But the people in this show were lied to to gain their participation. That should be a crime.
Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. We don't know - and clearly when the participants saw the end result, some could easily lie and say they never knew. I mean, some of them aren't exactly big on accepting responsibility for anything.
The fact is, they were filmed over a long period of time. They gave permission to be filmed, and surely would have been fully aware that everything they said or did could be captured. I mean, they would have read the contract, no*?
And, despite signing a contract with the production company, I am sure that if they'd really wanted any particular incident removed from the programme there would have been some sort of process to do so.
So, I can't see how it could ever be a crime.
What I will say though is this; Why do so many people gladly volunteer to be filmed in such circumstances? I always wonder that when I see the people on Jeremy Kyle-style shows. Why would you volunteer to take part?
* One could ask if the production company offered to read or explain the contract to any participants that couldn't read. I don't know the answer to that.
I can't see why they'd care. They'd be seeking to work with whoever was in power, and I doubt these types of programmes would suddenly cease.
They're made because people will watch them. It doesn't matter who is in power at any given time does it? We, the people, watch this stuff and the only way to stop these programmes is incredibly obvious - but still near impossible.
It shows the people who agreed to be shown. That's all.
It is shows how many people as a percentage of the whole street are employed or unemployed. It does not show the number of people who agreed to be shown.
I should have read further but it was not on screen.
The press were saying that 90% of the street was unemployed, but the stats show it was less than 50%.
It shows the people who agreed to be shown. That's all.
I guess most people told the production company to sod off as they could imagine how things might look when broadcast.
As I said before, why do some people agree to make themselves look so bad? Is it the desire to be famous, at any cost?
The ones that are shown probably wanted people coming up to them and asking them if they were the ones in Benefits Street. If they think they're going to be famous, they're very deluded.
The ones that are shown probably wanted people coming up to them and asking them if they were the ones in Benefits Street. If they think they're going to be famous, they're very deluded.
Infamous more like. I get the impression White Dee believes she does no wrong, and is the Godmother of the street.
It's a shame people are attempting to knock any chance of the residents from gaining a media profile/paid job. Who cares how tacky it will appear to be.
It's a shame people are attempting to knock any chance of the residents from gaining a media profile/paid job. Who cares how tacky it will appear to be.
true, if they can get a job, some good would have come from this program
The truly worrying thing to me is that she & her friends had these class A drugs in their houses where there are small children & she & one of her friends were in possession of ammunition, which probably means there are guns not too far away.
Funny how the Police raid a ton of houses while the series is on and just a day after Iain Duncan Smith tells the Telegraph that some on tax credits spend their extra money on drink and drugs while neglecting their children.
I suspect there might be something to this raid - the plan to link welfare to criminality. Not the first time it's happened.
Funny how the Police raid a ton of houses while the series is on and just a day after Iain Duncan Smith tells the Telegraph that some on tax credits spend their extra money on drink and drugs while neglecting their children.
I suspect there might be something to this raid - the plan to link welfare to criminality. Not the first time it's happened.
Comments
Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. We don't know - and clearly when the participants saw the end result, some could easily lie and say they never knew. I mean, some of them aren't exactly big on accepting responsibility for anything.
The fact is, they were filmed over a long period of time. They gave permission to be filmed, and surely would have been fully aware that everything they said or did could be captured. I mean, they would have read the contract, no*?
And, despite signing a contract with the production company, I am sure that if they'd really wanted any particular incident removed from the programme there would have been some sort of process to do so.
So, I can't see how it could ever be a crime.
What I will say though is this; Why do so many people gladly volunteer to be filmed in such circumstances? I always wonder that when I see the people on Jeremy Kyle-style shows. Why would you volunteer to take part?
* One could ask if the production company offered to read or explain the contract to any participants that couldn't read. I don't know the answer to that.
God forbid
I can't see why they'd care. They'd be seeking to work with whoever was in power, and I doubt these types of programmes would suddenly cease.
They're made because people will watch them. It doesn't matter who is in power at any given time does it? We, the people, watch this stuff and the only way to stop these programmes is incredibly obvious - but still near impossible.
If I am reading that correctly, 50% are working and the other 50% are not working, but only 15-20% of them are unemployed?
If that is the case, then a fair balanced show would have equally show the same number of working people or more on the show?
It shows the people who agreed to be shown. That's all.
I guess most people told the production company to sod off as they could imagine how things might look when broadcast.
As I said before, why do some people agree to make themselves look so bad? Is it the desire to be famous, at any cost?
It is shows how many people as a percentage of the whole street are employed or unemployed. It does not show the number of people who agreed to be shown.
I should have read further but it was not on screen.
The press were saying that 90% of the street was unemployed, but the stats show it was less than 50%.
Thank you, so it shows how biased the press were by saying over 90% did not work.
How they got that figure is a mystery.
There is a difference - as has been explained on here. Many people are in receipt of some type of benefit but might be in work.
We receive child benefit, for example, but both of us work.
The ones that are shown probably wanted people coming up to them and asking them if they were the ones in Benefits Street. If they think they're going to be famous, they're very deluded.
That might be what the media means by 90% are on benefits. But that would be disingenuous if so.
Infamous more like. I get the impression White Dee believes she does no wrong, and is the Godmother of the street.
Much of the general public don't understand what this government call "benefits".
Meanwhile the state underwrites getting onto the housing ladder... (so welfare for the better off, deny it from those who need it the most)
Surely this government is a elaborate practical joke?
The Government is just a joke
true, if they can get a job, some good would have come from this program
Have no sympathy for drug dealers
The truly worrying thing to me is that she & her friends had these class A drugs in their houses where there are small children & she & one of her friends were in possession of ammunition, which probably means there are guns not too far away.
Yes she is 'Black Dee'.
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2014/01/25/black-dee-among-seven-charged-in-benefits-street-police-raids/
They could lose their council homes if found guilty.
I suspect there might be something to this raid - the plan to link welfare to criminality. Not the first time it's happened.
The initial raids were carried out in June according to this article that I read earlier on today.
Well my neighbours been convicted twice for drug dealing and served jail terms and he hasn't lost his council house