Skint

icebreaker

icebreaker

At the Start
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
2,957
Lay Off Dean Bell.

Twitter and social media are ablaze with indignation. Middle England is outraged. "Angry" from Tunbridge Wells is in meltdown.
What did poor ol' Dean do to draw upon himself greater opprobrium than I've seen directed at some paedophiles or axe-muderers?

Dean bought a TV. Nothing more; nothing less. Albeit a top-of-the-range TV with Smart technology and 3D capability.
But, you're not supposed to buy such a kit if you are on welfare benefit according to the millions of anal-retentive mopes overloading the twitter-sphere. Such luxuries are only the entitlement of the rich and those in decent jobs, apparently. Dean should have made do with an old CRT telly from the charity second-hand charity shop. And it's besides the point that Dean could only buy his TV on the never-never at exhorbitant weekly repayments from Brighthouse; but he IS paying for it.

Here's a mad thought. The unemployed person is just as entitled to access to modern technology as is the rich person. And, the unemployed person is also entitled to buy a couple of cans of strong lager if that is his wont without self-righteous censure from the "moral majority".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-think-2-500-3D-TV-paid-benefits-f--off.html
 
It would seem that the daily mail do trot out these boring stories a little too often but a £2500 tv?

I think they could access modern technology for a little less than that?
 
lots of issues here really..

a country that has shops like Bright house wants to have a really good look at itself..plainly wrong

a government happy to close old folks homes whilst fuelling the lifestyles of the "special brew crew" who just ring up for a crisis loan when the cans run out

we have young men who should be throwing work about playing on fookin skateboards and acting like 1960's 10 year olds...whilst older people will be expected to work until they are 67 to keep funding such an upside down society
 
If he punches out a couple more kids he could get BOSE surround sound to go with it.



Idea for thread
 
Last edited:
I'm a believer in socialism in its truest sense (as opposed to the ideology hijacked by the far left and other sundry lunatics) but even I have a problem with this issue.

You live within your means. Social security should be what it says on the tin. You're secure within society. You're protected. The money is for paying rent, bills and food, bringing up the kids and maybe the odd bit of comfort.

It's an insult to every hardworking member of society but especially those who put in 12-hour shifts for the minimum wage or hold down two part-time jobs on minimum wages to make ends meet, for this guy to go and blow his benefit money - assuming the article has any truth in it - while others are struggling below the poverty line.

Did he win a bit on the lottery or horses or something? If so, then by all means go and blow it on whatever he wants. If he has been incredibly canny with his money, even his benefit money, or has eschewed other basics in order to achieve this purchase, then I could live with that.

If his level of benefit is simply too generous then the social services need to examine his case.

I don't believe benefit levels are at all generous in this country. We just need to make sure workers earn more than people on benefit but that's another can of worms.
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
assuming the article has any truth in it -
Click to expand...
Oh yes, the article is indeed factual. I watched the entire series of the show, and enjoyed it immensely. (The final episode was last Monday night).
Dean Bell struck me as having more humanity and "soul" in his little finger than the prudish calvinists who would condemn him have in their entire bodies. (The clip of him buying a "knocked-off" chicken from the boot of a car in order to provide his family with that day's dinner made me smile).
The series focussed on the lives of a number of people living on the fringes of society in a ghetto estate in Scunthorpe, trying to make ends meet whatever way they could. It's a part of -- and a poor reflection of -- the so-called fair society of ours.

D.O., you may take umbrage at Dean Bell's "extravagance" at buying the top range television, but respectfully, you may not call yourself a Socialist with comments such as "If his level of benefit is simply too generous then the social services need to examine his case". That is the knee-jerk reaction of a tory.

It needs restating -- Dean Bell is paying weekly for his new television set. He hasn't got it from the social welfare. Just because he is dependent on the state for his income ( benefit), should that disqualify him from buying the type of home entertainment he desires? If so, souldn't the others in receipt of state payment -- policemen, nurses, firemen etc -- labour under the same strictures?
 
I can just imagine the guffaws of those who know me at the suggestion that I might be a tory...

I admit I wasn't in possession of all the facts so my reaction is to some extent a knee-jerk one but the principle remains that if benefits are too generous then they need to be looked at. I don't think they are, as I pointed out, but I was assuming wrongly that this guy had just gone out and handed over a wad for the telly.

If he's paying for it weekly he may be making some kind of allowance in his household budgeting, which is fair enough if ridiculously expensive in the long run. His situation is not unlike those who used to rent their TV from companies like Radio Rental or Granada. TVs were very expensive purchases in those days, probably the equivalent of what his cost nowadays, and for many people on low incomes renting allowed them to have a telly they couldn't really afford. I well remember my father arguing with his best friend about it. We never had a decent telly because my father wouldn't buy one and would certainly never rent one. Barney rented because he got a new model overy two or three years so they had a BBC2 telly, then a colour one several years before us. Barney was happy to set aside his weekly payments in the same way he set aside his drink, cigarette and betting money.
 
icebreaker said:
D.O., you may not call yourself a Socialist with comments such as "If his level of benefit is simply too generous then the social services need to examine his case". That is the knee-jerk reaction of a tory.
Click to expand...

So, in your head, being a socialist entails never examining the level of benefits being received by an individual to ensure that society is distributing welfare payments correctly and also about (from another post you made) advocating the theft of property for re-distribution on the black market?

I am also a socialist and I object to this case, weekly payments or otherwise. I come from a two income, no kids household and I couldn't afford to pay out an additional £100 a month for a telly.

But then again, I buy my chickens (and all other meat) from the reduced shelf at Tesco/Asda, not off the back of a lorry. Maybe I should steal more stuff.

His reaction that people who are concerned about the level of benefits he is receiving permitting such extravagance can "f**k off" pretty much says it all. ******* scum that the country would be better off deporting than giving welfare payments.
 
Just to add to my point here are the basic tenets of the welfare state:

"In December 1942, the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Social Insurance and Allied Services was published, proposing a series of measures to aid those who were in need of help, or in poverty. Beveridge recommended to the government that they should find ways of tackling the five giants, being Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. He argued to cure these problems, the government should provide adequate income to people, adequate health care, adequate education, adequate housing and adequate employment. It proposed that 'All people of working age should pay a weekly National Insurance contribution. In return, benefits would be paid to people who were sick, unemployed, retired or widowed.'"

It seems to me that a 47" tv is highly unlikely to cover any of these main points of a welfare state (want of course meaning food, not "I want a big huge f*ck off telly").

In fact, I would suggest that it would be more likely to contribute towards each and every one of them.
 
Geeeeezzz, simmo. That takes me back 40 years, to when I was doing Social Administration at uni!! I remember learning the mnemonic WIDIS for an essay on the welfare system.

('Idleness' in this context actually meant unemployment as opposed to a mental attitude.)
 
Last edited:
The 1942 report was a child of its time. Societal standards have moved on a bit since the bleak war years. The Beveridge document rightly identified the five iniquities of the time and the very basic needs of the people, but it -- and the Welfare State that followed failed to address the inequalities between the masses of the poor and the minority rich elite.

The "five evils" that Beveridge challenged are abominations in any caring society.
But in a modern society, the poor should also have some entitlement to a level of home comforts also. Then, the reactionary right wing will say that the poor on benefits should not be allowed access to any item of luxury. However, you two guys have gone even further -- you are indignant that Dean Bell has a home cinema system that he is paying for himself out of a tight budget. You may proclaim yourselves as Socialists but in truth you are both codding yourselves. Your attitude is characteristic of Socialism-Lite -- Blairite Nu-Socialism -- which at its core is little different from reactionary conservatism.

It strikes me as ironic in the same week as the media condemnation of Dean Bell, we read of a London financier splurging £330,000 on a round of champagne -- and not a whit of disapproval about that. (I'll try and find a link about it).
 
icebreaker said:
you are indignant that Dean Bell has a home cinema system that he is paying for himself out of a tight budget.
Click to expand...

I am not.

I am indignant that the amount of welfare provided to him for sitting about on his fat arse is such that he can afford to pay for a luxury object.

Benefits and the welfare system should be about providing the minimum amount of financial assistance to feed, cloth and house. If the amount that is being paid out to this individual is such that he can afford to do that, and also purchase luxury items which many working people cannot afford, then he is being afforded a greater level of care by society in his time of need than should be the case.

Here is an excerpt from the manifesto of the last "socialist" government we had in this country:

"Help the low paid and other families in poverty by introducing a new system of CHILD CASH ALLOWANCES for every child"

If you can afford to buy a television at almost twice the book price then you are not in poverty.


Re your other story - I find it disgusting, but at least he earned the money to do so.
 
Just knew it would come back to bankers again

So boring. Anyone who earns their money in the private sector can do what they with it. That is none of your fcking business (although the cleverer ones here might pick up anomily

Buying a ridiculous tv that even high earners would baulk at, on social security is in issue because it comes from taxpayers money. Does that need pointing out?

And believe it or not high earning financiers bring enormous revenue to this country and pay huge levels of taxation. It might not stick well with socialists who are stuck in 1945 but its a massive net contributor

What does this scum family contribute? **** all
 
icebreaker said:
It strikes me as ironic in the same week as the media condemnation of Dean Bell, we read of a London financier splurging £330,000 on a round of champagne -- and not a whit of disapproval about that. (I'll try and find a link about it).
Click to expand...
It's hardly ironic when you consider that I was unaware of it. As unaware as I was of the subject of this thread until I read it here.

Of course splurging that kind of money on a round of champagne is (in my opinion) immoral. But his spending that kind of money might be the equivalent of my spending £3 on a bottle of wine from Lidl.

The telly guy might be the equivalent of my spending £20K on a new bicycle.

It comes back down to living within ones means.
 
I have been discussing the matter with Mrs Simmo who has stated "you didn't see Yosser Hughes sitting about on his arse watching telly did you".

Indeed not.
 
Could have bought a cheaper TV and used the rest to take the children on holiday for a week.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
£2500 for a £1200 TV? Ouch.
Click to expand...
I understand, Gareth, that £800 of it is interest repayments.
Which kinda puts in stark relief the poverty trap which the poorer people find themselves in -- and which is ruthlessly exploited by some rapacious companies (BrightHouse).
Dean Bell was quite explicit about this -- and might explain his "The begrudgers can F*** Off" outburst. "I have to pay for it on the "weekly" at big interest; they are able to pay for it straight-off".

Buying a ridiculous tv that even high earners would baulk at, on social security is in issue because it comes from taxpayers money. Does that need pointing out?
Click to expand...
Can you tell me if a policeman, say, whose remuneration is coming from taxpayers money should be entitled to buy a similar TV if he so desires?
 
icebreaker said:
Can you tell me if a policeman, say, whose remuneration is coming from taxpayers money should be entitled to buy a similar TV if he so desires?
Click to expand...

You're just at the wind up here.

A policeman is paid a set amount of money by society in order to provide a service to said society. He can do what he likes with his money as he has earned it.

A person who is unemployed, is given a welfare payment by society in order to ensure that he and his family are able to maintain a level of well being as decided by society. This payment is supposed to be a short term thing until he obtains work and should, rightly, only cover the bare minimum of needs. Luxury items such as a £2500 tv or a holiday should not be a part of that. Society is right to question the amount that this family is receiving (assuming of course that he hasn't let his family go without somewhere else in order that they can spend time in front of an obscene telly - if that's the case he should be carted off to jail - oh that's right - he is buying stolen goods to save money).
 
its a wind up

no one who hasnt been sectioned would seriously not understand the difference
 
Cannot see the difference mehself, tbh.
Both are getting "money from the taxpayer". But while one can buy a TV with the blessing of you good folks, the other is vilified for doing so.
But hey, if its a two-tier society that you want ..............

In case it gets lost in the blur of debate, let's not forget that Dean Bell was a steelworker until he lost his job in the economic slowdown. No fault of his. A policeman will only lose his job for gross misconduct. If he is prepared to make a big sacrifice in taking a sizable deduction on his weekly benefit income in order to provide a home entertainment system for his family, then he has my blessing.
 
you can't see the difference?..wtf

one earns his money..the other gets a handout..to buy needed items for his family..2500 tv is not needed..plenty of tv's a lot cheaper i believe
 
Last edited:
Off-topic, but I have to say it ..................

This is getting seriously annoying now -- the screen-page jumping up and down every ten seconds. It jumps every time the banner ad at the header of the page changes. It's sore on the eyes too. :mad:
 
Back
Top