BY ZOE WICKENS
In light of the television programme on Channel 4 entitled “Benefits Street”, it seems that the media and the public are still in two minds about whether the occupants of James Turner Street in Birmingham have been poorly represented on the television show.
There was a show on Channel 5 called “Benefits Debate”, which featured well known criticiser Katie Hopkins and the self proclaimed “Mother Hen” Deidre Kelly, better known as White Dee. She highlighted not only the expected criticisms of Hopkins but her honest view on how the country has seen her and her neighbours portrayed on the show. This sparked tweets from Hopkins herself including “Wardrobe have been asked to provide a bra for White Dee for tonight. Benefit types expect everything for free.” This sort of dismissive attitude is typical of people who have never had to worry about money and indeed, of Hopkins herself. One only has to read the hashtag of Benefits on Twitter to be inundated with comments like this, perhaps unfairly as it begs the question of how many of these people actually know what it is like to only live on a small amount of money each week. Some receivers desperately need this money, but Hopkins’ comments could be construed as her believing that all benefits claimants (otherwise known as “scroungers” by some) abuse the system and waste all their money on alcohol, drugs and cigarettes.
White Dee declares that she is unable to work due to her depression after she was sacked from her former job as part of the council. Her neighbours on the street include Romanian immigrants who make a living from recycling scrap metal and are regularly abused by the English and Irish who, unlike them, are unemployed. It is difficult as a viewer to tell whether the apparent racism of these people is the norm, as Channel 4 may have just come across this as they were filming on the day. Who knows if this is what they are like all the time? We have only been shown a brief snapshot into their lives and there is a possibility that the occupants of the street were playing up to the cameras, desperate for their five minutes of fame. Who can tell?
She is not the only person in the country to have gone through this; a source who preferred to stay anonymous said that her and her family had to apply to receive benefits after her husband lost his job. The government gave them about £70 a week and whilst she said she “was grateful” for the money they got, it realistically couldn’t help much to feed a family of five and pay all the necessary bills. She stated that benefits of this low amount aren’t “really suitable for parents whether they are single or not with teenagers or small children.” It would never be enough for anyone no matter where in the country you happen to live and results in families having to go without more often than not. To see quite negative representations of people on benefits on television could be an insult to other people who are nothing like this. This could be considered an example of the behaviour of a minority in this country being mistaken for how everyone in this situation acts and it is simply not the case.
Another group of people perhaps most likely to end up on benefits is recently graduated from university students. Emma, a first year photography student said that “there is a real possibility” that she could end up on some sort of benefits if she cannot find a job after she finishes her studies. “If I was really stuck, there would be no shame”, she says, or she would work like so many other students in a pub or a restaurant on minimum wage. However, Emma says that “the problem is when people abuse [benefits] and ruin it for the rest of us.” She knows of jobseekers that claim benefits but do not actually look for any work. It is arguably these people who prevent people who are disabled or have health issues from receiving the benefits that they need as the government continues to make severe cuts on benefits spending.
To many hardworking occupants of this country, the idea of people receiving benefits unfairly or them not using it wisely is atrocious, as benefits are funded from taxes. Having a television show featuring negative representations of these people can only result in an uproar from the occupants of James Turner Street themselves and people across the country being influenced into thinking that benefits receivers are like this. Channel 4 has a lot to answer for.