Shoddy Journalism


I hate sensationalist pieces but I was particularly affronted by this one in the Independent at the weekend. The headline screams at you; 'Life on benefits: The starving of the 11 Million'. It charts how the journalist attempts to get through a week on £175. After he has calculated his bills and travel expenses he is left with £30 to spend on food. Firstly, I was shocked he could cover his bills and eat on that amount, stating as he did that he lives in London. My bills per week total £200 not including the cost of travel to and from my two jobs, which is another £30. But having established that he now has just £30 to spend on food, he makes a meal out of it. Pun intended. £30 for one person to eat for a week is AMPLE. I live alone and I tend to spend £20 a week on food most weeks. He complains that he is hungry all the time and having to eat bad food to make the money last. Utter balderdash. What a great bloody word, let's bring it back. I have a VERY healthy diet filled with green veg, red meat and fish. I have varied dinners and lunches; all it takes is a little planning. I can't buy lunches on the hop as it's too expensive, it's also massively lazy and for the most part, not good for you as you don't know what you're eating, salt content and fat wise. 

As a study piece aimed at defending the poor who are about to be picked on further by the current government, if that's what you'd call them, it was shoddy journalism. All it revealed was that the journalist in question is not used to having to live to a budget. In fact he came across as a bit of a dick. I love how the rich and wealthy like to weigh in about and for the poor. Put simply, he wasn't qualified to write that article; living in a totally different situation to the people he was defending. 

I am an actor, I work two jobs. I live in the smallest of small studio flats known to man; I choose to live alone as I can't really cope when I don't get a LOT of my own space. I pay extra to live alone. But not a lot extra. I am currently paying £100 more per month than I did when I was in a three room flat share and I am infinitely happier. Its £100 well spent. I also pay out £160 a month on counselling. Without this necessary expenditure I would be a lot more comfortably off than I am now. However, if I was being sensible post therapy I would be investing that money in theatre projects so I don't include it, it is part of my weekly bills. What price life over suicide? I don't and never have claimed benefits. I have worked all manors of jobs and I only get one day off a week, if I am lucky. Some weeks I get none. I work very, very hard. I don't have a lot. I own one pair of shoes that don't have a hole in them. The weeks when I need to buy toiletries always come at the worst point in the month and it means sacrificing food. This month I have no idea how I am going to pay my rent because the weeks holiday I took for Christmas was paid upfront, meaning the tax man took £80 more from me than he would have if I had been paid over two separate weeks. That £80 is the difference between me being on top of my bills and behind them. Thanks tax man. And whilst we're at it, thanks also for taxing me heavily on the second job I HAVE to work in order to cover all my bills. Thanks for taxing me for the PRIVILEGE of working two jobs and hardly getting time off. It means A LOT. 

And yet, despite this, I am pissed off that some people, a small minority I hasten to add, live a life on benefits without putting much back in. I do agree that the system must be looked into thoroughly. I think the tax system which makes it better for people to claim benefits than work two or three jobs to make ends meet should also be looked into. It doesn't work. I get penalised for working hard, which is ridiculous. Whilst some people, sleep away a life on benefits.

Now don't get me wrong, I believe this is a minority. I know many people living on benefits and not one is doing it through choice or without struggle. Most of them are trying to get off benefits. I don't have anything but sympathy for those within the system who cannot find a way out. I do, however, have anger towards those who sit back and enjoy the free life. I know someone on benefits who brings home more a week than me in expendable cash. That is quite simply not fair. If you are living on benefits, of course you deserve to have a few luxuries when you can but it is not your right. I have to decide between social activities and food. Weeks when I am out, something is sacrificed along the line. It is the same for my Mum and my sister, both working full time career jobs. In the past, when I was young and reckless, I didn't make those sacrifices, I got out my credit card and pretended it was free money; until inevitably the free money ran out and started to chase me to the cliff edge. Budgeting is a part of EVERY ONE'S life. Do not sob to me that £30 means you can't go for a mid week pint. Do you know what I am doing mid week? I am working from 8.30am until 12am. That's what.

So if you want to moan about the cuts the government are making, I'd find a better argument than £30 a week on food equals a starving Britain. It bloody doesn't. Believe me, there are plenty of arguments to be made against this government without crying over your 'own brand economy' cornflakes. Yes Mr Journalist, some people in the country have to budget. So fucking what? And I say that as one of them.




Comments

  1. Hear hear! When £30 a week to devote to food is perfectly doable; as long as you're careful and don't demand over-expensive mineral waters or coffees on the way to work etc, you can live well. And anyway, as a society we eat way too much. And way too much crap.

    It's all about personal responsibility and your priorities. Having said that, the government could easily help out by whacking a massive Fat Tax on junk food and ready meals with too much fat and salt in them, and use the money to subsidise fruit, vegetables and cookery classes. They could also help out the national debt if they made pay day loan companies illegal, made it more difficult to gamble, and also legalised soft drugs and prostitution and taxed the bejesus out of them - thereby boosting the economy at the same time as freeing up the police service to concentrate on more important things.

    I totally and completely agree that there is definitely a radical need to overhaul the benefits system - it favours the lazy and punishes those of us who are trying to boost our CVs by doing casual work. Do not get me started on the STRESS I've had because I've claimed benefits but also tried to be hard working and honest about it. As soon as you earn tuppence in a week, they stop your benefits - most importantly housing benefit - then take months - yes, MONTHS - before they agree to start them up again. I've only survived because of the generosity of my family and friends - otherwise I really would be homeless by now. And all because I tried and didn't cheat the system. So yes, unless you get an above-minimum wage full time job, you really are better off on full time benefits. The system sucks big time.

    Trouble is, any changes will be made by people who have no understanding of what it's like to struggle at the bottom. These are the sort of people who tell you that if you haven't got any money, you should dip into your savings. Yes, someone actually suggested that to me as a way of paying my bills. What part of "I have no money" didn't they understand?

    Rant rant rant rant rant! You've set me off too! It's so damn easy to get totally infuriated by the comments of idiots who have no understanding of how good they've got it. Don't get me wrong, I'm a hell of a lot better off that I would have been, say, a hundred years ago, or if I lived in a poorer country, and I in my worst moments, I've learnt to count my blessings - any politicians out there who've bothered to do the same?

    Sarah

    PS I'm not really Anonymous - it was just the only way of commenting!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts