrong job.
I am sat wondering if we will get interest on the tax they owe hubby from last July, granted he did say when asked that he would wait until the end of the tax year for it ( saving him filling in a pile of forms) .

[user104658]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Some people are definitely in the wrong job.
I am sat wondering if we will get interest on the tax they owe hubby from last July, granted he did say when asked that he would wait until the end of the tax year for it ( saving him filling in a pile of forms) .

I'm pretty sure you don't, I found out after Uni that I'd been on "basic tax code" (20% on the full amount, I should hardly have been paying any at all) for ages in the job I was at whilst a student and got a huge rebate... But it was only the flat amount of tax I had paid, no interest on the amount. That was a good 8-10 years ago now, though.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You've got the wrong end of the stick on that one Kizzy, CTB was replaced by a council tax reduction (of up to 100%) depending on circumstances. All it means is that rather than getting extra benefit per week to pay the council tax bill, you simply get a reduced (or zero) bill in the first place.

A single mother of two children under 18, in Newcastle, living in council accomodation would be on 100% council tax reduction.

I'm not being a Tory here Kizzy, you're fighting the wrong battle. My point is not that there isn't a massive poverty problem to address and horrendous things happening with disability - a bad ATOS assessment that took 18 months to appeal, I am 100% convinced, contributed to my own mother dying at 59.

My point is that these messages MUST be accurate. They have to be air tight. Because the holes are where people who do want to demonise those on benefits or advocate reductions will start picking and trying to unravel it.

Nope, I didn't state it hadn't been replaced i said there was no council tax benefit any longer.. and there isn't.

Where is the information that confirms that? I don't know any lone parents with a !00% reduction in CT.

The message is airtight, you have picked holes in it due to your own lack of knowledge on the subject.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Nope, I didn't state it hadn't been replaced i said there was no council tax benefit any longer.. and there isn't.

Where is the information that confirms that? I don't know any lone parents with a !00% reduction in CT.

The message is airtight, you have picked holes in it due to your own lack of knowledge on the subject.

It isn't, you're wrong, you have confirmation bias on this subject, and you're happy to see important messages only preach to the choir. This is a problem, Kizzy. The point t and opportunity of films like Daniel Blake are to speak to people who DON'T currently know there are major issues with the system. If they only speak to those who already know there are problems, they are not living up to their full potential.

Unemployed single parents would be on minimum council tax liability. In most areas this is zero though I have just looked up Newcastle and it's 15% of full liability. Assuming a band A property, that works out as (at most) about £3 a week.

Appologies for assuming 0% across the board, Scottish privilege coming in again clearly.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It isn't, you're wrong, you have confirmation bias on this subject, and you're happy to see important messages only preach to the choir. This is a problem, Kizzy. The point t and opportunity of films like Daniel Blake are to speak to people who DON'T currently know there are major issues with the system. If they only speak to those who already know there are problems, they are not living up to their full potential.

Unemployed single parents do not pay council tax. Full stop, fact, if they are, they've filled in the form incorrectly.

From my own experience I was a lone parent on a benefit and I paid £125 towards my council tax.

Any kind of confirmation from you would be a bonus, all you appear to have is your own preconception.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

From my own experience I was a lone parent on a benefit and I paid £125 towards my council tax.

Any kind of confirmation from you would be a bonus, all you appear to have is your own preconception.

From my own experience of being in a COUPLE with children on slowly-increasing income since the first was born, I paid none at all until she was two and was only liable for the full bill once I was working full time at well over minimum wage. Experience in both the North of England and Scotland.

I must have far too much ****ing time on my hands because I've actually just done a full benefits calculation for the girl in the film based on the year it was made.

She would have had £117 a week child tax credits, £35 a week child benefits.

She would have lost £72 a week in JSA due to the sanction.

She would have had no rent liability (she states she is in a council property, housing allowance would therefore cover full rent)

She would be paying £2.95 a week council tax (confirming that my estimating skills are awesome).

So she has income of roughly £150 per week and mandatory outgoings of around £25 - 30 a week assuming just over £20 a week for water and gas and electricity.

I do know this system. I've lived in it, I've helped countless other parents navigate it, I've seen my mother navigate disability.

The only explanation for the girl in the film ending up starving, is substance abuse or debt. No two ways about it. We see clearly that she does not have substance abuse problems, therefore, for the film to be realistic they should have at least implied that she was in trouble with creditors - given that this is one of THE most pressing issues in UK relative poverty. It would have taken minutes. Shown her buying kids Clothes on credit with there already being a large outstanding balance, show her looking worried when a red envelope lands on the rug in the morning. These details are important. Her situation has to be a real one.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

From my own experience of being in a COUPLE with children on slowly-increasing income since the first was born, I paid none at all until she was two and was only liable for the full bill once I was working full time at well over minimum wage. Experience in both the North of England and Scotland.

I must have far too much ****ing time on my hands because I've actually just done a full benefits calculation for the girl in the film based on the year it was made.

She would have had £117 a week child tax credits, £35 a week child benefits.

She would have lost £72 a week in JSA due to the sanction.

She would have had no rent liability (she states she is in a council property, housing allowance would therefore cover full rent)

She would be paying £2.95 a week council tax (confirming that my estimating skills are awesome).

So she has income of roughly £150 per week and mandatory outgoings of around £25 - 30 a week assuming just over £20 a week for water and gas and electricity.

I do know this system. I've lived in it, I've helped countless other parents navigate it, I've seen my mother navigate disability.

The only explanation for the girl in the film ending up starving, is substance abuse or debt. No two ways about it. We see clearly that she does not have substance abuse problems, therefore, for the film to be realistic they should have at least implied that she was in trouble with creditors - given that this is one of THE most pressing issues in UK relative poverty. It would have taken minutes. Shown her buying kids Clothes on credit with there already being a large outstanding balance, show her looking worried when a red envelope lands on the rug in the morning. These details are important. Her situation has to be a real one.

So you feel the watcher is safer to presume she is not in debt?

£20 pw for water gas and electric?! Where the hell do you live? dingley dell?
Get real ffs

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So you feel the watcher is safer to presume she is not in debt?

£20 pw for water gas and electric?! Where the hell do you live? dingley dell?
Get real ffs

The watcher shouldn't really have to assume anything in a film like this that is trying to convey a message. She might be, she might not be. She is a fictional character, it's up to the writers to decide. Those who understand the issues will assume there are other factors such as debt. Those who do not will not consider those factors and find her situation to be unrealistic, and thus, will fail to adjust their preconceptions, lessening the potential impact of the film by - as I said before - preaching to the choir. You went into the film already sympathetic, it doesn't rally matter what you assume about her situation? What matters is outlining the very real problems people face, to those who go into the film neutral or unsympathetic, in hopes that their opinions might change. Presenting an unrealistic situation that doesn't quite "fit" will only prompt people to reject the message and along with it, the REAL issues of western poverty, doing more harm than good.

[user104658]

Oh and I said 25 to 30, so minus the council tax the upper end of that is £27 a week or £1400 a year. How is that an unrealistic, or even not a rather generous, estimate for gas/electric/water? My combined utilities come in at around that and we're considered "very high use" for electricity .

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The watcher shouldn't really have to assume anything in a film like this that is trying to convey a message. She might be, she might not be. She is a fictional character, it's up to the writers to decide. Those who understand the issues will assume there are other factors such as debt. Those who do not will not consider those factors and find her situation to be unrealistic, and thus, will fail to adjust their preconceptions, lessening the potential impact of the film by - as I said before - preaching to the choir. You went into the film already sympathetic, it doesn't rally matter what you assume about her situation? What matters is outlining the very real problems people face, to those who go into the film neutral or unsympathetic, in hopes that their opinions might change. Presenting an unrealistic situation that doesn't quite "fit" will only prompt people to reject the message and along with it, the REAL issues of western poverty, doing more harm than good.

You did, you made all manner of assertions, that her entire weekly outgoings are less than the cost of a nandos for one!


It matters not if you go in there sympathetic or not, how do you get from the context of abject fuel poverty, food bank use, shoplifting sanitary products that she in actual fact has (or should have in your mind ) more than enough to live on?...

Easy, you ignore that subtext of spiraling debt, shoplifting fines , travel costs, new school uniforms, bills, food/household costs.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You did, you made all manner of assertions, that her entire weekly outgoings are less than the cost of a nandos for one!


It matters not if you go in there sympathetic or not, how do you get from the context of abject fuel poverty, food bank use, shoplifting sanitary products that she in actual fact has (or should have in your mind ) more than enough to live on?...

Easy, you ignore that subtext of spiraling debt, shoplifting fines , travel costs, new school uniforms, bills, food/household costs.

No, I don't ignore it. For about the fifth time - *I* do understand those issues and you've been reading my posts on here long enough to know that. I understand the character and how she would end up in that situation. So do you. But we did before we watched the film. A lot of people watching the film DON'T, and that is my entire point. THEY will wonder how on earth it could be happening, because if you take those things out of the equation, it does seem like enough to live on. We are aware that it is not enough because we are already aware of those extra considerations. The film does not address or even hint at those extra considerations. In fact, the film implies that all of her money is sanctioned when she is late, which is false. Therefore, people who don't know about the complex issues going into this film, leave the film... STILL not knowing about those issues.

If the films message only works for those of us who already know it, what is the point of the film? Light entertainment? Is it not aiming to change perceptions? Were your perceptions changed by the film? No, because you were already aware. I am already aware. Does it not have to at least outline these real issues - the ones me and you know about - to those who are ignorant to them and think people "have plenty"... in order to effectively change perceptions? I'm putting myself in the shoes of those people and realising it comes up short. It will not change perceptions.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No, I don't ignore it. For about the fifth time - *I* do understand those issues and you've been reading my posts on here long enough to know that. I understand the character and how she would end up in that situation. So do you. But we did before we watched the film. A lot of people watching the film DON'T, and that is my entire point. THEY will wonder how on earth it could be happening, because if you take those things out of the equation, it does seem like enough to live on. We are aware that it is not enough because we are already aware of those extra considerations. The film does not address or even hint at those extra considerations. In fact, the film implies that all of her money is sanctioned when she is late, which is false. Therefore, people who don't know about the complex issues going into this film, leave the film... STILL not knowing about those issues.

If the films message only works for those of us who already know it, what is the point of the film? Light entertainment? Is it not aiming to change perceptions? Were your perceptions changed by the film? No, because you were already aware. I am already aware. Does it not have to at least outline these real issues - the ones me and you know about - to those who are ignorant to them and think people "have plenty"... in order to effectively change perceptions? I'm putting myself in the shoes of those people and realising it comes up short. It will not change perceptions.

You were the one banging on about fact checking... leading me to believe that you may not be the switched on lefty snowflake I thought you were .

Who are 'they'? I haven't heard of anyone else who has suggested the main characters and their experiences are anything other than directly comparable to those in the exact same situations currently.