Sunday, 20 January 2013

Natalija Belova and The Sun's Benefit Lies

The Sun is to journalism what syphilis is to good sexual health. And the latest proof is this deliberately misleading, scurrilous article. Entitled 'You're a Soft Touch' and with the webpage by-line "IMMIGRANT sponger living off handouts REFUSES full-time job" (caps theirs), The Sun tells us how Lithuanian Natalija Belova (pictured) has been in receipt of £14,500/year worth of benefit payments that, in the paper's words, "fund her love of designer clothes, jaunts to the Spanish sun and nightclubbing". Contributing in its inimitable manner to a fair and reasoned debate about migrant labour and social security, The Sun adds "Her astonishing benefits bonanza emerged as Britain braces itself for thousands more swarming here to join a gravy train they could only dream of in their homelands." Apparently there are 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians champing at the bit to up sticks and live a life of riley here in Britain.

Unfortunately for The Sun, their "exclusive" is a load of mouldy old bollocks.

I wonder how its loyal band of dwindling readers would have reacted to the story if they knew Ms Belova was in fact an actor? Surely The Sun wouldn't mention her chosen profession because it might have cast aspersions on her story? After all, we've been assured repeatedly over Leveson that the press can be trusted to regulate themselves. They are, apparently, mature enough to police their own journalistic standards to ensure stories only of the highest quality that are in the public interest appear. Clearly, pieces like this show they aren't anything of the sort.

But okay, let's pretend for a moment that Belova's profession does not matter and is incidental to the substance of the story. THE SUN'S ARTICLE IS STILL FULL OF LIES.

Belova "rakes in" over £1,000/month, yielding £14,508 every year. She receives £125/week from her job which, it is said, "boost her income to £400/week". Then to help explain things, a table is provided to demonstrate "how the weekly cash stacks up". It breaks down as Child Tax Credit (£56), Housing Benefit (£183), Child Benefit (£20) and Council Tax Benefit (£20) - a princely £279 every week.

But The Sun is deliberately lying. Belova does not receive an income (remember, they explicitly stated *income*) of £400 plus because she never sees two of the benefits payments. Until April, Housing Benefit is paid directly to her housing provider and the Council Tax payment bypasses her and goes to the relevant local authority. What is left, just £76, on top of her £125/week from her job gives her a *real* income before tax of £201 - about half of what The Sun's says she pockets. One wonders how a single mum with a small child can afford luxury holidays and designer clobber on such a modest income, especially when in a year she actually receives just £10,452.

That's right, *£10,452*. 

Two minutes with a search engine digs up very little about Dulcie Pearce, the creature that wrote this despicable piece. No Twitter, no Facebook. Not much stuff of a personal nature at all. It's almost as if she'd done that deliberately. But it's worth noting this snippet from 2011 reporting her elevation in The Sun's hierarchy. The above isn't a hatchet job by a struggling hack forced to write the most appalling copy to earn a crust. It's by someone who is happy to advance their career on the back of lies told about some of the poorest, most vulnerable and marginalised people in Britain. What a cowardly, despicable way to make a living.

62 comments:

Anonymous said...

it's still £10,452 too much.... Given most people have to pay for housing out of their income, how can it not be fair to count housing benefit as income? Your piece is hardly as damning of the Sun's article as it thinks it is.

Anonymous said...

£10,000 a year is more than enough for holidays and clothes (£90 for a return ticket to Lithuania, and similar for Spain). I'd love to have that kind of income at the moment.

But yes, it's a shame to see this kind of xenophobic scaremongering in the sun, followed inevitably by the daily mail and the vitriol this creates for immigrants and fine countries such as Lietuva.

Peter T said...

Your article is the mouldy old bollocks. Working people have to pay council tax and rent so these payments are a real benefit to her. If the state didn't pay them she would have to.

Phil said...

One and two - most people who receive social security payments are *in work*. Only those on the lowest income scales receive council, housing, and tax credit payments. That is, unless, you're quite happy to the lowest paid destitute on the streets - which I suspect you would be.

And Anon no.1, who is housing benefit income for? The recipient whose name in which it is applied or the landlord who directly receives it?

lozd said...

I'm sure it will come as some comfort to those of us paying our tax bills this month that a foreign national is only taking £280 a week out of our collective pockets. We can look forward to another 6 million turning up in the next ten years thanks to quislings like the author of this blog post

Anonymous said...

Take a look through the rest of the journalists work http://journalisted.com/search?q=botox&by=dulcie-pearce&type=article
She is the same woman who wrote a story about a mum giving her 8 year old Botox for child pageants that turned out to be fake.

Phil said...

Lozd, are you aware of the irony of calling someone a Nazi collaborator while peddling the sorts of lies beloved of your far right friends?

I suspect not.

Jules Clarke said...

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/kp3r52 This is a summary of her linkedin page , suprisingly DELETED today

Jules Clarke said...

And here is a link to her Casting profile http://t.co/v6O6G3HP

Jules Clarke said...

Heres a possible link too, to the lady in question, in a report http://t.co/6YtL3Zry . This doesnt appear as clear cut and dried as it first appears.

Fiona said...

You forget the cap on the earnings disregard and so your figure of £10,000 plus is way too high: If she was as portrayed she could keep £20 per week of her earnings and the rest is deducted from all means tested benefits.

http://thosebigwords.forumcommunity.net/?t=53518871#entry373169027

RevStu said...

Disappointed to see some real stupidity in the comments here already.

1. Ms Belova apparently earns £125 from around 16 hours a week. That's £7.80 an hour, which is a rather poor rate for an actor, and also substantially below the "living wage" for London.

2. If she increased her hours to 40 a week, she'd be taking home an extra £187.50 - barely enough to cover her rent, and in practice not NEARLY enough, as she'd have to pay for 24 hours of childcare, which would swallow pretty much every penny.

3. That would in any event mean she was still entitled to the child benefit and tax credit, so you can hardly count those as "scrounging" - they're payments almost everyone on modest wages is entitled to, because the government subsidises employers paying people inadequately.

4. She'd also be entitled to working tax credit for the same reason, so a large chunk of the saving to the taxpayer from housing benefit would be lost again in WTC.

5. So really, what this person is "scrounging" from the state - in return for being a working mum bringing up a future taxpayer to pay for your pension - is more like £120 a week, or £6240 a year. MPs get £4800 a year JUST FOR FOOD. (Which they could easily afford to buy from their lavish salary.)

Short version: shut up, idiots.

lozd said...

Phil, what exactly is right wing about opposing unregulated immigration from less wealthy nations? Or thinking that eligibility for benefits should be based on citizenship rather than residency?

When you find yourself on the same side of the argument as the corporatocracy that supports and benefits from immigration you can hardly accuse others of being right-wing. The British working class could do without your kind of 'left'.

Latentexistence said...

I'm going to make a controversial statement now. I don't think it's right to claim that housing benefit is not income when comparing income from benefits with income from wages. I am disabled and live on ESA, and I receive housing benefit. Yes it's true that that housing benefit goes directly to my landlord, and true that rents are too high, but equally that is money paid by the government towards my living costs and it is disingenuous to say that it does not form part of my income when comparing to those funded entirely by wages. That said, many people earning a wage receive or are eligible for housing benefit, so perhaps they should include that figure in their income too.

Anonymous said...

Just to point something out........She is fukin working!!!!

Why shouldn't she apply for the benefits that are put in place???? Is it because she is from another country (bit racist that)???

Just to point another thing out, when the government cut back spending, they also increase unemployment. Are we suggesting that we make people suffer more by not helping them in any way????

Do I really live in a western society that people less fortunate than others are criticised for trying to survive???

SUN = Disgrace to journalism

Anonymous said...

I find it almost offensive you call yourself a sociologist, and would even question whether you have read sociology above GCSE level.

Also I assume you have never done any statistical sociological work, so I can understand this area might be a bit hard for you. So I'll help you out.

Average wage for someone with under 1 years experience: 19000k
http://career-advice.monster.co.uk/salary-benefits/pay-salary-advice/uk-average-salary-graphs/article.aspx

Tax paid per year on 19k: £2179

National insurance per year on 19k: £1368.96

So we are already at £15452.04 net wage. Now, let’s look at liabilities (I call them this as you have to pay them so they aren't like a car or fish tanks.)

Average council tax per year £1440
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7511700/Council-tax-bills-to-cost-the-average-family-around-120-a-month-from-April.html

Housing Benefit/rent based on Natalijas allowance: £2196

So with all this taken in to account on a 19k job you will only have £11816.04.

The figure of £11816.04 however does not take in to account travelling to and from work. A study carried out in 2009 pointed out that 79% of all workers outside of London travel to their work place by car.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13627199

A recent study by the AA showed that a car (When new valued up to 14k) costs on average £2400 per annum (standing cost), this excludes petrol/repairs, these extra costs equates to roughly £0.2191 per mile.

http://www.theaa.com/resources/Documents/pdf/motoring-advice/running-costs/petrol2012.pdf

So if we now take in to account the cost of the car, but exclude the petrol/repairs that brings your £19,000 down to £9416.04.

Petrol could be any amount but let’s say the commute is 4 miles a day that's £4.382 a week which is £227.864 per year based on a petrol price of £1.31 per litre so adjust as seen fit.

Soooooo........ The average pay for someone in the UK with 1 years experience is £19,000 from this money your disposable income will be
£9188.176 not taking in to account bills as both Natalija and the average worker would be subject to.

None of these figures take in to account Natalija does nothing and the other does 40 hour weeks, so this time is also not factored in but I doubt you would understand and I wouldn't want to waste any more of my time.
Sociology is about observing and recording social phenomena. As Sociologists (if I would even use that term) we are not here to pass judgment. Please don’t think this is anything to do with sociology as it isn’t!!!!!! This is your own opinion with no basis in sociology!

SimonDeMontfort said...

Arguing that Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit do not count as income is silly.

I have to pay part of my income on rent and council tax. By your logic the £400 a month I pay isn't income at all.

Either you count them both as income or neither.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I disagree. She *is* getting the money, even though it bypasses her and goes to landlord/local authority. Working people who can't claim these benefits still pay for such and their 'cash in pocket' income after rent/council tax is lessened, as you have done here (by showing she doesn't receive these benefits. As a Socialist myself, I would like to see every one have an even playing field, and don't like 'facts' being cherry-picked

Anonymous said...

Anyone who works 40 hours a week in a job where I don't get personal satisfaction is a fucking waste of space. I never watch the One Show so as far as i am concerned the wages their presenters get are a drain, I would prefer it if they paid them to empty the bins. The armed forces are a fucking waste of space and the money I have to spend on their fucking self inflicted wounds is a waste of my money.

Can everyone who doesn't contribute to my personal needs please fuck off and die and stop wasting valuable resources.

ians12 said...

I would think Dulcie Pearce is on more than £19k. After all, it's blood money!

Anonymous said...

THANK You for pointing out that this Natalija woman is in fact an actor, which has been bugging me all day. Even if incidental, no doubt she was paid a healthy sum for the story. And there is no way on that income she can afford designers clothes and luxury holidays.

Anonymous said...

A Future tax payer??? How do you know they will pay tax and not just draw from the state or assume they won't go back to there country of origin as that is what the majority of immigrants want to do..

Short version: Read a book, moron.

Anonymous said...

Here's a very large picture of Belova - wife of £Billionaire Russian Oligarch - the same woman that's being argued about in this discussion.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-549614/My-son-killed-Kremlin-agents-says-mother-missing-oligarch.html
The whole article is fake!

Anonymous said...

I think some people are missing the point. The story is fake - as in, she isn't getting benefits at all and the whole thing has been made up, with Natalia being paid to appear as a "benefit scounger".

James said...

I own one of the largest casting businesses in London. This girl is working regularly in extras, walk ons and the like. She has a spotlight and casting networks profile.

Yet still claiming?

It goes on all the time. Open your eyes.

Anonymous said...

Phil, I want to shake your hand, and buy you a drink! The other Anonymous - who posted the link to this fiction writer's other BS stories - is invited, as well!

Anonymous said...

Racist....... no that wouldn't be Racist go look it up. White northern Europeans are the same race R Tard.

Anonymous said...

Firstly, of all Natalia is not Lithuanian, she is Russian. Secondly, Lithuania is pretty wealthy country. Thirdly, I was earning more money at home than in England. Finally why not to write about me! I came to this country 2 years ago (from Lithuania), never asked for any benefits but in fact EMPLOYED over a dozen creative ENGLISH artists already.
Western political games and poor puppets. Media is nothing more than a virtual cube to shape “reality”.


A. said...

The point is that she is not what the Sun says she is.
She is an actress according one website, and a croupier, and still in work today according another one. And she seems to be working full time as a manager. http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/01/20/the-reality-behind-the-suns-hatchet-job-on-lithuanian-benefits-scrounger/

Obnoxio The Clown said...

"Until April, Housing Benefit is paid directly to her housing provider and the Council Tax payment bypasses her and goes to the relevant local authority."

Hello, what?

If *my* employer paid my housing costs directly, I would be taxed for a benefit in kind. If HMRC considers me getting my housing paid for as income, what the hell makes you think that it's not income for her? She gets the benefit of somewhere to live, which the rest of us have to pay for!

Anonymous said...

Want to be an actor? Say "I'm an actor". There, you're an actor.

And how many actors are in work at any one time? 10% maybe if you're lucky, and a lot of those on the minimum allowable (which isn't much). So it's very possible she earns £7.80 an our because she isn't working as an actor, she's doing some p/t job in a bat or Tescos while she is resting.

As for the "it isn't income" argument it's rubbish. The state has to fork it over because she doesn't earn enough, it's income

Lieutenant Steel said...

This is ludicrous garbage- at what point is the 'average' wage, for someone with one year/ under one years experience, £19K a year?

I graduated from a good university, have held multiple minimum wage jobs, and struggle to find a job that will pay me LESS than £19K a year- in London or otherwise.

Assuming the rest of your argument is based on those statistics, I find it hard to believe that everything else you wrote isn't also off point.

I agree with one of the anonymous posters above- this government has made more people unemployed than any since Thatcher was in power, and then tries to turn public opinion against them (not too difficult it seems!) when they try to get by and live on the poor wages that are available.

We are known throughout Europe as being one of the most xenophobic nations in the West and it's not surprising to see why that view exists when I read comments like this.

Loz said...

We're fighting over the crumbs here.

i.e. doing exactly what the wealthy - via The Sun - want us to do.

The wealth of the 10 richest individuals on earth could end poverty 4 times over.

And yet we fight about the crumbs and focus on each other.

Shoeysmum said...

Oh if only we took as much care of our elderly as we do to these immigrants.

The vast majority of our elderly population (me included, well apart from when I had my children) have worked all their lives; paid taxes and so contributed to our Nation's economy. Many have contributed to a pension plan to enhance their retirement income and bought their own property. Because they have been thrifty they're not entitled to the benefits that many of today's career benefit scroungers receive.

There is indeed something intrinsically wrong with our society!

Menelaus said...

I think everyone's missing the point here. It's that The Sun claim that she receives over £14,500 in benefits which is a downright lie.

Anonymous said...

I am a self employed person. More then qualified GCSE's high grades. Engineering at college HNC building services at university level worked all the way through my courses. Qualified in Computer aided design.
My self employment is CAD based work. Here is the catch though I have a disability. Im not talking about a fictitious back problem or depression. Limb amputation.. I worked for the same company for 10year till the "recession" and I have only been on JSA of 3months after the last company went under. I decided to go self employed cause quite frankly JSA is not enough to live off. Unfortunately there is not the work out there. I was offered a full time job by a company but when I asked for 22K per year they said wouldn't offer near that. Bit of an insult really but that's what it was and that's the way that the Job climate is at the moment. House prices are scandalously high. Petrol prices are a rip off. Food is on the up. VAT on everything is now 20% and energy prices are increasing.
Housing benefit is paid to give people a basic right to a roof above there heads. Council tax benefit
is given to people that otherwise wouldn't have the means to pay for it. So is it the governments fault or industry's. There both as bad as each other. The government wants to take more tax of people to pay for the increasing welfare bill and industry does not want to pay people what they are worth cause the work just isn't there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Hogg Douglas Hogg got around 14,000 pounds worth of expenses to maintain his grounds on his estate. Trust me when I say this that would have kept a roof over my head for the next 3years. So you need to ask yourselves is it the people with a basic need for a roof over there heads that people should target or MP's that clean Moats with that money

Anonymous said...

Still wat tooo much .... this country has to many freeloaders at the botoom and the top of the tree

Anonymous said...

Housing benefit is an income to the housing associations and private landlords. If house prices were not so silly and high then people would be able to buy. Given that your saying "paying for housing". Im assuming your in the fortunate position of having a good enough job to do so and that your income is above that of what is classed as a low enough income to need housing benefit. Think yourself luck
your not in the situation to need it. But also think yourself lucky that it is there in case you ever did lose your job and did need it.

Anonymous said...

the 125 she gets a week is cause she works. The more money she makes that then gets offset against her benefits. As income increases benefits decrease. If her acting career took off tomorrow and she was getting a decent income coming in then her taxes would pay back into the system. It all goes down to what is our basic human rights in this country. Multiple kids without the means to support them is a perversion of the system yes. Out of that 125 a week she will have energy bills travel to her job food bills. Like anyone else its not just holidays and clothes.

Anonymous said...

"working people" Working people with a decent enough income. If you were in the unfortunate position of having no work or limited work which is a real possibility in today's job climate. You yourself would claim benefits. Don't say you wouldn't either we both know that's a lie. If the state didn't pay for MP's expenses or the Bank managers million pound bonuses then. Basic housing benefit wouldn't need targeting.

funkiechicken said...

I work in benefits and this woman does not receive any social security benefits (she wouldn't qualify) she has found work and gets help with her housing due to low income and help to support her child.
I can't see what the out cry is? You are eligible for possible help with housing and council tax if you earn £13k or less a year. Some people qualify for as little as £10per week to help with their rent. It is income related and assessed as such.
It is a ploy by the Sun and the gov't villainise those in the lowest incomes in this country - and to make you really hate then, throws in the fact she's not british.
Everyone misses the point that she's working and paying into this country. They call it "Benefits" so that it sounds like she is living solely on handouts.
I would be interested to know, who she refused full time work to and who thought they had the authority to tell her to do so, seeing as (due to her hours of work & earnings) she would not be eligible to claim any unemployment related benefits and therefore have no reason to be under any employment agreements with the Jobcentre...??

The whole article is rubbish and full of non-truths.

Yet no one cared that multi millionaire Cameron claimed DLA or that morally would you? when you dont need the money to help with the extra cost of disability care? He claims £21k a year for his mortgage and even for his tv license. But stands pledging to end the culture of entitlement??
Nobody cared, that when they were proposing to stop child benefit for everyone and have it based on income, that more than half of the top paid politicians, not only had physically applied for child benefit, but also said that they didn't need it and donated it to charity. No one wondered why they applied if they didn't need it, nor were bothered they took it and give it away!?
This country needs to keep a closer eye on what the rich are doing instead of witch hunting a woman who is working hard but needs extra support.
What type of people are we???

Anonymous said...

Couldn't agree with that point more.. She is working the hours she can work. If her acting career takes off tomorrow she will be putting back into society with as much taxes from her income.

funkiechicken said...

I highly recommend that you look into the qualifying criteria for claiming benefits when you are from abroad. There are different rules based on whether you are from the EU, an A8 Country (Poland, Czech, Romania etc) and Other Countries.
You may be enlightened by the reality that people do not walk in this country and get benefits.
Citizenship shouldn't mean you qualify either. My dad lives and works abroad, does that mean everytime he pops over for a holiday he's entitled to benefit? My younger brother has UK passport. Yet has never been here. On your theory, he would also be able to take out of this country even though he won't ever pay into it, or ever live here. And you'd be surprised about how many UK passport holders living abroad think they have the God given right to benefits just because they take a 3mth trip to England to visit Auntie Edna before jetting back to the sun......sad, but true.

Anonymous said...

if you dont pay taxes dont receive benefits simple

Dan said...

You can argue both ways whether the Council Tax benefit and Housing Benefit which goes straight to Landlord or Council should be described as income or not but that is not really the point.

The shock horror story is a forigner is forign and FORIGNERS who WORK and PAY TAXES in this country still get working benefits like citizens of the UK!

We have a media and a large portion of the population who have never accepted that the European Union is a Federal Union and all citizens are equal, we can work in Benidorm or Aya Napa, retire in France or Italy and get construction jobs in Auf Weidersehn Germany, and this has been in place for 40 years.

We can change the law to say you do not get child benefit unless you have paid NI contributions for 5 years, but we can not set the law that Lithuanian working single mothers do not get it but Liverpool or Newcastle single mothers do.


If we want to have an honest discussion about housing benefits v rent controls, or minimum wage levels v Tax credits we might be getting somewhere, but this article simply attacks someone for being forign and being in reciept of the same level of in work benefits that millions of others get.

martin ellis-hall said...

surely the point is the story is a lie, therefore the content is worthless,nothing can be be believed it is fake, it's purpose to get working people ranting against benefits claimants, congratulations all who were 'played' by the sun

Anonymous said...

Minimum wage A roof over our heads and enough to put the heating on and food in our mouths.
The rich feed the poor. Them fortunate enough to be rich or slightly well of or even just borderline
OK. When did we become a nation of self centered people. You have money from privilege. David Cameron
comes from a very well off background and he quotes things like we need to stop this something for nothing culture. lets do an experiment with him. take his money off him temporarily make him work in a dead end job for minimum wage give him a really crap high crime area to live in throw in a child so he has to work around the child's hours. Then take his benefits off him and just make him live of minimum wage. No cheating no lies do it for a year then see if he still has the same stance. Or if he he decides that government expenses should take up the deficit. 2000 quid for a MOAT cleaning these people don't live in the same world. Two JAGS. Millionaire Cabinet ministers

Anonymous said...

Ryanair do flights to that neck of the woods for £9.99, just sayin'

Karen Mitchell said...

Housing benefit is not money in the hand, same way as paying a mortgage can't be classed as money in the hand therefore when it comes to what this person, or any other person on benefit has to LIVE on, after the rent and council tax is paid for.

Housing benefit in this country is a joke. It won't pay towards your own mortgage so you can stay in your own home... it forces you to move so that it can pay someone ELSE'S mortgage on THEIR home instead. How is that fair?
and before you say 'why should the state pay for my house', wonder why they can pay for someone else's instead.

It STINKS when there are so many perfectly serviceable, empty properties that could be utilised for social housing (a phrase which seems to have gone the way of the dinosaurs). Any scheme that pulls down ex council houses to put up privately owned Barratt boxes, no matter how 'affordable' they THINK they are, is simply putting money in the pockets of the landlords and taking housing options away from those who really need it.
Sort the housing situation out, and the benefits bill drops. Simple, right?

funkiechicken said...

That eliminates college/university leavers or anyone whose earned less than £10k a year, but still bothered to get up everyday and work.
it's not simple. It's not cut & dry and not every benefit claimant is a lazy good for nothing whose never got off the sofa their whole lives. Not every situation is the same, not everyone gets the same.

You'll all agree to Cameron's benefit reforms, until one day life deals people the shitty stick and there's nothing left in place to help you.
When you hear people who've worked 10years, lose their jobs and have to make £71pwk pay everything, cry their eyes out cos they'll end up losing what they're worked for and the best you can do is point them to the nearest soup kitchen, then people might finally realise that despite what's in the papers, you dont get alot and it's not always a lifestyle choice.
People should stop being so Holier Than Thou, cos one day it might be it you.......

Anonymous said...

The Scum reading tossers who have flockedhere like rats need murdering for the greater good.

pauli said...

Can't believe the credulity of some people.
The Sun "report" is clearly a sham.
The wording is obviously not the woman's but transposed into agit-prop for raising the hackles of ignorant Sun readers in to a tirade against Europeans and benefits claimants.

She has allowed herself to be used as a stooge to further Durmuck's agenda in return for free publicity and possibly some cash.

Just like the article about the heroine with 5 jobs who refused benefits, this has the veracity of
Lieutenant Kijé.

Anonymous said...

Yeah again people are not seeing the point and just want to benefit bash this woman is a actor, the story is fake she isn't claiming anything, she probably doesn't even have a child if her facebook is anything to go by, she works and hired by The Sun to front a anti story about welfare, get a reality check and see what they are doing.

Chris said...

Because the House of Frasier can't pay a living wage to it's staff my sister has to live on tax credits. She never misses a days work incidentally. Now the bastards want to take that away. But this will end up biting the bastards back as companies like the House of Fraser will no longer find people who can afford to live off their meagre wages.

Incidentally, for all those moaning about foreigners, we actually live off their backs. Most of the products you buy in the shops are made by people who work a lot fucking harder than any of you do and for a lot less money. They should be the ones complaining.

But don't worry, that little gravy train will come to an end eventually and your offspring will be the ones to pay for the backward, spiteful and ignorant shit you believe now.

The Sun is not your friend, but then again neither are you!

pauli said...

"But this will end up biting the bastards back as companies like the House of Fraser will no longer find people who can afford to live off their meagre wages."

They aren't worried, HoF et al can always get the government to pay them to take on free labour thanks to the WorkunFare scheme.

Anonymous said...

It is made up story by politicians for low and mid earning people to attract more voters for actual political wing in coming elections by setting up anger in readers mind.
People who ordered that story, they are analyzing our reactions to it and will be followed by further instructions regardless of our wishes.
It's their game, do not give up intrigues.

Anonymous said...

Oh my Goodness. The whole point missed judging by some of the comments. This is about The Sun and one of their journo's LYING. AGAIN Lets not forget the Sun and our Prime Minister are hand in hand Mr C probably commissioned the lie so the cattle class (us)he is intent on destroying would read it and believe it and turn upon themselves.

Phil said...

When I logged in the other night after dealing with a very ill cat, I was amazed to see 30 comments waiting for me - and there's no way I'm going to respond to every hostile one, especially when so many others have reiterated the basic point so well.

But what some of the rants indicate is how unthinking the prejudice - for that is what it is - around social security has become.

Julie said...

I think the article is more revealing for what it does NOT say. It's 'okay' for a BRITISH woman to claim single parent benefits and housing benefit even though not officially cohabiting with someone. I say 'okay' because I think people do accept that it is not the right thing to do, but British people have no choice. Foreigners, well, they can go home. That's all.

Anonymous said...

OK... As far as I can tell, neither Dulcie Pearce nor this article are January fools :'( http://journalisted.com/dulcie-pearce?allarticles=yes

Also, I think I found another glaring inconsistency (surprise, surprise):
"I need a full-time job that pays at least £25,000 — that is just enough to cover all my living costs that benefits currently pay for."

So... £25,000 is "just enough" to maintain her *current* living standards, but she "currently" gets £14,508. Where did the extra £10,500 in living expenses come from?

Is that just losing track of all the lies, or some more interesting accounting?

Sorry if someone's already said this, most of the other numbers in the comments seemed to have more in-depth analysis of the £14,500, so I thought I'd flag this up. Love the blog :)

Alex said...

I wonder if Dulcie Pearce is a DAILY MAIL REPORTER/Alan Smithee?

ISTR there was some suspicion during the Leveson inquiry that there was at least one News International byline that wasn't actually a person.

Phil said...

She does appear to be real, sadly.