'I only survive through Cash Converters': Carer mum who can't afford a bed reveals desperate poverty

The documentary goes behind the scenes of the staff and customers, some who are struggling to rub two pennies together

It's a heartbreaking moment for a Cash Converters customer who admits that she and her son are sleeping on an airbed because he can no longer make it upstairs.

Elaine is a full-time carer for 27-year-old Mark, who suffers from the rare degenerative condition Lowe's Syndrome, and she regularly visits the Cash Converter store in Glasgow to try and provide much needed funds to survive.

In the BBC show which goes behind the scenes of the staff and customers of the Renfield Street second-hand trading store in Glasgow, Elaine is a regular customer.

The staff of the store say of one of their favourite customers: "She's a fantastic woman, I've known her for so long."

A £65-a-week carer allowance is not enough for Elaine and her family to survive on, so she scrapes together anything she can including anything she can sell at Cash Converters.


Mark has a life expectancy of just 30 years old

Her son Mark's condition carries a life expectancy of just 30 years and Elaine says that the recent government cuts have greatly affected her job as her son's full-time carer.

She explains: "We're struggling and I would say we're not getting the help that we need. The help we need is just not there.

"We can't walk away because we're the carers and we have no choice."

In the rest of the show the staff are faced with a shoplifter who swipes a flat-screen television before a quick thinking member of staff runs after the thief to retrieve the expensive item.

The staff also have to stall a phone thief who tries to cash in on a stolen mobile so the police can question the customer.

It's also terrible news for one family who suffer a tragic loss and have to pawn their possessions to afford to pay for a funeral for their stillborn son.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/i-only-survive-through-cash-6117957

£65 a week... plus how much in other benefits/income...?




Sounds more like loads of things weighed in to cash cons on buy back and spending too much money on interest charges.

You are a human being are you Tommy. Frankly I think you're a robot.

I think you Are an idiot who fails to realise when you Are being lied to...



Do you really think that this woman is only getting £65 a week!?


Wake up!!!

the issue she is using cash converters
not sure about the exact rate in the UK but here by the time you look at the short term loan fees and extrapolate it worked out to be about 360% interest.
I have literally bought things off people for ridiculously cheap and what I gave them was still significantly higher than cash converter would.

giving people money but not teaching them how to manage fiances is waste of time.

Places like cash converter are means of keeping the poor poor, a bit of education and some short term financial assistance is what she needs to get a sustainable budget.

veya_victaous wrote:the issue she is using cash converters
not sure about the exact rate in the UK but here by the time you look at the short term loan fees and extrapolate it worked out to be about 360% interest.
I have literally bought things off people for ridiculously cheap and what I gave them was still significantly higher than cash converter would.

giving people money but not teaching them how to manage fiances is waste of time.

Places like cash converter are means of keeping the poor poor, a bit of education and some short term financial assistance is what she needs to get a sustainable budget.

Yeah, and in the meantime, prosecute these people for being loan sharks ...

Most Pawn shops turn out similar
and that is not even taking into account underpaying for the goods in the first place

"Pawnshop loans are nearly all state-regulated, and 'finance charges' can vary from 5 percent per month to 25 percent per month. In Indiana, the 'interest rate' is capped at 36 percent APR or 3 percent per month, but pawnshops can charge an additional 20 percent per month service charge, making the total allowable finance charge 23 percent per month," says Krupnik.

Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/pawnshop-101-what-you-need-to-know-1.aspx#ixzz3hKkTjlqV

23% a month is about 1100% Annually by the time you consider it is compound interest (you pay interest on the unpaid interest from the previous month) and assuming you don't make partial repayments

But if you have bad credit you got no options and you have bad credit often because you were already too poor for something else, systematic suppression of the poor

veya_victaous wrote:Most Pawn shops turn out similar
and that is not even taking into account underpaying for the goods in the first place

"Pawnshop loans are nearly all state-regulated, and 'finance charges' can vary from 5 percent per month to 25 percent per month. In Indiana, the 'interest rate' is capped at 36 percent APR or 3 percent per month, but pawnshops can charge an additional 20 percent per month service charge, making the total allowable finance charge 23 percent per month," says Krupnik.

Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/pawnshop-101-what-you-need-to-know-1.aspx#ixzz3hKkTjlqV

23% a month is about 1100% Annually by the time you consider it is compound interest (you pay interest on the unpaid interest from the previous month)  and assuming you don't make partial repayments

But if you have bad credit you got no options and you have bad credit often because you were already too poor for something else, systematic suppression of the poor  

Saw a documentary once about that, pointing out how through payday loans, pawn shops, "rent-to-own," higher APRs on credit cards and loans, etc. it actually is more expensive to be poor in terms of day-to-day living.

B4st4rds!

If you need a quick £50 quid to get you through for a couple of weeks and some stuff of value then it is a handy option.


Get £50, pay back £65 and get your stuff back.


Trouble starts when you put multiple things in and then find yourself unable to buy any of it out but then just keep paying the interest on each thing to roll over for another month.

Tommy Monk wrote:If you need a quick £50 quid to get you through for a couple of weeks and some stuff of value then it is a handy option.


Get £50, pay back £65 and get your stuff back.


Trouble starts when you put multiple things in and then find yourself unable to buy any of it out but then just keep paying the interest on each thing to roll over for another month.

Exactly -- when you don't have the predictable income of a decent job, you get into a lot of trouble. I know a guy who used to be a photographer who lost his job and ended up pawning his cameras to make the rent ... now what?!

Am I missing something here? She takes stuff to Cash Converters and sells it to them. She could also do that via Ebay or any second hand shop which buys stuff off people.

If the issue is poverty again, Tommy is right - they will get more than £65, so that's a bit misleading.

Raggamuffin wrote:Am I missing something here? She takes stuff to Cash Converters and sells it to them. She could also do that via Ebay or any second hand shop which buys stuff off people.

If the issue is poverty again, Tommy is right - they will get more than £65, so that's a bit misleading.

It's not so much the single transactions, which can be decent (studies show that some areas affected by disasters can recover faster when they have payday lenders available), but that for the poor, it becomes a vicious cycle.

In the U.S., there are people who have ended up paying four or five times the retail price for a TV because they bought it on lay-away or rent-to-own. I once did the math on a decent late-90s computer and realized it would cost over $2,000 through rent-to-own -- this was a system that should have sold for no more than $500 to $600.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Am I missing something here? She takes stuff to Cash Converters and sells it to them. She could also do that via Ebay or any second hand shop which buys stuff off people.

If the issue is poverty again, Tommy is right - they will get more than £65, so that's a bit misleading.

It's not so much the single transactions, which can be decent (studies show that some areas affected by disasters can recover faster when they have payday lenders available), but that for the poor, it becomes a vicious cycle.

In the U.S., there are people who have ended up paying four or five times the retail price for a TV because they bought it on lay-away or rent-to-own. I once did the math on a decent late-90s computer and realized it would cost over $2,000 through rent-to-own -- this was a system that should have sold for no more than $500 to $600.

Well the choice was yours to make Ben. People have store cards, and they know very well what the interest rate is but choose to carry on using them. People prioritise according to what they can afford at the time. If the intrinsic value of a TV is more important to them than having access to a TV straightaway, of course they won't want to end up paying more in the long run.

It's the same with most things. If you buy a house you end up paying more if you have a mortgage than if you bought it outright. However, you also have a house you can live in rather than wait for ever to save enough to buy one outright. If you buy a car via a loan, you will probably pay more than you eventually get for the car. It's not always about the end value, it's about the value something is to you on a daily basis.

Re this particularly lady, I think she just took stuff in to Cash Converters and sold it outright. It was a straightforward transaction - cash in hand for goods. People do that all the time.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Am I missing something here? She takes stuff to Cash Converters and sells it to them. She could also do that via Ebay or any second hand shop which buys stuff off people.

If the issue is poverty again, Tommy is right - they will get more than £65, so that's a bit misleading.

It's not so much the single transactions, which can be decent (studies show that some areas affected by disasters can recover faster when they have payday lenders available), but that for the poor, it becomes a vicious cycle.

In the U.S., there are people who have ended up paying four or five times the retail price for a TV because they bought it on lay-away or rent-to-own. I once did the math on a decent late-90s computer and realized it would cost over $2,000 through rent-to-own -- this was a system that should have sold for no more than $500 to $600.

Well the choice was yours to make Ben. People have store cards, and they know very well what the interest rate is but choose to carry on using them. People prioritise according to what they can afford at the time. If the intrinsic value of a TV is more important to them than having access to a TV straightaway, of course they won't want to end up paying more in the long run.

It's the same with most things. If you buy a house you end up paying more if you have a mortgage than if you bought it outright. However, you also have a house you can live in rather than wait for ever to save enough to buy one outright. If you buy a car via a loan, you will probably pay more than you eventually get for the car. It's not always about the end value, it's about the value something is to you on a daily basis.

Re this particularly lady, I think she just took stuff in to Cash Converters and sold it outright. It was a straightforward transaction - cash in hand for goods. People do that all the time.

Most of their costumers have no idea what they're getting into, though. I'm so tired I can barely type and should be in bed ... good night!

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well the choice was yours to make Ben. People have store cards, and they know very well what the interest rate is but choose to carry on using them. People prioritise according to what they can afford at the time. If the intrinsic value of a TV is more important to them than having access to a TV straightaway, of course they won't want to end up paying more in the long run.

It's the same with most things. If you buy a house you end up paying more if you have a mortgage than if you bought it outright. However, you also have a house you can live in rather than wait for ever to save enough to buy one outright. If you buy a car via a loan, you will probably pay more than you eventually get for the car. It's not always about the end value, it's about the value something is to you on a daily basis.

Re this particularly lady, I think she just took stuff in to Cash Converters and sold it outright. It was a straightforward transaction - cash in hand for goods. People do that all the time.

Most of their costumers have no idea what they're getting into, though. I'm so tired I can barely type and should be in bed ... good night!

Well then should find out before they sign anything. Honestly Ben, I just don't get this concept that people need to be nannied all the time. They apply for these things - they should check them out instead of blaming everyone else when they discover they're paying more than they want to.

Firstly, she won't only be getting £65 a week - absolutely no way on earth. Secondly, the other lady who had to raise money for her stillborn son's funeral - if the child was over a certain amount of weeks the funeral will be free as funeral homes and undertakers don't charge - I know this for a fact as I've worked with and have close personal friends who've buried babies and children.
Under five years old and you don't have to pay for a funeral, only your "private" stuff like after the funeral food etc and flowers.

Cash converters is a help for anyone who needs a quick bit of cash - it shouldn't be a way of life, that's awful.

And rags? Some people cannot use eBay as you need a credit card and you have to pay at least 10% seller's fees too, plus postage for items (quicker sales if you provide postage) and you have to wait for the item to be sold and some things are too big to post!

eddie wrote:Firstly, she won't only be getting £65 a week - absolutely no way on earth. Secondly, the other lady who had to raise money for her stillborn son's funeral - if the child was over a certain amount of weeks the funeral will be free as funeral homes and undertakers don't charge - I know this for a fact as I've worked with and have close personal friends who've buried babies and children.
Under five years old and you don't have to pay for a funeral, only your "private" stuff like after the funeral food etc and flowers.

Cash converters is a help for anyone who needs a quick bit of cash - it shouldn't be a way of life, that's awful.

And rags? Some people cannot use eBay as you need a credit card and you have to pay at least 10% seller's fees too, plus postage for items (quicker sales if you provide postage) and you have to wait for the item to be sold and some things are too big to post!

That wasn't really my point eddie - my point is that there are many ways to buy and sell goods, so what's so special about Cash Converters? I feel that they're being demonised here for some reason, and yet they're just a business which suits the owners, employees, and customers - like most businesses.

Cash Converters isn't just a means for people who "need" money - it's also for people who have superfluous items and who want to sell them without any hassle to themselves. They could have a car boot sale, but it's easier to pop into a shop and sell stuff isn't it?

The lady in question sold an old stereo system and a pink mini-fridge - probably superfluous items which she bought and then didn't need or want any more. I'm afraid I didn't quite understand everything she was saying - subtitles would have been useful.

It's just another reality TV programme which is designed to tug at people's heart strings. Even the X-Factor is designed to do that these days. I actually find it distasteful for someone to go on TV and tell everyone that their son is doubly incontinent, but hey ...

I see your point about demonising cash converters (sorry missed it before lol) and yes, it is there for a helping people make a quick buck - helpful I think?
We've recently moved and sold a few bits we didn't need, I considered going there but ended up selling it on eBay as it was specialised musical equipment and we got more in eBay.

My point is the woman who said she needed the money for her stillborn child's funeral; I think that's misleading.

eddie wrote:I see your point about demonising cash converters (sorry missed it before lol) and yes, it is there for a helping  people make a quick buck - helpful I think?
We've recently moved and sold a few bits we didn't need, I considered going there but ended up selling it on eBay as it was specialised musical equipment and we got more in eBay.

My point is the woman who said she needed the money for her stillborn child's funeral; I think that's misleading.

A lot of people have stuff they no longer need - or didn't even need in the first place. They might donate it to charity, they might simply take it to a recycling centre, or they might sell it to make some money. It's entirely up to them.

I just think it's misleading to portray places like Cash Converters as the last resort for the poverty stricken. Of course they're going to choose the stories which are going to create a reaction - it would be a bit boring if it was just people going in selling something because they want to declutter - although I actually find the issue of decluttering interesting myself.

I didn't watch the bit about the funeral tbh - I just went straight to the bit about Elaine. I'm pretty sure she didn't mention airbeds, and she was wearing quite a nice padded coat and shiny boots - just saying.

I'll have a look at the bit about the funeral.

Oooh, I just found another bit about Elaine and her son - which appears to be nothing to do with Cash Converters.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:I see your point about demonising cash converters (sorry missed it before lol) and yes, it is there for a helping  people make a quick buck - helpful I think?
We've recently moved and sold a few bits we didn't need, I considered going there but ended up selling it on eBay as it was specialised musical equipment and we got more in eBay.

My point is the woman who said she needed the money for her stillborn child's funeral; I think that's misleading.

A lot of people have stuff they no longer need - or didn't even need in the first place. They might donate it to charity, they might simply take it to a recycling centre, or they might sell it to make some money. It's entirely up to them.

I just think it's misleading to portray places like Cash Converters as the last resort for the poverty stricken. Of course they're going to choose the stories which are going to create a reaction - it would be a bit boring if it was just people going in selling something because they want to declutter - although I actually find the issue of decluttering interesting myself.

I didn't watch the bit about the funeral tbh - I just went straight to the bit about Elaine. I'm pretty sure she didn't mention airbeds, and she was wearing quite a nice padded coat and shiny boots - just saying.

I'll have a look at the bit about the funeral.

fookin typical R/W hypocrisy

oh this is just chosen to make it interesting

now compare the above to the reaction to those "benefit street " so called documentaries

where of course there was no selective filming, no "choosing something to create a reaction"

talk about selective blindness

if it vilifies the unwaged its true

if it is sympathetic to the unwaged its "just to get a reaction"

two faced double standards.

and one has to ask for what? 20 p in your pocket IF you got it back...(which you wouldnt)

yet non of these R/W creatures on here have ANYTHING to say about the tax dogere who get away with billions sufficient to clear the national debt...oh no lets demonise old joe up the road for a few getting a few quid a week.

Not only have the R/W brainwashed you into beleiving the lie that the unwaged are some sort of unholy threat to your existance and that you should hate them
they have brainwashed you into beleiving that they are entitled to do much worse ...to your far greater detriment...

which proves one thing

you have tiny and inadequate brains...

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

A lot of people have stuff they no longer need - or didn't even need in the first place. They might donate it to charity, they might simply take it to a recycling centre, or they might sell it to make some money. It's entirely up to them.

I just think it's misleading to portray places like Cash Converters as the last resort for the poverty stricken. Of course they're going to choose the stories which are going to create a reaction - it would be a bit boring if it was just people going in selling something because they want to declutter - although I actually find the issue of decluttering interesting myself.

I didn't watch the bit about the funeral tbh - I just went straight to the bit about Elaine. I'm pretty sure she didn't mention airbeds, and she was wearing quite a nice padded coat and shiny boots - just saying.

I'll have a look at the bit about the funeral.

fookin typical R/W hypocrisy

oh this is just chosen to make it interesting

now compare the above to the reaction to those "benefit street " so called documentaries

where of course there was no selective filming, no "choosing something to create a reaction"

talk about selective blindness

if it vilifies the unwaged its true

if it is sympathetic to the unwaged its "just to get a reaction"

two faced double standards.

and one has to ask for what? 20 p in your pocket IF you got it back...(which you wouldnt)

yet non of these R/W creatures on here have ANYTHING to say about the tax dogere who get away with billions sufficient to clear the national debt...oh no lets demonise old joe up the road for a few getting a few quid a week.

Not only have the R/W brainwashed you into beleiving the lie that the unwaged are some sort of unholy threat to your existance and that you should hate them
they have brainwashed you into beleiving that they are entitled to do much worse ...to your far greater detriment...

which proves one thing

you have tiny and inadequate brains...

Of course these stories are chosen to make it interesting. The makers of the programme don't want a boring programme do they? Don't you know anything about reality TV? I usually avoid it - I'm only looking at this programme so I can comment in this thread.

I didn't watch benefit street - that would be too much to stomach.

It's you who has a tiny inadequate brain - you just take everything at face value like a dork.

AND

I would not be surprised to find that in fact this whole thing is going to be shown a twisted story.

I would not be surprised to find out that in fact this woman is NOT what she appears

a "false flag job"

lets face it the BEEB and its govt masters know well that anyone will be able to "find out some "back ground"

so lets show her pleading poverty...the "public will find out its a con"

HEY LOOK EVERYONE shes a con...just like ALL the others out there

those in true povery rarely advertise the fact....

this is just more of the tory "hate the poor propaganda"

tricksy twisters.....

and ragga and tommy will dive head first down the crapper to cling to it as proof the poor are "unworthy"

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

fookin typical R/W hypocrisy

oh this is just chosen to make it interesting

now compare the above to the reaction to those "benefit street " so called documentaries

where of course there was no selective filming, no "choosing something to create a reaction"

talk about selective blindness

if it vilifies the unwaged its true

if it is sympathetic to the unwaged its "just to get a reaction"

two faced double standards.

and one has to ask for what? 20 p in your pocket IF you got it back...(which you wouldnt)

yet non of these R/W creatures on here have ANYTHING to say about the tax dogere who get away with billions sufficient to clear the national debt...oh no lets demonise old joe up the road for a few getting a few quid a week.

Not only have the R/W brainwashed you into beleiving the lie that the unwaged are some sort of unholy threat to your existance and that you should hate them
they have brainwashed you into beleiving that they are entitled to do much worse ...to your far greater detriment...

which proves one thing

you have tiny and inadequate brains...

Of course these stories are chosen to make it interesting. The makers of the programme don't want a boring programme do they? Don't you know anything about reality TV? I usually avoid it - I'm only looking at this programme so I can comment in this thread.

I didn't watch benefit street - that would be too much to stomach.

It's you who has a tiny inadequate brain - you just take everything at face value like a dork.

yeh right

it seems that the good old beeb worked you up alright...

have you had your daily kick at a cripple yet today ragga???

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

fookin typical R/W hypocrisy

oh this is just chosen to make it interesting

now compare the above to the reaction to those "benefit street " so called documentaries

where of course there was no selective filming, no "choosing something to create a reaction"

talk about selective blindness

if it vilifies the unwaged its true

if it is sympathetic to the unwaged its "just to get a reaction"

two faced double standards.

and one has to ask for what? 20 p in your pocket IF you got it back...(which you wouldnt)

yet non of these R/W creatures on here have ANYTHING to say about the tax dogere who get away with billions sufficient to clear the national debt...oh no lets demonise old joe up the road for a few getting a few quid a week.

Not only have the R/W brainwashed you into beleiving the lie that the unwaged are some sort of unholy threat to your existance and that you should hate them
they have brainwashed you into beleiving that they are entitled to do much worse ...to your far greater detriment...

which proves one thing

you have tiny and inadequate brains...

Of course these stories are chosen to make it interesting. The makers of the programme don't want a boring programme do they? Don't you know anything about reality TV? I usually avoid it - I'm only looking at this programme so I can comment in this thread.

I didn't watch benefit street - that would be too much to stomach.

It's you who has a tiny inadequate brain - you just take everything at face value like a dork.

moreover you idiot, reality TV...


what part of it isnt reality dont you get?

tho you seem to think it is....

and its YOU that taking this at its intended face value...

they want you to realise its all a con......then you can go kick two cripples in your outraget self righteousness...

So this bloke lost his job a year ago, but he and his wife decided to have another baby anyway.

funnt though. how you think the con merchants amongst the unwaged are n=more important than the con merchants at the top....

victorismyhero wrote:and its YOU that taking this at its intended face value...

they want you to realise its all a con......then you can go kick two cripples in your outraget self righteousness...

The only person it's conning is you.

Raggamuffin wrote:So this bloke lost his job a year ago, but he and his wife decided to have another baby anyway.

I know raggs terrible isnt it


compulsarary sterilisation for all unwaged and long term disabled


thats the way init

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:and its YOU that taking this at its intended face value...

they want you to realise its all a con......then you can go kick two cripples in your outraget self righteousness...

The only person it's conning is you.

you really are thick aren't you....

if you cant see through that program then I feel sorry for you....

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So this bloke lost his job a year ago, but he and his wife decided to have another baby anyway.

I know raggs terrible isnt it


compulsarary sterilisation for all unwaged and long term disabled


thats the way init

Well where is the common sense? They say they're broke because he lost his job, so then they decide to have another kid which is going to cost money.

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The only person it's conning is you.

you really are thick aren't you....

if you cant see through that program then I feel sorry for you....

Do you? Awwww, that's sweet of you.

What is the con about the programme then Victor?

I quite like the story about the missing/stolen phone though. The bloke trying to sell it stood there like an idiot whilst the staff phoned the police.

sigh ...cant you read

the con is


the woman clearly isnt ONLY going to get £65/week as has been said

however

the program runs with that (lie...con...)

there is the "more " for the public to find out

so then we have the "public" being shown that she is a con

and the public (well you at leats) are then going to apply the same reasoning to ALL claimants


and it works very well....YOU prove it time after time.....


as posted above



"AND

I would not be surprised to find that in fact this whole thing is going to be shown a twisted story.

I would not be surprised to find out that in fact this woman is NOT what she appears

a "false flag job"

lets face it the BEEB and its govt masters know well that anyone will be able to "find out some "back ground"

so lets show her pleading poverty...the "public will find out its a con"

HEY LOOK EVERYONE shes a con...just like ALL the others out there

those in true povery rarely advertise the fact....

this is just more of the tory "hate the poor propaganda"

tricksy twisters.....

and ragga and tommy will dive head first down the crapper to cling to it as proof the poor are "unworthy"

Raggamuffin wrote:I quite like the story about the missing/stolen phone though. The bloke trying to sell it stood there like an idiot whilst the staff phoned the police.

no doubt about it...he musta been a R/W er....they can only react...not think....

victorismyhero wrote:sigh ...cant you read

the con is


the woman clearly isnt ONLY going to get £65/week as has been said

however

the program runs with that (lie...con...)

there is the "more " for the public to find out

so then we have the "public" being shown that she is a con

and the public (well you at leats) are then going to apply the same reasoning to ALL claimants


and it works very well....YOU prove it time after time.....


as posted above



"AND

I would not be surprised to find that in fact this whole thing is going to be shown a twisted story.

I would not be surprised to find out that in fact this woman is NOT what she appears

a "false flag job"

lets face it the BEEB and its govt masters know well that anyone will be able to "find out some "back ground"

so lets show her pleading poverty...the "public will find out its a con"

HEY LOOK EVERYONE shes a con...just like ALL the others out there

those in true povery rarely advertise the fact....

this is just more of the tory "hate the poor propaganda"

tricksy twisters.....

and ragga and tommy will dive head first down the crapper to cling to it as proof the poor are "unworthy"

Where have I extrapolated anything? I've commented on that particular woman, and those particular people who decided to have another baby, despite having no jobs.

You do like putting words into people's mouths, don't you?

Are you saying that Sassy has been conned by this programme, and that these people are simply actors and actresses?

Cash Converters looks like quite an interesting place to work actually, as retail-type jobs go - better than sitting there shoving stuff through a scanner all day.

no not saying they are "actors"

the con is in the presentation and representation made....

I think sassy has fallen for its "face value"

YOU however have fallen for its intended purpose.....that of once again making out that the unwaged are con merchants...

you did exactly what they intended...went and "dug up the dirt"

and then ...just as benefit street poisoned a few more idiots minds against the unwaged...

so this is working on you......

victorismyhero wrote:no not saying they are "actors"

the con is in the presentation and representation made....

I think sassy has fallen for its "face value"

YOU however have fallen for its intended purpose.....that of once again making out that the unwaged are con merchants...

you did exactly what they intended...went and "dug up the dirt"

and then ...just as benefit street poisoned a few more idiots minds against the unwaged...

so this is working on you......

Not really. I'm merely commenting on the specific "cases" they're presenting. As I said, I don't tend to watch reality TV, and I wouldn't be watching this now if there wasn't a thread about it.

So are you saying that the people in this programme are doing it to make people hate those who are "poor"? Elaine certainly has a lot to answer for in that case.

So then victor, why are you not having a go at Sassy for being gullible?

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:no not saying they are "actors"

the con is in the presentation and representation made....

I think sassy has fallen for its "face value"

YOU however have fallen for its intended purpose.....that of once again making out that the unwaged are con merchants...

you did exactly what they intended...went and "dug up the dirt"

and then ...just as benefit street poisoned a few more idiots minds against the unwaged...

so this is working on you......

Not really. I'm merely commenting on the specific "cases" they're presenting. As I said, I don't tend to watch reality TV, and I wouldn't be watching this now if there wasn't a thread about it.

So are you saying that the people in this programme are doing it to make people hate those who are "poor"? Elaine certainly has a lot to answer for in that case.

why? she is being used as much as anyone. i dont think she was consulted as to how the footage would be used....

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not really. I'm merely commenting on the specific "cases" they're presenting. As I said, I don't tend to watch reality TV, and I wouldn't be watching this now if there wasn't a thread about it.

So are you saying that the people in this programme are doing it to make people hate those who are "poor"? Elaine certainly has a lot to answer for in that case.

why? she is being used as much as anyone. i dont think she was consulted as to how the footage would be used....

They put words into her mouth? They forced their way into her house?

It's really Sassy who has an agenda here because she hasn't put it in context. For example, Elaine isn't sleeping on an airbed because she's poor, it's because her son can't get up the stairs to where the real beds actually are.

Raggamuffin wrote:So then victor, why are you not having a go at Sassy for being gullible?

because her stance on the matter is "harmless" in other words IF she is right then something needs done

If she is wrong then all that happens is that someone gets a couple of quid more or the case gets a proper review...

whereas if the con works on YOU the consequence is that camergoon gets another supporter for his "bash the poor" pogrom

Raggamuffin wrote:It's really Sassy who has an agenda here because she hasn't put it in context. For example, Elaine isn't sleeping on an airbed because she's poor, it's because her son can't get up the stairs to where the real beds actually are.

was that made clear in the program.....or is that another factlet "left for you to find out"?

think about it...becasue THAT matters...

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So then victor, why are you not having a go at Sassy for being gullible?

because her stance on the matter is "harmless"  in other words IF she is right then something needs done

If she is wrong then all that happens is that someone gets a couple of quid more or the case gets a proper review...

whereas if the con works on YOU   the consequence is that camergoon gets another supporter for his "bash the poor" pogrom

If you bothered to think about any of it, as Tommy and I have done, you would have seen that a lot of it is a con anyway Victor. That's the trouble with you and Sassy - you both have extreme knee-jerk reactions to things without thinking about them and putting them in context.

and...if that IS the case


why hasnt shee been offered more suitable accomodation OR had the needed adaptions provided OR why hasnt someone properly assesed whats needed and perhaps "moved the house around" a bit....

I.e made the living room into a bedroom????

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

because her stance on the matter is "harmless"  in other words IF she is right then something needs done

If she is wrong then all that happens is that someone gets a couple of quid more or the case gets a proper review...

whereas if the con works on YOU   the consequence is that camergoon gets another supporter for his "bash the poor" pogrom

If you bothered to think about any of it, as Tommy and I have done, you would have seen that a lot of it is a con anyway Victor. That's the trouble with you and Sassy - you both have extreme knee-jerk reactions to things without thinking about them and putting them in context.

wrong...

the CON is the program and its presentation....

designed to make you "good little tories"

My view is quite open


IF the story is as it appears on first sight then something is very very wrong

IF however it isnt as ar first sight it appears then what is the hidden agenda in not showing the whole of the facts around it

why show "half truths" and "convenient fiction" together as one and the same????

ask your self THAT....