Daily Wail "side Bar Of Shame"

[mccfluff]

this just popped up on my twitter feed

http://usvsth3m.com/post/83507153975/youve-seen-the-sidebar-of-shame-now-check-out-the

[joggerjayne]

I imagine Stephen Fry would be amused to be described as a "liberal pansy".

Especially by a raggy tabloid like the Mail.

[hc4361]

Strange that all the media commenting on the DM food bank report fail to mention that the reporter involved returned all the goods to the food bank.

[Gromit]

Apparently the Charity that the Daily Mail conned saw a dramatic rise in donations. Before the report they were receiving about £3,000 a week in donations. After the Mail conned them, they got £38,000 from the public.

[jim360]

Cue AOG leaping to the defence of a paper that's just full of this sort of rubbish.

[jno]

only after the fuss, I think, hc4361.

Funny Mailwatch site: https://twitter.com/DMReporter

The DM Reporter ‏@DMReporter Apr 17
FEMININISM: Women! You're doing make-up all wrong and it's making you look old. Luckily we're sponsored by products that can help. Phew!

[hc4361]

jno, it was clearly stated in the original report that all the goods were returned.

[jno]

thanks, hc4361. In fact I think they had to be otherwise they could have been open to charges of obtaining goods by fraud; their lawyers would have warned them.

[hc4361]

"After inviting the reporter to help himself to the soap, toothpaste and hot dog rolls they had spare, the volunteers wished him a Happy Easter and he staggered out of the church with his bags. He later returned the goods."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608606/No-ID-no-checks-vouchers-sob-stories-The-truth-shock-food-bank-claims.html#ixzz2zc8YgMxw
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[mccfluff]

The original report states there were no questions asked, and then went on to detail the questions he was asked...

[hc4361]

Exactly, jno, but it isn't mentioned in the articles criticising the report.

I think the Mail has done food banks a favour.

[hc4361]

No checks on his answers were made - no proof required, just a sob story.

[jim360]

I think that's an unintended consequence, though. They've shown that if you lie through your teeth and invent a plausible back-story, then an over-pressed charity working in hard economic circumstances doesn't really have the time or resources to do the research necessary to establish whether or not you are genuine. Well, obviously. Cutting-edge reporting it is not.

[Gromit]

hc4361

I read the original report and the fact that the goods were returned was either omitted or well hidden.

The report has since been updated.

PUBLISHED: 22:06, 19 April 2014 | UPDATED: 17:31, 20 April 2014

[hc4361]

The Trussell Trust is doing very well out of it though.

Organisations that operate food banks pays the Trust £1500 initially and then £360 a year.

[jno]

it has, as Gromit pointed out donations have soared; but I imagine that wasn't the effect the Mail intended.

The intended subplot seems to have been that lazy worskhy scum (copyright ToraToraTora) have been stealing food at the taxpayers' expense. Actually, the food bank seems to be run by a charity, not the taxpayer, so they can give food to anyone they want. And the headline said something about the reporters being given food no questions asked when even the story made it clear they had been asked questions (to which they gave lying answers).

[hc4361]

Gromit, I read it in bed very early Sunday morning and the fact the goods were returned was stated then, in the place within the report that it is now. It wasn't in the headline

[hc4361]

Shouldn't the claimants be required to provide proof of income, or lack of?
At least prove their id.

[mccfluff]

did they really say that "rock n roll originated in the jungle"

[youngmafbog]

//The intended subplot seems to have been that lazy worskhy scum (copyright ToraToraTora) have been stealing food at the taxpayers' expense//

I dont recall TTT claiming that people are stealing food at taxpayers expense, nor the DM. That appears to be an extension of your over imagination. But then again, on this site if you are of left wing persuasion the tactic always seems to be to smear your opposition.

What it showed is what I have said before. The claims from the left that food banks are on the increase purely because of poverty is not really true. Undoubtedly some are at beam end, but, as has been shown in otehr reports many aer taking advantage. Including foreigners by the look of it.

[sandyRoe]

What was the point of the story? Was it that plausible liars can con decent voluntary workers out of as few quids worth of food?