How Newsnight demonised a single mother
On Wednesday night BBC Newsnight did a short piece on housing benefit and welfare reform. Its reporter Allegra Stratton briefly interviewed (7m14s in) a young woman for the piece.
In the short interview, very little is said about the context to the woman’s situation – she is only asked about why she wants a house.
Then Stratton says: “we both know people who are living with their parents… they don’t have a job and… they have fights – that’s what happens.”
Later, directly to the camera, she adds: “The government is thinking of saying to young people: if you don’t have work, don’t leave home.”
Most likely you thought the young woman was unemployed. But she wasn’t.
Watch the interview
Update: Allegra Stratton also asked Shanene: “Do u think you should have had your daughter,” she tells me, but that question was not shown. Why is that even asked?
Still absolutely fuming about the way I was portrayed on national tv last night. A day of mundane tasks at WORK is not helping
— Neney (@Nenes_Life) May 24, 2012
She then added in a series of tweets:
To set the record straight, I work for tower hamlets council, I’ve worked since 16 and I only get help towards my rent because it is so high.
I pay the same amount of as paying a mortgage, full rent on a council property, or someone living outside of london, they top up the rest.
It happens that I’ve worked in retail for years up until now so never qualified for a mortgage and wasn’t handed a cushty council flat.
The council offered to pay my deposit if I found my own accom as it was part of a scheme the had at the time. Unfortunately u can’t get much.
In london for under 4 figures a month, but wanting to bring my daughter myself and raise her my way, I took it.
Bar studying, I’ve always worked (sometimes both).
I got a call from my supervisor asking if I’d be happy to be filmed at work to show the side of the working single parent/ young person.
Of course I’d be happy to do that, being a working mum is something I’m proud of… Its not been all plain sailing.
I did not expect to be personally scrutinised, have judgements made about my choices and asked why I didn’t choose to get rid of my child.
Things happen in life and you have to do your best, I feel that I have and was mortified to be portrayed that way on tv.
No one judges me more than I judge myself, claiming benefits was something I struggled to come to terms with and motivated me to work more.
Unfortunately being employed isn’t enough. For me, this is a means to an end.
I don’t agree with nor expect freebies and handouts but at least help the people who are willing to help themselves
I was interviewed for the bbc and when the piece was aired it was edited to make me seem like a jobless ponce!
I am the taxpayer! And come to think of it I get in HB as much as I pay in tax working full time so really I fund what I get.
I think she has a complete right to get angry.
Shanene Thorpe is now making an official complaint to the BBC.
(hat tip @Epipsychidion86)
How voters changed minds on Control Orders
Never mind the ‘liberal intelligensia’, is the public for or against Control Orders? Yesterday the Sunday Times published details of a poll saying that most people supported them.
But it comes down to how the question is asked, as YouGov show today.
The Sunday Times poll for YouGov asked this question:
Current laws allow the government to impose control orders on people who they suspect pose a serious terrorist threat, but who they do not have evidence to prosecute. Control orders can restrict where suspects are allowed to go, items they are not allowed to possess, and who they are allowed to see or communicate with. They do not require a trial and there are only limited rights of appeal. Do you think the Government should or should not have the power to use control orders?
A big majority, 73% say ‘should’, while 15% say ‘should not’; the rest don’t know.
They also asked:
Some people have suggested a compromise, where people subject to control orders would be allowed the freedom to leave their house, but would still be banned from going abroad and have limits on who they could meet. Which of the following best reflects your response to this suggestion?
This time, 38% said: ‘These changes would weaken control orders to an unacceptable extent and put people at greater risk from terrorism’, while 31% said ‘These changes are an acceptable compromise that would impact less on people’s freedoms while still keeping us safe from terrorism’. A further 31% said ‘neither’ or ‘don’t know’.
A clear cut case? Not necessarily.
YouGov also did a poll for the human rights group Liberty, which phrased the question differently:
Which of the following is a better way of dealing with people suspected of terrorism, when they have not been arrested or charged?
• Restricting where suspects can go and who they can meet, electronically tagging them and banning them from using telephones and the internet
• NOT imposing such restrictions, but instead placing them under intensive surveillance and monitoring their communications, in order to gather evidence with which to prosecute them
40% supported the Control Orders option, while 46% supported the second one.
YouGov’s Peter Kellner draws three conclusions from this:
First, our findings are consistent with our past surveys: that if there is a trade-off then, for most people, national security trumps civil liberties. Those who argue for civil liberties to be upheld regardless of the risk of terrorism are in a small minority.
Second, that supporters of human rights and habeas corpus need to challenge that trade-off, rather than argue that civil liberties matter more than the threat of terrorism. If they can win the argument that control orders in practice do more harm than good (for example by alienating ‘moderate’ Muslims or because some of those subject to control orders still manage to evade their restrictions), then they can win over millions of voters.
Third, public opinion is fluid. When minds are made up, then question wording matters far less. People know which side they are on, and are less prone to be swayed by specific words or assumptions underlying the different questions. But when attitudes are less fixed, different questions can produce very different results. That is the position today with control orders.
But the biggest danger to the Coalition would be that the public were convinced that the fudge over Control Orders was engineered to keep the government afloat rather than a concern for civil liberties or public safety.
Oona: I want a London-wide school bus system
London Mayor contender Oona King has called for a city-wide bus system to serve schools, saying it would ease congestion and help poorer residents.
Oona King is running against Ken Livingstone to be Labour’s candidate for Mayor.
In an article for Tribune magazine published this week, she said that the school run causes 20% of London’s congestion.
We need a school bus system across the city. This is something I will make happen. Forget about the old arguments about the bendy bus and the Routemaster. The future is school buses. And I shall be the Mayor to deliver them.
She also said she would promise better night buses to outer London.
If you live 10 or 15 miles out you have just as much a right to an easy bus ride home late at night as those living in zones one or two. And I want to make cycling easier, with bike lane superhighways and a quadrupling of parking places for bikes.
Last week at a Labour Party meeting in Ilford North she also she would “consider” building on green belt land in order to ease housing shortage.
But that policy was immediately criticised by Ken Livingstone, who said he wanted to protect London’s existing green spaces and would concentrate house-building on ‘brownfield’ land.
Tesco signs ‘let girls be girls’ campaign
Retail giant Tesco is the latest to sign the Mumsnet website campaign, ‘Let Girls be Girls’, against premature sexualisation of children.
The u-turn has come literally hours after Tesco was criticised for selling high-heeled shoes to girls as young as three.
The Mumsnet website explains the reasoning behind the campaign:
A growing number of toys, clothes (‘sexy’ slogans on young girls’ clothing) and accessories (Playboy-branded stationery sets, anyone?) encourage children to enter the world of adult sexuality.
There are plenty of reasons to be worried by this trend:
- It introduces children to the world of adult sexuality, when elsewhere we are rightly encouraging them to resist the pressure to become sexually active at a young age
- It tells girls that the most important quality they need is ‘sexiness’ and that female sexuality is all about pleasing others
- It encourages a culture in which children are viewed as sexually available
- Authorities as varied as the NSPCC, the NUT and the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams have all weighed in on this issue, calling for a halt to the premature sexualisation trend.
The campaign offers retailers a positive course of action – to pledge that they will only offer products “which don’t play upon, exploit, or emphasise children’s sexuality”.
De Menezes family: Ian Blair peerage ‘insult’
A spokesperson for the J4J (Justice For Jean) campaign last week condemned the decision to give former Met Police chief Ian Blair a peerage as an “insult”.
This seems like a final flourish of a discredited Parliamentary system handing out tawdry awards to political allies and cronies. Actions like this only reinforce the impression that politicians remain detached from the views of ordinary British people.
Jean Charles De Menezes was shot by Met Police officers in 2005. An investigation later showed the Met Police repeatedly tried to block the inquiry into his death.
Vivian Figuereda, cousin of Jean Charles de Menezes, who lived with him at the time of his death said:
We are disgusted at this decision. As Commissioner, we believe Ian Blair was ultimately accountable for the death of Jean, for the lies told and the cover up. He even tried to stop the IPCC investigating our cousin’s death. This is a final slap in the face for our family.
Blogger Kevin Blowe added:
Quite how someone, who deliberately delayed an investigation into a hugely controversial death and whose force was found to have made nineteen catastrophic errors that endangered the lives of Londoners, could ever been viewed as fit to serve in the House of Lords, or provide the benefits of his ‘specialist knowledge’, is quite beyond me. Once again, it rather makes the case for the abolition of the Lords so that such blatant acts of patronage are no longer possible.
Indeed.
PR voting demanded as top reform by public
A demand for proportional representation was voted as the top Parliament reform by popular choice, the Power2010 campaign group said today.
The most popular proposals that will make up the ‘Power Pledge’ will now be: PR, the end of ID cards and government data hoarding, an elected House of Lords, English votes on English laws, and a commitment to drawing up a written constitution.
Over a 100,000 votes were cast on the Power2010 website, which also conducted deliberative discussion events across the country.
Power2010 Director Pam Giddy said:
This campaign sends the clearest possible message to the political classes that it is time to listen to the people’s demands. 100,000 votes were cast – and we expect many thousands of people across the country to pledge their support before the election.
We’ve taken the campaign to towns and cities across the country and everywhere heard the same thing: it’s time to fix our political system, not fiddle it.
The next phase of the campaign will see voters asked to commit their support to a majority of the proposals – at least three – and then challenge every candidate at the next general election to support them too.
A network of regional campaigners, supported by high profile partner organisations and a national marketing campaign will also be used to push the campaign forward.
Pam Giddy added:
We’re going to keep up the pressure until election day to make sure the people who want to represent us in parliament take these results seriously and back our campaign for change.
The campaign is backed by the Joseph Rowntree Trusts and is supported by a wide coalition of organisations and individuals.
www.power2010.org.uk
From a press release
Green Party conference kicks off today
The Green Party’s Spring Conference kicks off today at the Arts Depot in North London.
Today’s events will include debates on Low Wages (hosted by London AM Darren Johnson) as well as: ‘Co-operatives and the Green Party’, climate change and ‘Green Party Women’ (hosted by Natalie Bennett, Green Party PPC for Holborn and St Pancras).
Tomorrow, the conference will be addressed by Caroline Lucas MEP in the morning.
It will also hold a session on civil liberties and blogging / new media (hosted by Jim Jepps) later in the day.
Jim Jepps adds on his blog:
There’s some interesting stuff on the agenda, including an over-haul of our health policy, the beginnings of our science and technology review, blogging workshop and technical constitutional reforms of which I’m probably a thousand times more interested in that you are.
A full time-table of the conference is here.
You can also follow the debate on Twitter at the #gpconf hashtag.
Japan joins global call for Robin Hood tax
A Japanese Finance Minister has called for the country to impose a tax on financial transactions to curb market volatility, also dubbed the ‘Robin Hood tax’.
Naoki Minezaki said market volatility threatened economic growth.
Bloomberg reports him saying::
“We’re seeing speculative funds flowing carelessly around the world — one day in stocks and real estate other times in oil and grains — and this is destroying the lives of ordinary people,” Minezaki wrote in an e-mail to supporters and reporters on Feb. 15. “We have to implement the Tobin Tax as part of international solidarity,” he said, adding that the levy could also boost revenue.
Japan is now fourth in the seven richest countries on the planet to endorse the Tobin, a.k.a. Robin Hood tax. It joins the leaders of Britain, France and Germany.
Owen Tudor at the ToUChstone blog welcomed the news, adding:
Four out of seven. Er, that’s a majority isn’t it? Of course, the US administration is yet to be convinced, but we are getting closer to the tipping point.For those who don’t like decisions being made by the richest countries in the world, the G7 does actually have traction on this issue, because most financial transactions do take place in those richest countries.
Over 70% of the value of global transactions are in just three: Britain, Germany and the USA. And there isn’t actually a mechanism to introduce a global tax, so in reality what a global tax means is the co-ordinated introduction of taxes by the countries where the financial transactions take place.
Japan’s move is likely to put pressure on the US to move in the same direction.
Petition on Pope hits 11k names; protests planned
A signature campaign against the Pope’s visit to the UK has gathered over 11,000 signatures according to the National Secular Society’s website.
The organisation has announced a large-scale campaign of protest against the state visit of the Pope to Britain in September.
The trip is estimated to cost around £20 million, payable by the taxpayer.
Terry Sanderson, president of the NSS, said:
We have an online petition where people can make clear their opposition to the state funding of this visit. If the Catholic Church wishes its leader to come here, it should pay for the visit itself.
I am sure many others feel the same resentment as we do at the NSS at funding the presence of someone who wishes to impose a reactionary agenda of social change on us.
He said a coalition of groups that have suffered because of the Pope’s teachings will ensure that wherever he goes he will be aware that he has caused damage and hurt in the lives of real people.
The coalition was seeking to bring together gay groups, feminist groups, family planning organisations, pro-choice groups, victim support groups and anyone who feels under siege from “the Vatican’s current militancy”.
Peter Tatchell, the human rights campaigner told The Times:
His ill-informed claim that our equality laws undermine religious freedom suggests that he supports the right of Churches to discriminate in accordance with their religious ethos.
He seems to be defending discrimination by religious institutions and demanding that they should be above the law.
Campaign groups call to cancel Haiti’s debt
A growing call has been reverberating across the world to cancel Haiti’s debt ever since the earthquake.
Yesterday the global campaign group Avaaz sent out an email asking people to sign their petition to cancel the country’s debt. Avaaz and partners will deliver it to the IMF and key finance ministers next week.
Their move comes after another anti-poverty group, One, handed over a petition with 150,000 signatures to the International Monetary Fund.
The petition asked that the IMF cancel Haiti’s $165 million debt repayment obligation when the board meets later this week. “Swift action by the IMF would increase momentum and pressure on all creditors,” One said in a statement, according to HuffPo.
This week Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez also announced he was canceling Haiti’s $295 million debt to Petrocaribe, Venezuela’s energy regional energy distributor. “Haiti has no debt with Venezuela — on the contrary, it is Venezuela that has a historic debt with Haiti,” Chavez said.
On Facebook, a group demanding, ‘No Shock Doctrine for Haiti‘ – has accumulated over 30,000 members already.
The World Bank, also under heavy criticism along with the IMF, announced this week it was waiving Haiti’s debt repayments for the next five years.
The Nation magazine reported this week on the issue too:
[Naomi] Klein says that this is “unprecedented in my experience and shows that public pressure in moments of disaster can seriously subvert shock doctrine tactics.” Neil Watkins, Executive Director of Jubilee USA, likewise hails the IMF’s response. “Since the IMF’s announcement last week of its intention to provide Haiti with a $100 million loan, Jubilee USA and our partners have been calling for grants and debt cancellation–not new loans–for Haiti. We are pleased that Managing Director Strauss-Kahn has responded to that call.”
Watkins and others will continue to follow the issue, holding the IMF to its commitment to debt relief and non-conditionality. They’re also pressing the case on Haiti’s other outstanding debt. The largest multilateral holders of Haiti’s debt are the Inter-American Development Bank ($447 million), the IMF ($165 million, plus $100 million in new lending), the World Bank’s International Development Association ($39 million) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development ($13 million). The largest bilateral loans are held by Venezuela ($295 million–hello, Chavez!?) and Taiwan ($92 million).
The lesson: public pressure works, especially in a moment of such acutely visible human need. Keep up the mobilization, on Facebook and in real life.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Criticism of Obama for its own sake: a reply to Mehdi Hasan
» Do older people really need more NHS healthcare?
» There are alternatives to the reckless ‘Plan A’
» On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people
» Why Cameron’s claim of 600,000 jobs created is plainly wrong
» By using age to allocate NHS funding, Lansley rewards Tory voters
» The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem
» Adrian Beecroft highlights mindset of Tory right
» The US is now a model for the Eurozone to save itself
» The IMF plan to revive the economy doesn’t go far enough
» The Boris brand is weaker than his friends think
|
48 Comments 93 Comments 24 Comments 58 Comments 10 Comments 26 Comments 24 Comments 69 Comments 44 Comments 25 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » Chaise Guevara posted on Robin Hood tax: backed by the rich AND the rest, says new poll » Chaise Guevara posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic" » Chris Smith posted on BBC misrepresents gas story to help 'deniers' » Just Visiting posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic" » Trooper Thompson posted on UKIP higher than Libdems over May » Trooper Thompson posted on Robin Hood tax: backed by the rich AND the rest, says new poll » Cylux posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic" » Tim Worstallt posted on Robin Hood tax: backed by the rich AND the rest, says new poll » Just Visiting posted on On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people » Robin Hood tax: backed by the rich AND the rest, says new poll | Liberal Conspiracy posted on Poll: banks not paying fair share for crisis » Chaise Guevara posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic" » Chaise Guevara posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic" » Just Visiting posted on On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people » john b posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic" » Cylux posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic" |
