Skip to main content

Chewing the fat

Taking a break in between rainstorms to do my shopping on a different day, I'm on the bus (when it eventually showed up) listening to the dull witted tones of Radio Bristol's cretinous weekday morning current affairs phone in. I really don't know why I do this to myself, but I like to believe that one day we'll get a sensible discussion, or at the very least a sensible caller. 
Not today though. The topic comes from the news that local school teachers are feeding kids out of their own pocket because there are so many, now, that aren't getting fed properly. There are also over subscribed breakfast clubs as well. But instead of a sensible objective discussion we get the usual right wing cliches propagated at the very least tacitly by a moron presenter. It seems as though the only people that ever get through are just right wing curtain twitchers in their later years who hark to a golden day that never truly existed outside of the populist press. One cretin even suggested docking the benefits of those that didn't feed their kids properly while every caller was asked 'is it responsibility or poverty', because of course these issues are so simplistic. Of course all the parents of these unfed waifs are lazy. Of course they spend their benefits (what else?) on Sky/Fags/Booze/Plasma TV/Something I Don't Approve Of. So of course these kids are starving because their parents are schmucks.
On and on it goes. It's so simplistic it beggars belief. Why do they even bother? But of course they are all hard working (that can't be called into question either) and in this age of austerity these people are all beleaguered hard workers programmed to resent where their taxes are going. Blah blah blah.
And this is the level of discussion we get: points of view as insane as docking benefits to people that aren't feeding their kids - apparently. How would that even work? No doubt 'the caller' will volunteer to check on those whose curtains are not open at the prescribed hour and tick his list under that address so as to set the sanction in motion. For fuck's sake.
Then there's the luxuries myth: Sky TV subscriptions where people have then are set up yearly. If a claimant has a Sky dish (which is no guarantee they have an active subscription, we don't) then it's likely the account has already been paid for the year, and that could have been when the person was working or could otherwise afford it. Tearing down the dish and ringing Mr Murdoch won't achieve anything because the money has already been paid. Fags and booze are addictive and yet we are quite happy for the government to profit from their sale - and yet we criticise people that partake of these legal vices when it suits us. I find the criticism of people that smoke and drink entirely hypocritical. Now of course there is some truth to the argument that people shouldn't smoke or drink particularly if they can't afford it, but that, again, is rife with ignorance. These are addictions and not just physiologically but socially. It will take more than the punitive attitude of the curtain twitching prudes that call local radio to change this. What about some support or compassion; some carrot and not stick. Oh, but that costs money. Any perceived luxury, such as a TV or a games console (no matter how cheap or when they were acquired) is seen as undeserved.
Meanwhile and finally I'm in Tesco doing my shopping wishing to god I had the money to afford all the foods that the idiot on the radio considers 'cheap'. They are not intrinsically cheap. The prices set by supermarkets even within their own brand vary depending on the area, consequently I have to travel to town because a) it's cheaper and b) the local shops out in the sticks don't have enough anyway. To cap it all off Tesco have ruined their cheap chicken legs so that now they cram as many as they can into a pack. Instead of 3 decent cuts for a couple of quid, there are now at least 4 skanky fatty yet tiny cuts for the same amount. That's the choice we on the dole have to make and most of the time it's hobson's choice. Budgeting is out of teh question for reason's I've explained before: that is, the sanction-happy presumtpion of guilt regime means I can't spend as much on weekly shopping as I want because I have to put some by on the assumption that I will get my benefit stopped next time I sign on. This can happen even on the basis of just a doubt, before a decision to sanction is made so if I don't put some by (for all the good it will do, I may have to wait months before a decision is made leaving me in financial limbo) I'm screwed. 
There's your breakfast. Choke on it, BBC.

Comments

  1. We get much the same moronic opinion on BBC Radio 5 "Live" - same old ignorant people spouting off about things they have no experience of. And this is supposedly the biased, left-wing BBC the Daily Mail complains so much about! But that is one of the srawbacks of our "free" press - any ignorant fool can shout their mouth off, and it's usually the ones who shout loudest who are heard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a toss up between 5 Live with Nicky Campbell who is a condescending wanker or local radio which is just awful.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, same for me. I usually just read a book now...

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I Fucking Hate the Work Programme

That did not go well.
My legs were wobbly to begin with as I closed in on the church that passes for the office of the employment wing of the Salvation Army. My appointment was 3 to half past. I really did feel sick. Pretty early on, when he asked for the forms he gave me last time to fill in, I knew that what was arranged on the letter (a short interview with me bringing my CV and jobsearch) was actually going to be much longer. I also knew that, come half three when I had to leave to catch my bus back ten minutes later, I was going to have problems. 
Unfortunately, though more for me I fear, it never got that far; at 20 past he terminated the interview citing my apparent 'putting up barriers' as the reason not to continue. This was because I refused consent for him to keep my CV. I asked why he needed it and offered, three times, to show it to him (that's all), he said it was to apply for jobs on my behalf. The EEC's need this information.
What's an EEC? Employm…

I Hate James Bartholomew

Know the Tory mindset: according to these creatures welfare breeds dependency. Meanwhile they do not want to set a minimum wage, they do not want to create legislation to protect the un - and under - employed from the predations of the system they benefit from. That word is chosen deliberately, because they like benefits for themselves - the ability to sack whom they like, when they like and how they like. In this UKIP are the same. This is the febrile heart of the right wing.
Yesterday on 5 Live's laughable morning phone in - bigots drink for free - another right wing excuse for a human, James Bartholomew, revealed another aspect of their nasty prejudice and staggering ignorance. Not surprisingly this vile creature was once a banker. He writes (if one can call it that) for the Telegraph and though I don't know the content of his ballot paper, I dare say I can guess. He props up every tory myth about the unemployed and welfare with dull witted aplomb.
He believes people have …

Still Going

I started this blog thinking I could do something useful, provide some decent citizen journalism, or at the very least offer something credible for, at the risk of stroking my own ego, posterity. But in truth I have found it very difficult to keep up with my own standards. This is true of all the writing I engage in. It isn't that I don't enjoy it, or that I don't know how (YMMV), but that I just struggle to maintain the concentration. This is part of the problem, mental health-wise, that I have tried to address in recent years; all to no avail. Unfortunately it is simply perceived as an excuse by our society. In response to that, I offer none. I am what I am, and if that means I'm lazy then lazy I must be.

I was due to have a WCA on the 7th; instead I rang and said I couldn't go through with it and that they could pursue whatever consequences they saw fit. Curiously they offered me the opportunity to postpone the interview, which I did, though I'm not sure why…