Donate SIGN UP

Famous, Rich And Hungry

Avatar Image
sherrardk | 21:00 Wed 12th Mar 2014 | Film, Media & TV
126 Answers
For those that are interested this is just starting on BBC 1.
Gravatar

Answers

81 to 100 of 126rss feed

First Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Last

Avatar Image
Yes...it was handled more sensitively than I'd expected. I think lack of empathy is due to viewers feeling certain that it couldn't happen to them,that they would make better choices. Well,maybe they would...but nothing is so certain. Where I work we see a few victims of the current economic conditions,and the changes to the benefits system. My co-workwrs...
22:31 Wed 12th Mar 2014
Question Author
Naomi - she had a slight bump in the road too, if her 'famous' person hasn't taken her to the council she would have lost the plot and ended up in debt too. It's a very narrow, slippery slope for all of them. One blip and you're screwed.
It wasn't magic - talking to the council was the obvious solution.
Contribution based JSA is a little over £70 a week, sandyRoe- but I understand that those single people with little other household income and savings can get income based JSA and in some cases housing benefit (but not mortage support), so would normally end up with quite a lot more than £65 a week
Question Author
It's the obvious solution when you are thinking straight, when you have eaten enough to have the strength to do so, when you have an average intelligence, when you have the wherewithal to do so. Not everyone does.
If we ignore the rent part of benefits imagine trying to live on £70 a week. Something would need to be put aside for electricity/heating, TV licence, and food costs would eat up a fair bit of it. They wouldn't be living high on the hog.
I agree that some people with problems are not the brightest - like the two with fines outstanding - but that woman wasn't stupid by any means - her accounts proved that - and even though she received less than all the others she was eating well because she was budgeting properly. I've no doubt that had the cameras not been there she would still have had the sense to contact the council.
Sandy, why should they be living high on the hog? Other people who work for a living manage on the same - and put off having children until they can afford to keep them.
Question Author
I think that the people were chosen to show how different types of people cope with their crappy lives and to show how all sorts of people are affected. The lady in question did get very upset and without chivvying may well have put it off and things could have gotten worse, to her, the bank charges were astronomical and upset h carefully formulated budget. I think the programme did an excellent job of showing different types of struggling families, that all sorts of people struggle - not just perceived 'chavvy scum'c
'High on the hog', wasn't the best choice of words there. They'd be subsisting rather than living any kind of a decent life.
If there were 10 job vacancies for every unemployed person then low benefits might act as a spur to get them looking for work. There aren't, so low benefits seem to punish those least able to manage.
I think this episode did an excellent job. I felt particularly sorry for the man who worked as a security guard who had taken high cost loans - although I have to say I was a little disappointed that by the end of the programme he hadn't taken Theo's advice to declare himself bankrupt, so was still paying astronomical interest. His own worst enemy.
Question Author
Naomi - it cost us £500+ to declare ourselves bankrupt in 2008. If you are skint you can't even go bankrupt because you haven't got any money - nasty, vicious circle.
SandyRoe, debt was punishing those least able to manage - not low benefits. Without debt they wouldn't - or shouldn't - have had a problem.
Sherrard, payable up front? I'm surprised Theo wasn't aware of that.
Question Author
Must be nice to live in some people's world.
If people were coping on benefits why would they get themselves into debt?
Question Author
That one poor man was existing on something like £50.50 a week.
Question Author
Naomi - Theo wasn't aware of that because it hasn't happened to him. You pay it and don't get it back. If things have gone badly enough and you are claiming benefits and have no assets already then you are exempt. The alternative is to wait for your creditors to make you bankrupt but apparently that is an unpleasant experience (not that declaring ourself bankrupt is a walk in the park).
Sherrard, if that man who was advised to declare himself bankrupt had defaulted on his debt repayment for a month instead of skinting himself to pay it, he would have had the money to pay the fee to declare himself bankrupt. The whole debt would then have been written off. There are ways.

//Must be nice to live in some people's world.//

Are you talking about me?
Question Author
It easy when you are thinking logically and don't have all that pressure on you. He is an honourable man, he wants to pay his way. And yes, I was referring to you.
Often the debts are built up before people go onto benefits. While they have a n income they can juggle finances and make some repayments, but once they have to rely on benefits the levels are not enough to cover the repayments so the debt spirals.
I think naomi is right to the extent that past debts and a lack of savings are often the root cause. I noted the same thing when i saw a programme about food banks- many seemed to have been brought down by longstanding and spiralling debts, previous drug or alcohol problems and no savings

81 to 100 of 126rss feed

First Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Famous, Rich And Hungry

Answer Question >>

Related Questions