Immigration Street crew deny offering "bribes" to residents

Daily Echo: The film crew in Derby Road on Tuesday The film crew in Derby Road on Tuesday

THE team behind a controversial TV documentary being filmed in Southampton have denied offering “bribes” to residents to get them to take part in the show.

A production crew has been filming in St Mary's for a planned sequel to Channel 4 show Benefits Street, which could be called Immigration Street.

The Daily Echo understands that some residents in Derby Road, where it is being filmed, have been approached by the production company offering to pay for takeaways or their laundry to take part.

But a spokesman for Channel 4 has denied that anything has been offered to residents in order for them to film them.

As revealed in yesterday's Daily Echo, Love Productions has approached people living in the street to take part in a new documentary focusing on immigration in Southampton.

The firm's Benefit Street production proved highly controversial when it aired last year, with some criticising it for its portrayal of the residents of a street in Birmingham.

Channel 4 defended the production as a “fair and balanced observational documentary” which gave a “humane and objective portrayal of how people are coping with continuing austerity and cuts in benefits.”

After Love Productions started filming in Southampton, city leaders, including council boss Simon Letts, said they didn't want the documentary to be filmed in the city.

He expressed his concern that it could negatively affect race relations, while city MP Alan Whitehead voiced concerns it would follow a set script as opposed to accurately portraying reality.David Bane, secretary of the Southampton Council of Faiths, told the Daily Echo some people have been contacted by the company, who have offered to pay for their laundry, while the Echo has been also been told that takeaways have been offered.

But a spokesman for Channel 4 said: “Contributors would not be paid to take part in a documentary series such as this, other than small out of pocket expenses, for example electricity used during filming.

“We strongly refute any suggestion that any resident of Derby Road has been offered bribes or gifts on condition of filming them.

“Any filming the team have done would follow strict protocols in accordance with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.”

It is understood the company will return to the city to do more filming for a pilot episode.

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:43am Thu 17 Apr 14

sarahjcarruthers 1978 says...

What a load of tosh its not bribes its a way of them saying thank u as they cannot pay people to film them !!!
What a load of tosh its not bribes its a way of them saying thank u as they cannot pay people to film them !!! sarahjcarruthers 1978
  • Score: -4

7:53am Thu 17 Apr 14

Helmeto says...

"But a spokesman for Channel 4 has denied that anything has been offered to residents in order for them to film them."

Of course Channel 4 denied offering bribes, they're not the ones making the programme!
"But a spokesman for Channel 4 has denied that anything has been offered to residents in order for them to film them." Of course Channel 4 denied offering bribes, they're not the ones making the programme! Helmeto
  • Score: 7

8:12am Thu 17 Apr 14

Redhaired22 says...

It's about time TV was regulated more tightly. Whilst it's a free country the danger of it being 'edited' to show people in the worst light, or most controversial is high. It can actually ruin people's lives too. Once it's on film and shown, it's forever on YouTube etc. We're still seeing Court cases from the newspapers hacking people's phones etc, which was the Newspaper equivalent of trash TV. I'm glad people are putting their foot down and standing up to them. P*ss of Channel 4 and go make mischief somewhere else!
It's about time TV was regulated more tightly. Whilst it's a free country the danger of it being 'edited' to show people in the worst light, or most controversial is high. It can actually ruin people's lives too. Once it's on film and shown, it's forever on YouTube etc. We're still seeing Court cases from the newspapers hacking people's phones etc, which was the Newspaper equivalent of trash TV. I'm glad people are putting their foot down and standing up to them. P*ss of Channel 4 and go make mischief somewhere else! Redhaired22
  • Score: 6

8:15am Thu 17 Apr 14

userds5050 says...

It's a sad reflection of what Channel 4 has become.
The station is making huge losses, due to poor decisions by management, forcing them to make programmes like Benefit street which get high audiences on a cheap budget.
They could pay people for taking part in the programme but why do that when you can just buy them a takeaway.
All the while they're giving themselves a bonus after a successful paralympics.
It's a sad reflection of what Channel 4 has become. The station is making huge losses, due to poor decisions by management, forcing them to make programmes like Benefit street which get high audiences on a cheap budget. They could pay people for taking part in the programme but why do that when you can just buy them a takeaway. All the while they're giving themselves a bonus after a successful paralympics. userds5050
  • Score: 5

8:22am Thu 17 Apr 14

userds5050 says...

Redhaired22 wrote:
It's about time TV was regulated more tightly. Whilst it's a free country the danger of it being 'edited' to show people in the worst light, or most controversial is high. It can actually ruin people's lives too. Once it's on film and shown, it's forever on YouTube etc. We're still seeing Court cases from the newspapers hacking people's phones etc, which was the Newspaper equivalent of trash TV. I'm glad people are putting their foot down and standing up to them. P*ss of Channel 4 and go make mischief somewhere else!
It is regulated. It's called Ofcom which Channel 4 has a relationship with a bit like a petulant child has with it's stepmother. See their apology for Frankie Boyle.
[quote][p][bold]Redhaired22[/bold] wrote: It's about time TV was regulated more tightly. Whilst it's a free country the danger of it being 'edited' to show people in the worst light, or most controversial is high. It can actually ruin people's lives too. Once it's on film and shown, it's forever on YouTube etc. We're still seeing Court cases from the newspapers hacking people's phones etc, which was the Newspaper equivalent of trash TV. I'm glad people are putting their foot down and standing up to them. P*ss of Channel 4 and go make mischief somewhere else![/p][/quote]It is regulated. It's called Ofcom which Channel 4 has a relationship with a bit like a petulant child has with it's stepmother. See their apology for Frankie Boyle. userds5050
  • Score: 0

8:38am Thu 17 Apr 14

Redhaired22 says...

userds5050 wrote:
Redhaired22 wrote:
It's about time TV was regulated more tightly. Whilst it's a free country the danger of it being 'edited' to show people in the worst light, or most controversial is high. It can actually ruin people's lives too. Once it's on film and shown, it's forever on YouTube etc. We're still seeing Court cases from the newspapers hacking people's phones etc, which was the Newspaper equivalent of trash TV. I'm glad people are putting their foot down and standing up to them. P*ss of Channel 4 and go make mischief somewhere else!
It is regulated. It's called Ofcom which Channel 4 has a relationship with a bit like a petulant child has with it's stepmother. See their apology for Frankie Boyle.
I said regulated more 'tightly' than it is. I know about OFCOM but the media need to be stopped from even making these appalling programmes unless they are proper documentaries of substance without bias, bribes or whatever else.......it's no good OFCOM stepping in after a programme has been aired, the damage is done.... As for Frankie Boyle, he's the most odious little man who just isn't funny and does things for 'effect'. It will be a happy day when he retires, but then again he'll only be replaced by some other ignoramus!
[quote][p][bold]userds5050[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redhaired22[/bold] wrote: It's about time TV was regulated more tightly. Whilst it's a free country the danger of it being 'edited' to show people in the worst light, or most controversial is high. It can actually ruin people's lives too. Once it's on film and shown, it's forever on YouTube etc. We're still seeing Court cases from the newspapers hacking people's phones etc, which was the Newspaper equivalent of trash TV. I'm glad people are putting their foot down and standing up to them. P*ss of Channel 4 and go make mischief somewhere else![/p][/quote]It is regulated. It's called Ofcom which Channel 4 has a relationship with a bit like a petulant child has with it's stepmother. See their apology for Frankie Boyle.[/p][/quote]I said regulated more 'tightly' than it is. I know about OFCOM but the media need to be stopped from even making these appalling programmes unless they are proper documentaries of substance without bias, bribes or whatever else.......it's no good OFCOM stepping in after a programme has been aired, the damage is done.... As for Frankie Boyle, he's the most odious little man who just isn't funny and does things for 'effect'. It will be a happy day when he retires, but then again he'll only be replaced by some other ignoramus! Redhaired22
  • Score: 4

8:41am Thu 17 Apr 14

Abkhazsoyuz says...

We have an idea 'down here in the jungle'. Make the Press or this city's leaders force C4 to open their books to show us the advertising revenue their previous series, Benefits Street, Skint, has generated. Let's see how much was eventually paid to Love Productions. Then let us call on both to pay a good percentage to the interviewees / participants. You can have £6,000 in the bank apparently before it affects your benefits. A lump sum in the form of a share would be classed as income, but more like compensation I argue.
We have an idea 'down here in the jungle'. Make the Press or this city's leaders force C4 to open their books to show us the advertising revenue their previous series, Benefits Street, Skint, has generated. Let's see how much was eventually paid to Love Productions. Then let us call on both to pay a good percentage to the interviewees / participants. You can have £6,000 in the bank apparently before it affects your benefits. A lump sum in the form of a share would be classed as income, but more like compensation I argue. Abkhazsoyuz
  • Score: -1

8:51am Thu 17 Apr 14

userds5050 says...

Redhaired22 wrote:
userds5050 wrote:
Redhaired22 wrote:
It's about time TV was regulated more tightly. Whilst it's a free country the danger of it being 'edited' to show people in the worst light, or most controversial is high. It can actually ruin people's lives too. Once it's on film and shown, it's forever on YouTube etc. We're still seeing Court cases from the newspapers hacking people's phones etc, which was the Newspaper equivalent of trash TV. I'm glad people are putting their foot down and standing up to them. P*ss of Channel 4 and go make mischief somewhere else!
It is regulated. It's called Ofcom which Channel 4 has a relationship with a bit like a petulant child has with it's stepmother. See their apology for Frankie Boyle.
I said regulated more 'tightly' than it is. I know about OFCOM but the media need to be stopped from even making these appalling programmes unless they are proper documentaries of substance without bias, bribes or whatever else.......it's no good OFCOM stepping in after a programme has been aired, the damage is done.... As for Frankie Boyle, he's the most odious little man who just isn't funny and does things for 'effect'. It will be a happy day when he retires, but then again he'll only be replaced by some other ignoramus!
Oh I agree. The sad thing is Channel 4 did make documentaries of substance in the past. They try to redress the balance by Channel 4 News highlighting the increase in the use of food banks ect... as their top story but it all feels a bit hollow.
[quote][p][bold]Redhaired22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]userds5050[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redhaired22[/bold] wrote: It's about time TV was regulated more tightly. Whilst it's a free country the danger of it being 'edited' to show people in the worst light, or most controversial is high. It can actually ruin people's lives too. Once it's on film and shown, it's forever on YouTube etc. We're still seeing Court cases from the newspapers hacking people's phones etc, which was the Newspaper equivalent of trash TV. I'm glad people are putting their foot down and standing up to them. P*ss of Channel 4 and go make mischief somewhere else![/p][/quote]It is regulated. It's called Ofcom which Channel 4 has a relationship with a bit like a petulant child has with it's stepmother. See their apology for Frankie Boyle.[/p][/quote]I said regulated more 'tightly' than it is. I know about OFCOM but the media need to be stopped from even making these appalling programmes unless they are proper documentaries of substance without bias, bribes or whatever else.......it's no good OFCOM stepping in after a programme has been aired, the damage is done.... As for Frankie Boyle, he's the most odious little man who just isn't funny and does things for 'effect'. It will be a happy day when he retires, but then again he'll only be replaced by some other ignoramus![/p][/quote]Oh I agree. The sad thing is Channel 4 did make documentaries of substance in the past. They try to redress the balance by Channel 4 News highlighting the increase in the use of food banks ect... as their top story but it all feels a bit hollow. userds5050
  • Score: 3

9:10am Thu 17 Apr 14

sotonboy84 says...

So David Bane says some residents say they've been offered takeaways or for their laundry to be paid for, and Channel 4 said they haven't.

Not really a story at all then Mr Franklin.

I'm beginning to feel this immigration street story has been done to death already.
So David Bane says some residents say they've been offered takeaways or for their laundry to be paid for, and Channel 4 said they haven't. Not really a story at all then Mr Franklin. I'm beginning to feel this immigration street story has been done to death already. sotonboy84
  • Score: 4

9:43am Thu 17 Apr 14

sotonboy84 says...

Abkhazsoyuz wrote:
We have an idea 'down here in the jungle'. Make the Press or this city's leaders force C4 to open their books to show us the advertising revenue their previous series, Benefits Street, Skint, has generated. Let's see how much was eventually paid to Love Productions. Then let us call on both to pay a good percentage to the interviewees / participants. You can have £6,000 in the bank apparently before it affects your benefits. A lump sum in the form of a share would be classed as income, but more like compensation I argue.
So you're saying all those "down in the jungle" that claim benefits because they either can't work or are jobseeking are now able/available to work?

If they're able to work, as you say, taking any form of payment from a film crew is classed as work and not savings.

Your comment speaks volumes about the morals of the community already.
[quote][p][bold]Abkhazsoyuz[/bold] wrote: We have an idea 'down here in the jungle'. Make the Press or this city's leaders force C4 to open their books to show us the advertising revenue their previous series, Benefits Street, Skint, has generated. Let's see how much was eventually paid to Love Productions. Then let us call on both to pay a good percentage to the interviewees / participants. You can have £6,000 in the bank apparently before it affects your benefits. A lump sum in the form of a share would be classed as income, but more like compensation I argue.[/p][/quote]So you're saying all those "down in the jungle" that claim benefits because they either can't work or are jobseeking are now able/available to work? If they're able to work, as you say, taking any form of payment from a film crew is classed as work and not savings. Your comment speaks volumes about the morals of the community already. sotonboy84
  • Score: 3

10:44am Thu 17 Apr 14

bigfella777 says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
Abkhazsoyuz wrote:
We have an idea 'down here in the jungle'. Make the Press or this city's leaders force C4 to open their books to show us the advertising revenue their previous series, Benefits Street, Skint, has generated. Let's see how much was eventually paid to Love Productions. Then let us call on both to pay a good percentage to the interviewees / participants. You can have £6,000 in the bank apparently before it affects your benefits. A lump sum in the form of a share would be classed as income, but more like compensation I argue.
So you're saying all those "down in the jungle" that claim benefits because they either can't work or are jobseeking are now able/available to work?

If they're able to work, as you say, taking any form of payment from a film crew is classed as work and not savings.

Your comment speaks volumes about the morals of the community already.
Dont feed the troll
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abkhazsoyuz[/bold] wrote: We have an idea 'down here in the jungle'. Make the Press or this city's leaders force C4 to open their books to show us the advertising revenue their previous series, Benefits Street, Skint, has generated. Let's see how much was eventually paid to Love Productions. Then let us call on both to pay a good percentage to the interviewees / participants. You can have £6,000 in the bank apparently before it affects your benefits. A lump sum in the form of a share would be classed as income, but more like compensation I argue.[/p][/quote]So you're saying all those "down in the jungle" that claim benefits because they either can't work or are jobseeking are now able/available to work? If they're able to work, as you say, taking any form of payment from a film crew is classed as work and not savings. Your comment speaks volumes about the morals of the community already.[/p][/quote]Dont feed the troll bigfella777
  • Score: 1

10:53am Thu 17 Apr 14

Bobs Your Uncle ? says...

bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
Abkhazsoyuz wrote:
We have an idea 'down here in the jungle'. Make the Press or this city's leaders force C4 to open their books to show us the advertising revenue their previous series, Benefits Street, Skint, has generated. Let's see how much was eventually paid to Love Productions. Then let us call on both to pay a good percentage to the interviewees / participants. You can have £6,000 in the bank apparently before it affects your benefits. A lump sum in the form of a share would be classed as income, but more like compensation I argue.
So you're saying all those "down in the jungle" that claim benefits because they either can't work or are jobseeking are now able/available to work?

If they're able to work, as you say, taking any form of payment from a film crew is classed as work and not savings.

Your comment speaks volumes about the morals of the community already.
Dont feed the troll
they could film at night after the work day ,whats the problem?
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Abkhazsoyuz[/bold] wrote: We have an idea 'down here in the jungle'. Make the Press or this city's leaders force C4 to open their books to show us the advertising revenue their previous series, Benefits Street, Skint, has generated. Let's see how much was eventually paid to Love Productions. Then let us call on both to pay a good percentage to the interviewees / participants. You can have £6,000 in the bank apparently before it affects your benefits. A lump sum in the form of a share would be classed as income, but more like compensation I argue.[/p][/quote]So you're saying all those "down in the jungle" that claim benefits because they either can't work or are jobseeking are now able/available to work? If they're able to work, as you say, taking any form of payment from a film crew is classed as work and not savings. Your comment speaks volumes about the morals of the community already.[/p][/quote]Dont feed the troll[/p][/quote]they could film at night after the work day ,whats the problem? Bobs Your Uncle ?
  • Score: -5

11:06am Thu 17 Apr 14

From the sidelines says...

Redhaired22 wrote:
userds5050 wrote:
Redhaired22 wrote:
It's about time TV was regulated more tightly. Whilst it's a free country the danger of it being 'edited' to show people in the worst light, or most controversial is high. It can actually ruin people's lives too. Once it's on film and shown, it's forever on YouTube etc. We're still seeing Court cases from the newspapers hacking people's phones etc, which was the Newspaper equivalent of trash TV. I'm glad people are putting their foot down and standing up to them. P*ss of Channel 4 and go make mischief somewhere else!
It is regulated. It's called Ofcom which Channel 4 has a relationship with a bit like a petulant child has with it's stepmother. See their apology for Frankie Boyle.
I said regulated more 'tightly' than it is. I know about OFCOM but the media need to be stopped from even making these appalling programmes unless they are proper documentaries of substance without bias, bribes or whatever else.......it's no good OFCOM stepping in after a programme has been aired, the damage is done.... As for Frankie Boyle, he's the most odious little man who just isn't funny and does things for 'effect'. It will be a happy day when he retires, but then again he'll only be replaced by some other ignoramus!
Oh yes, more state regulation. That's what we need.

No programmes to be shown unless they support 'the message'. No criticism allowed. No alternative opinions.

Keep sucking it up comrade. You'll never see how it works.
[quote][p][bold]Redhaired22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]userds5050[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redhaired22[/bold] wrote: It's about time TV was regulated more tightly. Whilst it's a free country the danger of it being 'edited' to show people in the worst light, or most controversial is high. It can actually ruin people's lives too. Once it's on film and shown, it's forever on YouTube etc. We're still seeing Court cases from the newspapers hacking people's phones etc, which was the Newspaper equivalent of trash TV. I'm glad people are putting their foot down and standing up to them. P*ss of Channel 4 and go make mischief somewhere else![/p][/quote]It is regulated. It's called Ofcom which Channel 4 has a relationship with a bit like a petulant child has with it's stepmother. See their apology for Frankie Boyle.[/p][/quote]I said regulated more 'tightly' than it is. I know about OFCOM but the media need to be stopped from even making these appalling programmes unless they are proper documentaries of substance without bias, bribes or whatever else.......it's no good OFCOM stepping in after a programme has been aired, the damage is done.... As for Frankie Boyle, he's the most odious little man who just isn't funny and does things for 'effect'. It will be a happy day when he retires, but then again he'll only be replaced by some other ignoramus![/p][/quote]Oh yes, more state regulation. That's what we need. No programmes to be shown unless they support 'the message'. No criticism allowed. No alternative opinions. Keep sucking it up comrade. You'll never see how it works. From the sidelines
  • Score: -1

11:09am Thu 17 Apr 14

George4th says...

The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist!

The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions.

It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!)

Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?
The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton? George4th
  • Score: 2

11:13am Thu 17 Apr 14

Bobs Your Uncle ? says...

George4th wrote:
The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist!

The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions.

It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!)

Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?
good point ,what are they trying to hide?
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?[/p][/quote]good point ,what are they trying to hide? Bobs Your Uncle ?
  • Score: 1

11:17am Thu 17 Apr 14

userds5050 says...

George4th wrote:
The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist!

The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions.

It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!)

Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?
Let's wait until Ofcom has finished its investigation before heaping praise on Love productions shall we.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?[/p][/quote]Let's wait until Ofcom has finished its investigation before heaping praise on Love productions shall we. userds5050
  • Score: 3

12:00pm Thu 17 Apr 14

From the sidelines says...

So, your Labour council and councillors don't want this programme, in case it reflects badly on the last Labour government's policy of uncontrolled immigration.

Keep that message under control. The plebs need to be told what to think.
So, your Labour council and councillors don't want this programme, in case it reflects badly on the last Labour government's policy of uncontrolled immigration. Keep that message under control. The plebs need to be told what to think. From the sidelines
  • Score: -2

1:17pm Thu 17 Apr 14

RomseyKeith says...

Channel 4 used to make edgy documentaries. These days they make biased documentaries which often enforce a government agenda. For example, Date My P0rn Star last year, was a very one-sided documentary. It was all focused on how bad this is for men to watch as it gives them unrealistic expectations of what they then want their women to do, forgetting that women often watch it too, giving unrealistic ideas of what they should be expected to do. Surely we should be trying to protect both genders, rather than just focus on the men. How sexist this doc was. Aren't women worthy of the same level of protection from these films?
It focused on how bad some of the women were treated, yet still glamourised the ones who 'knew what they were doing'. So many who believe they do know what they are doing may still be encouraged to try a career in the industry.
It was on the air around the time the government was calling for tighter censorship and control over the internet, so that the thought of Big Brother watching us would be welcomed with open arms in order to protect us from the harmful filth on line.
Many docs appeared to follow a similar pattern, enforcing a government stance recently seen in the news.
Channel 4 used to make edgy documentaries. These days they make biased documentaries which often enforce a government agenda. For example, Date My P0rn Star last year, was a very one-sided documentary. It was all focused on how bad this is for men to watch as it gives them unrealistic expectations of what they then want their women to do, forgetting that women often watch it too, giving unrealistic ideas of what they should be expected to do. Surely we should be trying to protect both genders, rather than just focus on the men. How sexist this doc was. Aren't women worthy of the same level of protection from these films? It focused on how bad some of the women were treated, yet still glamourised the ones who 'knew what they were doing'. So many who believe they do know what they are doing may still be encouraged to try a career in the industry. It was on the air around the time the government was calling for tighter censorship and control over the internet, so that the thought of Big Brother watching us would be welcomed with open arms in order to protect us from the harmful filth on line. Many docs appeared to follow a similar pattern, enforcing a government stance recently seen in the news. RomseyKeith
  • Score: 2

1:21pm Thu 17 Apr 14

plastic_fantastic says...

If they are not illegals then they have nothing to worry about Immigration Street but on the otherhand if they are..... Good good bye bye go bleed another country dry
If they are not illegals then they have nothing to worry about Immigration Street but on the otherhand if they are..... Good good bye bye go bleed another country dry plastic_fantastic
  • Score: 5

1:26pm Thu 17 Apr 14

southy says...

Bobs Your Uncle ? wrote:
George4th wrote:
The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist!

The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions.

It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!)

Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?
good point ,what are they trying to hide?
Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area.
Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British".
Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year.
Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,
[quote][p][bold]Bobs Your Uncle ?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?[/p][/quote]good point ,what are they trying to hide?[/p][/quote]Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it, southy
  • Score: 1

1:28pm Thu 17 Apr 14

southy says...

From the sidelines wrote:
So, your Labour council and councillors don't want this programme, in case it reflects badly on the last Labour government's policy of uncontrolled immigration.

Keep that message under control. The plebs need to be told what to think.
Not just Labour the Tory's are generally not for it also.
[quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: So, your Labour council and councillors don't want this programme, in case it reflects badly on the last Labour government's policy of uncontrolled immigration. Keep that message under control. The plebs need to be told what to think.[/p][/quote]Not just Labour the Tory's are generally not for it also. southy
  • Score: -1

2:47pm Thu 17 Apr 14

sotonboy84 says...

southy wrote:
Bobs Your Uncle ? wrote:
George4th wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?
good point ,what are they trying to hide?
Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,
It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off.

Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobs Your Uncle ?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?[/p][/quote]good point ,what are they trying to hide?[/p][/quote]Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,[/p][/quote]It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off. Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes. sotonboy84
  • Score: 6

3:12pm Thu 17 Apr 14

KSO16R says...

From the sidelines wrote:
So, your Labour council and councillors don't want this programme, in case it reflects badly on the last Labour government's policy of uncontrolled immigration.

Keep that message under control. The plebs need to be told what to think.
Mr pleb to you
[quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: So, your Labour council and councillors don't want this programme, in case it reflects badly on the last Labour government's policy of uncontrolled immigration. Keep that message under control. The plebs need to be told what to think.[/p][/quote]Mr pleb to you KSO16R
  • Score: 7

4:27pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
southy wrote:
Bobs Your Uncle ? wrote:
George4th wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?
good point ,what are they trying to hide?
Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,
It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off.

Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.
You certainly have the right to know where your money goes. Right place for that should be to do bit of research into the accounts of the central government and your local council. This site will only provide you with biased guesstimates. Because it has no shortage of people like your own good self with plenty of fictional imaginations on various issues.

When you find the time to look into real figures, I have the feeling that bill of welfare frauds (which only complete anarchists or fools will defend) may be far less than certain super rich people avoid paying taxes and by hiding their massive wealth in various tax havens.

Also try to ask your MEP, how many times during last two decades the accounts of EU were signed off as accurate and fraud free by it's auditors, because part of your money and of the rest of us is put into the coffers of the EU, around £50 millions every day.

You should also be looking into millions given to various corporations, and check the details because books may have been cooked. Some even pocket the money under the excuse of creating jobs and then relocate their production lines in places like Turky.

Yes there should be zero tolerance for fraud, but why keep on and on ONLY about small percentage of people abusing the welfare benefits and conveniently ignore or stay quite about big sharks? Could the reason be that it suits the agenda of hate mongers xenophobes?

I believe Southy is making the right point that if well balanced documentaries are produced it can be good, but controversies created by Love Production in Birmingham by salting participants makes many people wonder of their real intentions.

So in my view some of the local councillors, Alan Whitehead MP and many others even in other political parties have very rightly expressed their serious reservations.

By the way congratulations to Southy for posting an easy to read comment, which can be understood without using Enigma!!! (Sorry Pete couldn't resist that, seriously it's nice to see you having improved your style)
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobs Your Uncle ?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?[/p][/quote]good point ,what are they trying to hide?[/p][/quote]Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,[/p][/quote]It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off. Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.[/p][/quote]You certainly have the right to know where your money goes. Right place for that should be to do bit of research into the accounts of the central government and your local council. This site will only provide you with biased guesstimates. Because it has no shortage of people like your own good self with plenty of fictional imaginations on various issues. When you find the time to look into real figures, I have the feeling that bill of welfare frauds (which only complete anarchists or fools will defend) may be far less than certain super rich people avoid paying taxes and by hiding their massive wealth in various tax havens. Also try to ask your MEP, how many times during last two decades the accounts of EU were signed off as accurate and fraud free by it's auditors, because part of your money and of the rest of us is put into the coffers of the EU, around £50 millions every day. You should also be looking into millions given to various corporations, and check the details because books may have been cooked. Some even pocket the money under the excuse of creating jobs and then relocate their production lines in places like Turky. Yes there should be zero tolerance for fraud, but why keep on and on ONLY about small percentage of people abusing the welfare benefits and conveniently ignore or stay quite about big sharks? Could the reason be that it suits the agenda of hate mongers xenophobes? I believe Southy is making the right point that if well balanced documentaries are produced it can be good, but controversies created by Love Production in Birmingham by salting participants makes many people wonder of their real intentions. So in my view some of the local councillors, Alan Whitehead MP and many others even in other political parties have very rightly expressed their serious reservations. By the way congratulations to Southy for posting an easy to read comment, which can be understood without using Enigma!!! (Sorry Pete couldn't resist that, seriously it's nice to see you having improved your style) Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 3

5:15pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Bobs Your Uncle ? says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
southy wrote:
Bobs Your Uncle ? wrote:
George4th wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?
good point ,what are they trying to hide?
Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,
It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off.

Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.
maybe the 50 billion of tax slaves money to the richest family on the planet in government debt interest per year makes the plebs angry too?
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobs Your Uncle ?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?[/p][/quote]good point ,what are they trying to hide?[/p][/quote]Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,[/p][/quote]It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off. Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.[/p][/quote]maybe the 50 billion of tax slaves money to the richest family on the planet in government debt interest per year makes the plebs angry too? Bobs Your Uncle ?
  • Score: 1

6:55pm Thu 17 Apr 14

itsnotjustice says...

i dont see what the big deal is...

if people want to take part in it then thats upto them..

what have the city got to hide????

there will be loads of people who want to go on there just for a bit of fame , the same sort of people who sit on jeremy kyle with a massive grin on their face...
i dont see what the big deal is... if people want to take part in it then thats upto them.. what have the city got to hide???? there will be loads of people who want to go on there just for a bit of fame , the same sort of people who sit on jeremy kyle with a massive grin on their face... itsnotjustice
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Thu 17 Apr 14

southy says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
southy wrote:
Bobs Your Uncle ? wrote:
George4th wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?
good point ,what are they trying to hide?
Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,
It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off.

Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.
You certainly have the right to know where your money goes. Right place for that should be to do bit of research into the accounts of the central government and your local council. This site will only provide you with biased guesstimates. Because it has no shortage of people like your own good self with plenty of fictional imaginations on various issues.

When you find the time to look into real figures, I have the feeling that bill of welfare frauds (which only complete anarchists or fools will defend) may be far less than certain super rich people avoid paying taxes and by hiding their massive wealth in various tax havens.

Also try to ask your MEP, how many times during last two decades the accounts of EU were signed off as accurate and fraud free by it's auditors, because part of your money and of the rest of us is put into the coffers of the EU, around £50 millions every day.

You should also be looking into millions given to various corporations, and check the details because books may have been cooked. Some even pocket the money under the excuse of creating jobs and then relocate their production lines in places like Turky.

Yes there should be zero tolerance for fraud, but why keep on and on ONLY about small percentage of people abusing the welfare benefits and conveniently ignore or stay quite about big sharks? Could the reason be that it suits the agenda of hate mongers xenophobes?

I believe Southy is making the right point that if well balanced documentaries are produced it can be good, but controversies created by Love Production in Birmingham by salting participants makes many people wonder of their real intentions.

So in my view some of the local councillors, Alan Whitehead MP and many others even in other political parties have very rightly expressed their serious reservations.

By the way congratulations to Southy for posting an easy to read comment, which can be understood without using Enigma!!! (Sorry Pete couldn't resist that, seriously it's nice to see you having improved your style)
its good fun playing with the Enigma Paramjit

sotonboy84 how about getting angry at the paying for the wars that Capitalism as create like the Iraq and Afghanistan and the cost to tax payers in over throwing legal governments just because they will not play ball like Libya and Syria
And paying the salary to the supreme Justice who as an invested interest in success of Monsanto
Or/and paying for the health care of certain company,s for employees because they will not give its workforce a living wage or provide insurance
Or/and paying Israel 4 million a day
Or/and paying the oil industry £12 million a day
Or/and paying the EU 5o million
Or/and paying for the Tax cheats who avoid paying or pay little as they can in tax.

And look who get's the blame for the debt and failure of the economy the poor do those that struggle day to day to survive
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobs Your Uncle ?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?[/p][/quote]good point ,what are they trying to hide?[/p][/quote]Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,[/p][/quote]It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off. Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.[/p][/quote]You certainly have the right to know where your money goes. Right place for that should be to do bit of research into the accounts of the central government and your local council. This site will only provide you with biased guesstimates. Because it has no shortage of people like your own good self with plenty of fictional imaginations on various issues. When you find the time to look into real figures, I have the feeling that bill of welfare frauds (which only complete anarchists or fools will defend) may be far less than certain super rich people avoid paying taxes and by hiding their massive wealth in various tax havens. Also try to ask your MEP, how many times during last two decades the accounts of EU were signed off as accurate and fraud free by it's auditors, because part of your money and of the rest of us is put into the coffers of the EU, around £50 millions every day. You should also be looking into millions given to various corporations, and check the details because books may have been cooked. Some even pocket the money under the excuse of creating jobs and then relocate their production lines in places like Turky. Yes there should be zero tolerance for fraud, but why keep on and on ONLY about small percentage of people abusing the welfare benefits and conveniently ignore or stay quite about big sharks? Could the reason be that it suits the agenda of hate mongers xenophobes? I believe Southy is making the right point that if well balanced documentaries are produced it can be good, but controversies created by Love Production in Birmingham by salting participants makes many people wonder of their real intentions. So in my view some of the local councillors, Alan Whitehead MP and many others even in other political parties have very rightly expressed their serious reservations. By the way congratulations to Southy for posting an easy to read comment, which can be understood without using Enigma!!! (Sorry Pete couldn't resist that, seriously it's nice to see you having improved your style)[/p][/quote]its good fun playing with the Enigma Paramjit sotonboy84 how about getting angry at the paying for the wars that Capitalism as create like the Iraq and Afghanistan and the cost to tax payers in over throwing legal governments just because they will not play ball like Libya and Syria And paying the salary to the supreme Justice who as an invested interest in success of Monsanto Or/and paying for the health care of certain company,s for employees because they will not give its workforce a living wage or provide insurance Or/and paying Israel 4 million a day Or/and paying the oil industry £12 million a day Or/and paying the EU 5o million Or/and paying for the Tax cheats who avoid paying or pay little as they can in tax. And look who get's the blame for the debt and failure of the economy the poor do those that struggle day to day to survive southy
  • Score: 3

7:14pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
southy wrote:
Bobs Your Uncle ? wrote:
George4th wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?
good point ,what are they trying to hide?
Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,
It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off.

Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.
You certainly have the right to know where your money goes. Right place for that should be to do bit of research into the accounts of the central government and your local council. This site will only provide you with biased guesstimates. Because it has no shortage of people like your own good self with plenty of fictional imaginations on various issues.

When you find the time to look into real figures, I have the feeling that bill of welfare frauds (which only complete anarchists or fools will defend) may be far less than certain super rich people avoid paying taxes and by hiding their massive wealth in various tax havens.

Also try to ask your MEP, how many times during last two decades the accounts of EU were signed off as accurate and fraud free by it's auditors, because part of your money and of the rest of us is put into the coffers of the EU, around £50 millions every day.

You should also be looking into millions given to various corporations, and check the details because books may have been cooked. Some even pocket the money under the excuse of creating jobs and then relocate their production lines in places like Turky.

Yes there should be zero tolerance for fraud, but why keep on and on ONLY about small percentage of people abusing the welfare benefits and conveniently ignore or stay quite about big sharks? Could the reason be that it suits the agenda of hate mongers xenophobes?

I believe Southy is making the right point that if well balanced documentaries are produced it can be good, but controversies created by Love Production in Birmingham by salting participants makes many people wonder of their real intentions.

So in my view some of the local councillors, Alan Whitehead MP and many others even in other political parties have very rightly expressed their serious reservations.

By the way congratulations to Southy for posting an easy to read comment, which can be understood without using Enigma!!! (Sorry Pete couldn't resist that, seriously it's nice to see you having improved your style)
I am sure that if he should investigate where his money goes I bet he soon stops when he realises that he's been voting for them for years .....
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobs Your Uncle ?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?[/p][/quote]good point ,what are they trying to hide?[/p][/quote]Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,[/p][/quote]It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off. Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.[/p][/quote]You certainly have the right to know where your money goes. Right place for that should be to do bit of research into the accounts of the central government and your local council. This site will only provide you with biased guesstimates. Because it has no shortage of people like your own good self with plenty of fictional imaginations on various issues. When you find the time to look into real figures, I have the feeling that bill of welfare frauds (which only complete anarchists or fools will defend) may be far less than certain super rich people avoid paying taxes and by hiding their massive wealth in various tax havens. Also try to ask your MEP, how many times during last two decades the accounts of EU were signed off as accurate and fraud free by it's auditors, because part of your money and of the rest of us is put into the coffers of the EU, around £50 millions every day. You should also be looking into millions given to various corporations, and check the details because books may have been cooked. Some even pocket the money under the excuse of creating jobs and then relocate their production lines in places like Turky. Yes there should be zero tolerance for fraud, but why keep on and on ONLY about small percentage of people abusing the welfare benefits and conveniently ignore or stay quite about big sharks? Could the reason be that it suits the agenda of hate mongers xenophobes? I believe Southy is making the right point that if well balanced documentaries are produced it can be good, but controversies created by Love Production in Birmingham by salting participants makes many people wonder of their real intentions. So in my view some of the local councillors, Alan Whitehead MP and many others even in other political parties have very rightly expressed their serious reservations. By the way congratulations to Southy for posting an easy to read comment, which can be understood without using Enigma!!! (Sorry Pete couldn't resist that, seriously it's nice to see you having improved your style)[/p][/quote]I am sure that if he should investigate where his money goes I bet he soon stops when he realises that he's been voting for them for years ..... Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

10:55pm Thu 17 Apr 14

sotonboy84 says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
southy wrote:
Bobs Your Uncle ? wrote:
George4th wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?
good point ,what are they trying to hide?
Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,
It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off.

Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.
You certainly have the right to know where your money goes. Right place for that should be to do bit of research into the accounts of the central government and your local council. This site will only provide you with biased guesstimates. Because it has no shortage of people like your own good self with plenty of fictional imaginations on various issues.

When you find the time to look into real figures, I have the feeling that bill of welfare frauds (which only complete anarchists or fools will defend) may be far less than certain super rich people avoid paying taxes and by hiding their massive wealth in various tax havens.

Also try to ask your MEP, how many times during last two decades the accounts of EU were signed off as accurate and fraud free by it's auditors, because part of your money and of the rest of us is put into the coffers of the EU, around £50 millions every day.

You should also be looking into millions given to various corporations, and check the details because books may have been cooked. Some even pocket the money under the excuse of creating jobs and then relocate their production lines in places like Turky.

Yes there should be zero tolerance for fraud, but why keep on and on ONLY about small percentage of people abusing the welfare benefits and conveniently ignore or stay quite about big sharks? Could the reason be that it suits the agenda of hate mongers xenophobes?

I believe Southy is making the right point that if well balanced documentaries are produced it can be good, but controversies created by Love Production in Birmingham by salting participants makes many people wonder of their real intentions.

So in my view some of the local councillors, Alan Whitehead MP and many others even in other political parties have very rightly expressed their serious reservations.

By the way congratulations to Southy for posting an easy to read comment, which can be understood without using Enigma!!! (Sorry Pete couldn't resist that, seriously it's nice to see you having improved your style)
And all this coming from the same person that accuses the Royal Family of benefit fraud.

I used to think you had sensible views but your comments are just far fetched & twisted to suit your own argument (the same as Southy's but just with a better grasp of grammar).

I'm not going by what is said on this site, I'm going by what I saw with my own eyes on "Benefits Street" which was blatant benefit abuse, drug dealing & theft. This is where taxpayers money is being wasted so don't try & belittle the fact by claiming a small percentage of people abuse benefits. I think you're getting confused with those that have been proven to abuse the system & those that know how to work the system.

That fat monster on the programme that was unemployed, scrounging off benefits, DLA the lot because she was depressed. What happened to her depression when all the television & magazine interviews came along? Just because you know how to play the system, does not mean you're not abusing it.

Are you suggesting then that as the documentary depicted James Turner Street negatively, this means this is what the programme set out to do & twisted everything to do this? Could it be the blatant scrounging & cheating was just highlighted to a wider audience?

I'm sorry to tell you but you're full of crap. You sit there & accuse Her Majesty of being a benefit scrounger, the British Government of abusing the Indian Army for fighting for Britain & then rebuilding the country & now it's ok to abuse benefits because those that do are in the small minority.

I'm surprised you're not still a councillor with qualities like these.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobs Your Uncle ?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?[/p][/quote]good point ,what are they trying to hide?[/p][/quote]Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,[/p][/quote]It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off. Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.[/p][/quote]You certainly have the right to know where your money goes. Right place for that should be to do bit of research into the accounts of the central government and your local council. This site will only provide you with biased guesstimates. Because it has no shortage of people like your own good self with plenty of fictional imaginations on various issues. When you find the time to look into real figures, I have the feeling that bill of welfare frauds (which only complete anarchists or fools will defend) may be far less than certain super rich people avoid paying taxes and by hiding their massive wealth in various tax havens. Also try to ask your MEP, how many times during last two decades the accounts of EU were signed off as accurate and fraud free by it's auditors, because part of your money and of the rest of us is put into the coffers of the EU, around £50 millions every day. You should also be looking into millions given to various corporations, and check the details because books may have been cooked. Some even pocket the money under the excuse of creating jobs and then relocate their production lines in places like Turky. Yes there should be zero tolerance for fraud, but why keep on and on ONLY about small percentage of people abusing the welfare benefits and conveniently ignore or stay quite about big sharks? Could the reason be that it suits the agenda of hate mongers xenophobes? I believe Southy is making the right point that if well balanced documentaries are produced it can be good, but controversies created by Love Production in Birmingham by salting participants makes many people wonder of their real intentions. So in my view some of the local councillors, Alan Whitehead MP and many others even in other political parties have very rightly expressed their serious reservations. By the way congratulations to Southy for posting an easy to read comment, which can be understood without using Enigma!!! (Sorry Pete couldn't resist that, seriously it's nice to see you having improved your style)[/p][/quote]And all this coming from the same person that accuses the Royal Family of benefit fraud. I used to think you had sensible views but your comments are just far fetched & twisted to suit your own argument (the same as Southy's but just with a better grasp of grammar). I'm not going by what is said on this site, I'm going by what I saw with my own eyes on "Benefits Street" which was blatant benefit abuse, drug dealing & theft. This is where taxpayers money is being wasted so don't try & belittle the fact by claiming a small percentage of people abuse benefits. I think you're getting confused with those that have been proven to abuse the system & those that know how to work the system. That fat monster on the programme that was unemployed, scrounging off benefits, DLA the lot because she was depressed. What happened to her depression when all the television & magazine interviews came along? Just because you know how to play the system, does not mean you're not abusing it. Are you suggesting then that as the documentary depicted James Turner Street negatively, this means this is what the programme set out to do & twisted everything to do this? Could it be the blatant scrounging & cheating was just highlighted to a wider audience? I'm sorry to tell you but you're full of crap. You sit there & accuse Her Majesty of being a benefit scrounger, the British Government of abusing the Indian Army for fighting for Britain & then rebuilding the country & now it's ok to abuse benefits because those that do are in the small minority. I'm surprised you're not still a councillor with qualities like these. sotonboy84
  • Score: 3

10:58pm Thu 17 Apr 14

sotonboy84 says...

southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
southy wrote:
Bobs Your Uncle ? wrote:
George4th wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?
good point ,what are they trying to hide?
Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,
It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off.

Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.
You certainly have the right to know where your money goes. Right place for that should be to do bit of research into the accounts of the central government and your local council. This site will only provide you with biased guesstimates. Because it has no shortage of people like your own good self with plenty of fictional imaginations on various issues.

When you find the time to look into real figures, I have the feeling that bill of welfare frauds (which only complete anarchists or fools will defend) may be far less than certain super rich people avoid paying taxes and by hiding their massive wealth in various tax havens.

Also try to ask your MEP, how many times during last two decades the accounts of EU were signed off as accurate and fraud free by it's auditors, because part of your money and of the rest of us is put into the coffers of the EU, around £50 millions every day.

You should also be looking into millions given to various corporations, and check the details because books may have been cooked. Some even pocket the money under the excuse of creating jobs and then relocate their production lines in places like Turky.

Yes there should be zero tolerance for fraud, but why keep on and on ONLY about small percentage of people abusing the welfare benefits and conveniently ignore or stay quite about big sharks? Could the reason be that it suits the agenda of hate mongers xenophobes?

I believe Southy is making the right point that if well balanced documentaries are produced it can be good, but controversies created by Love Production in Birmingham by salting participants makes many people wonder of their real intentions.

So in my view some of the local councillors, Alan Whitehead MP and many others even in other political parties have very rightly expressed their serious reservations.

By the way congratulations to Southy for posting an easy to read comment, which can be understood without using Enigma!!! (Sorry Pete couldn't resist that, seriously it's nice to see you having improved your style)
its good fun playing with the Enigma Paramjit

sotonboy84 how about getting angry at the paying for the wars that Capitalism as create like the Iraq and Afghanistan and the cost to tax payers in over throwing legal governments just because they will not play ball like Libya and Syria
And paying the salary to the supreme Justice who as an invested interest in success of Monsanto
Or/and paying for the health care of certain company,s for employees because they will not give its workforce a living wage or provide insurance
Or/and paying Israel 4 million a day
Or/and paying the oil industry £12 million a day
Or/and paying the EU 5o million
Or/and paying for the Tax cheats who avoid paying or pay little as they can in tax.

And look who get's the blame for the debt and failure of the economy the poor do those that struggle day to day to survive
Labour's the name you're after.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobs Your Uncle ?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?[/p][/quote]good point ,what are they trying to hide?[/p][/quote]Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,[/p][/quote]It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off. Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.[/p][/quote]You certainly have the right to know where your money goes. Right place for that should be to do bit of research into the accounts of the central government and your local council. This site will only provide you with biased guesstimates. Because it has no shortage of people like your own good self with plenty of fictional imaginations on various issues. When you find the time to look into real figures, I have the feeling that bill of welfare frauds (which only complete anarchists or fools will defend) may be far less than certain super rich people avoid paying taxes and by hiding their massive wealth in various tax havens. Also try to ask your MEP, how many times during last two decades the accounts of EU were signed off as accurate and fraud free by it's auditors, because part of your money and of the rest of us is put into the coffers of the EU, around £50 millions every day. You should also be looking into millions given to various corporations, and check the details because books may have been cooked. Some even pocket the money under the excuse of creating jobs and then relocate their production lines in places like Turky. Yes there should be zero tolerance for fraud, but why keep on and on ONLY about small percentage of people abusing the welfare benefits and conveniently ignore or stay quite about big sharks? Could the reason be that it suits the agenda of hate mongers xenophobes? I believe Southy is making the right point that if well balanced documentaries are produced it can be good, but controversies created by Love Production in Birmingham by salting participants makes many people wonder of their real intentions. So in my view some of the local councillors, Alan Whitehead MP and many others even in other political parties have very rightly expressed their serious reservations. By the way congratulations to Southy for posting an easy to read comment, which can be understood without using Enigma!!! (Sorry Pete couldn't resist that, seriously it's nice to see you having improved your style)[/p][/quote]its good fun playing with the Enigma Paramjit sotonboy84 how about getting angry at the paying for the wars that Capitalism as create like the Iraq and Afghanistan and the cost to tax payers in over throwing legal governments just because they will not play ball like Libya and Syria And paying the salary to the supreme Justice who as an invested interest in success of Monsanto Or/and paying for the health care of certain company,s for employees because they will not give its workforce a living wage or provide insurance Or/and paying Israel 4 million a day Or/and paying the oil industry £12 million a day Or/and paying the EU 5o million Or/and paying for the Tax cheats who avoid paying or pay little as they can in tax. And look who get's the blame for the debt and failure of the economy the poor do those that struggle day to day to survive[/p][/quote]Labour's the name you're after. sotonboy84
  • Score: 4

11:04pm Thu 17 Apr 14

sotonboy84 says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
southy wrote:
Bobs Your Uncle ? wrote:
George4th wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?
good point ,what are they trying to hide?
Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,
It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off.

Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.
You certainly have the right to know where your money goes. Right place for that should be to do bit of research into the accounts of the central government and your local council. This site will only provide you with biased guesstimates. Because it has no shortage of people like your own good self with plenty of fictional imaginations on various issues.

When you find the time to look into real figures, I have the feeling that bill of welfare frauds (which only complete anarchists or fools will defend) may be far less than certain super rich people avoid paying taxes and by hiding their massive wealth in various tax havens.

Also try to ask your MEP, how many times during last two decades the accounts of EU were signed off as accurate and fraud free by it's auditors, because part of your money and of the rest of us is put into the coffers of the EU, around £50 millions every day.

You should also be looking into millions given to various corporations, and check the details because books may have been cooked. Some even pocket the money under the excuse of creating jobs and then relocate their production lines in places like Turky.

Yes there should be zero tolerance for fraud, but why keep on and on ONLY about small percentage of people abusing the welfare benefits and conveniently ignore or stay quite about big sharks? Could the reason be that it suits the agenda of hate mongers xenophobes?

I believe Southy is making the right point that if well balanced documentaries are produced it can be good, but controversies created by Love Production in Birmingham by salting participants makes many people wonder of their real intentions.

So in my view some of the local councillors, Alan Whitehead MP and many others even in other political parties have very rightly expressed their serious reservations.

By the way congratulations to Southy for posting an easy to read comment, which can be understood without using Enigma!!! (Sorry Pete couldn't resist that, seriously it's nice to see you having improved your style)
I am sure that if he should investigate where his money goes I bet he soon stops when he realises that he's been voting for them for years .....
Oh & I refer to my post yesterday. Whitehead is concerned as the show could highlight his attempts to have immigration laws changed. The man who lives & works in Derby Road went & married a woman in an unsafe country, got her pregnant & then because he couldn't provide the £18,600 salary + £3,000 odd for each child, they all say immigration laws are discriminating against communities then tearing them apart!!

Yet another example of abusing the system, or in this case trying to. This man knew he couldn't provide for a family but went ahead & had one anyway as a bargaining tool.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobs Your Uncle ?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?[/p][/quote]good point ,what are they trying to hide?[/p][/quote]Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,[/p][/quote]It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off. Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.[/p][/quote]You certainly have the right to know where your money goes. Right place for that should be to do bit of research into the accounts of the central government and your local council. This site will only provide you with biased guesstimates. Because it has no shortage of people like your own good self with plenty of fictional imaginations on various issues. When you find the time to look into real figures, I have the feeling that bill of welfare frauds (which only complete anarchists or fools will defend) may be far less than certain super rich people avoid paying taxes and by hiding their massive wealth in various tax havens. Also try to ask your MEP, how many times during last two decades the accounts of EU were signed off as accurate and fraud free by it's auditors, because part of your money and of the rest of us is put into the coffers of the EU, around £50 millions every day. You should also be looking into millions given to various corporations, and check the details because books may have been cooked. Some even pocket the money under the excuse of creating jobs and then relocate their production lines in places like Turky. Yes there should be zero tolerance for fraud, but why keep on and on ONLY about small percentage of people abusing the welfare benefits and conveniently ignore or stay quite about big sharks? Could the reason be that it suits the agenda of hate mongers xenophobes? I believe Southy is making the right point that if well balanced documentaries are produced it can be good, but controversies created by Love Production in Birmingham by salting participants makes many people wonder of their real intentions. So in my view some of the local councillors, Alan Whitehead MP and many others even in other political parties have very rightly expressed their serious reservations. By the way congratulations to Southy for posting an easy to read comment, which can be understood without using Enigma!!! (Sorry Pete couldn't resist that, seriously it's nice to see you having improved your style)[/p][/quote]I am sure that if he should investigate where his money goes I bet he soon stops when he realises that he's been voting for them for years .....[/p][/quote]Oh & I refer to my post yesterday. Whitehead is concerned as the show could highlight his attempts to have immigration laws changed. The man who lives & works in Derby Road went & married a woman in an unsafe country, got her pregnant & then because he couldn't provide the £18,600 salary + £3,000 odd for each child, they all say immigration laws are discriminating against communities then tearing them apart!! Yet another example of abusing the system, or in this case trying to. This man knew he couldn't provide for a family but went ahead & had one anyway as a bargaining tool. sotonboy84
  • Score: 7

11:55pm Thu 17 Apr 14

southy says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
southy wrote:
Bobs Your Uncle ? wrote:
George4th wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?
good point ,what are they trying to hide?
Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,
It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off.

Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.
You certainly have the right to know where your money goes. Right place for that should be to do bit of research into the accounts of the central government and your local council. This site will only provide you with biased guesstimates. Because it has no shortage of people like your own good self with plenty of fictional imaginations on various issues.

When you find the time to look into real figures, I have the feeling that bill of welfare frauds (which only complete anarchists or fools will defend) may be far less than certain super rich people avoid paying taxes and by hiding their massive wealth in various tax havens.

Also try to ask your MEP, how many times during last two decades the accounts of EU were signed off as accurate and fraud free by it's auditors, because part of your money and of the rest of us is put into the coffers of the EU, around £50 millions every day.

You should also be looking into millions given to various corporations, and check the details because books may have been cooked. Some even pocket the money under the excuse of creating jobs and then relocate their production lines in places like Turky.

Yes there should be zero tolerance for fraud, but why keep on and on ONLY about small percentage of people abusing the welfare benefits and conveniently ignore or stay quite about big sharks? Could the reason be that it suits the agenda of hate mongers xenophobes?

I believe Southy is making the right point that if well balanced documentaries are produced it can be good, but controversies created by Love Production in Birmingham by salting participants makes many people wonder of their real intentions.

So in my view some of the local councillors, Alan Whitehead MP and many others even in other political parties have very rightly expressed their serious reservations.

By the way congratulations to Southy for posting an easy to read comment, which can be understood without using Enigma!!! (Sorry Pete couldn't resist that, seriously it's nice to see you having improved your style)
its good fun playing with the Enigma Paramjit

sotonboy84 how about getting angry at the paying for the wars that Capitalism as create like the Iraq and Afghanistan and the cost to tax payers in over throwing legal governments just because they will not play ball like Libya and Syria
And paying the salary to the supreme Justice who as an invested interest in success of Monsanto
Or/and paying for the health care of certain company,s for employees because they will not give its workforce a living wage or provide insurance
Or/and paying Israel 4 million a day
Or/and paying the oil industry £12 million a day
Or/and paying the EU 5o million
Or/and paying for the Tax cheats who avoid paying or pay little as they can in tax.

And look who get's the blame for the debt and failure of the economy the poor do those that struggle day to day to survive
Labour's the name you're after.
the Torys front bench biggest bunch of crooks in the house of commons, the PM him self is a tax cheat. its not just Labour its Torys also they gave the order to over throw a legal government just because they would not play ball, it was the tory,s that denied that they had troops on the ground in Libya and had to back track when 1 was caught by a farmer.
You do realise that Benefit street was a scripted it was a bit of fiction works there was nothing truthful about it. all it was, was a bit of entertainment to get a reaction and it did, it cause violence by a very small number of people, it created hate, thats why the council pulled the plug on them from filming in council owned homes and in public areas.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobs Your Uncle ?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?[/p][/quote]good point ,what are they trying to hide?[/p][/quote]Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,[/p][/quote]It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off. Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.[/p][/quote]You certainly have the right to know where your money goes. Right place for that should be to do bit of research into the accounts of the central government and your local council. This site will only provide you with biased guesstimates. Because it has no shortage of people like your own good self with plenty of fictional imaginations on various issues. When you find the time to look into real figures, I have the feeling that bill of welfare frauds (which only complete anarchists or fools will defend) may be far less than certain super rich people avoid paying taxes and by hiding their massive wealth in various tax havens. Also try to ask your MEP, how many times during last two decades the accounts of EU were signed off as accurate and fraud free by it's auditors, because part of your money and of the rest of us is put into the coffers of the EU, around £50 millions every day. You should also be looking into millions given to various corporations, and check the details because books may have been cooked. Some even pocket the money under the excuse of creating jobs and then relocate their production lines in places like Turky. Yes there should be zero tolerance for fraud, but why keep on and on ONLY about small percentage of people abusing the welfare benefits and conveniently ignore or stay quite about big sharks? Could the reason be that it suits the agenda of hate mongers xenophobes? I believe Southy is making the right point that if well balanced documentaries are produced it can be good, but controversies created by Love Production in Birmingham by salting participants makes many people wonder of their real intentions. So in my view some of the local councillors, Alan Whitehead MP and many others even in other political parties have very rightly expressed their serious reservations. By the way congratulations to Southy for posting an easy to read comment, which can be understood without using Enigma!!! (Sorry Pete couldn't resist that, seriously it's nice to see you having improved your style)[/p][/quote]its good fun playing with the Enigma Paramjit sotonboy84 how about getting angry at the paying for the wars that Capitalism as create like the Iraq and Afghanistan and the cost to tax payers in over throwing legal governments just because they will not play ball like Libya and Syria And paying the salary to the supreme Justice who as an invested interest in success of Monsanto Or/and paying for the health care of certain company,s for employees because they will not give its workforce a living wage or provide insurance Or/and paying Israel 4 million a day Or/and paying the oil industry £12 million a day Or/and paying the EU 5o million Or/and paying for the Tax cheats who avoid paying or pay little as they can in tax. And look who get's the blame for the debt and failure of the economy the poor do those that struggle day to day to survive[/p][/quote]Labour's the name you're after.[/p][/quote]the Torys front bench biggest bunch of crooks in the house of commons, the PM him self is a tax cheat. its not just Labour its Torys also they gave the order to over throw a legal government just because they would not play ball, it was the tory,s that denied that they had troops on the ground in Libya and had to back track when 1 was caught by a farmer. You do realise that Benefit street was a scripted it was a bit of fiction works there was nothing truthful about it. all it was, was a bit of entertainment to get a reaction and it did, it cause violence by a very small number of people, it created hate, thats why the council pulled the plug on them from filming in council owned homes and in public areas. southy
  • Score: -5

6:08am Fri 18 Apr 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
southy wrote:
Bobs Your Uncle ? wrote:
George4th wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?
good point ,what are they trying to hide?
Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,
It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off.

Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.
You certainly have the right to know where your money goes. Right place for that should be to do bit of research into the accounts of the central government and your local council. This site will only provide you with biased guesstimates. Because it has no shortage of people like your own good self with plenty of fictional imaginations on various issues.

When you find the time to look into real figures, I have the feeling that bill of welfare frauds (which only complete anarchists or fools will defend) may be far less than certain super rich people avoid paying taxes and by hiding their massive wealth in various tax havens.

Also try to ask your MEP, how many times during last two decades the accounts of EU were signed off as accurate and fraud free by it's auditors, because part of your money and of the rest of us is put into the coffers of the EU, around £50 millions every day.

You should also be looking into millions given to various corporations, and check the details because books may have been cooked. Some even pocket the money under the excuse of creating jobs and then relocate their production lines in places like Turky.

Yes there should be zero tolerance for fraud, but why keep on and on ONLY about small percentage of people abusing the welfare benefits and conveniently ignore or stay quite about big sharks? Could the reason be that it suits the agenda of hate mongers xenophobes?

I believe Southy is making the right point that if well balanced documentaries are produced it can be good, but controversies created by Love Production in Birmingham by salting participants makes many people wonder of their real intentions.

So in my view some of the local councillors, Alan Whitehead MP and many others even in other political parties have very rightly expressed their serious reservations.

By the way congratulations to Southy for posting an easy to read comment, which can be understood without using Enigma!!! (Sorry Pete couldn't resist that, seriously it's nice to see you having improved your style)
And all this coming from the same person that accuses the Royal Family of benefit fraud.

I used to think you had sensible views but your comments are just far fetched & twisted to suit your own argument (the same as Southy's but just with a better grasp of grammar).

I'm not going by what is said on this site, I'm going by what I saw with my own eyes on "Benefits Street" which was blatant benefit abuse, drug dealing & theft. This is where taxpayers money is being wasted so don't try & belittle the fact by claiming a small percentage of people abuse benefits. I think you're getting confused with those that have been proven to abuse the system & those that know how to work the system.

That fat monster on the programme that was unemployed, scrounging off benefits, DLA the lot because she was depressed. What happened to her depression when all the television & magazine interviews came along? Just because you know how to play the system, does not mean you're not abusing it.

Are you suggesting then that as the documentary depicted James Turner Street negatively, this means this is what the programme set out to do & twisted everything to do this? Could it be the blatant scrounging & cheating was just highlighted to a wider audience?

I'm sorry to tell you but you're full of crap. You sit there & accuse Her Majesty of being a benefit scrounger, the British Government of abusing the Indian Army for fighting for Britain & then rebuilding the country & now it's ok to abuse benefits because those that do are in the small minority.

I'm surprised you're not still a councillor with qualities like these.
You must be the the best specialist in making up stories for throwing mud at others to prove your point.

With your fictional imagination It may be a good idea if you start writing horror stories than keep on posting on this site, or apply for the job vacated by Andy Coulson in Cameron's office.

Where did I accuse the royal family or the Queen of "benefit fraud"? Can you produce that proof?

Only indirect mention I made of that family was that they were also immigrants from the continent and benefit from public purse. So they may be suitable for making programme about immigration and immigrants becoming pillers of precived British respectability.
Obviously either you dont understand the difference between 'benefit cheating' and legal benefit entitlement, which in the case of royal family is money paid under the laws of the land, or you have some other motives for inventing your false statement.

And when did I ever say that it is OK to abuse the benefit system? Is there any limit to your ability of concocting?

You have lied through your teeth by accusing me of having said that the British govt abused Indian army for fighting for Britain. Can you cut and paste that statement without doctoring it?

I'd merely stated the fact that many from Commonwealth Countries (which during the war were part of British Empire) fought to save Britain and after the war British Govt requested Commonwealth nations to supply labour for rebuilding this country. Facts which even Enoch Powell could not deny and even UKIP's Nigel Farage accepts.

In another reply to my comment you'd mentioned that your family lived in India and were in the army but had to leave because they were unsafe because of their skin colour (you may have meant either white or anglo Indians whom most English people used to refer as 'eight anna bits' or 'Chichiese' ) On reading that I honestly was shocked and even felt sorry, because a) I have sympthy with anglo Indians who were victims of prejudice and were often abused by both British and Indians. b) nobody should be picked upon because of their skin colour, race or origin. c) They may even have been colleagues of my own brother and cousin who were also officers in Royal Indian Air Force and killed during the war.
But at the same time I found it to be very odd that a family from Indian army may have been harassed because of their racial origins. Because armed forces in that country were and still are very close knit community, which is well known for protecting each other. So I am starting to wonder if that was also one of your fictions.
For your info there are still plenty of English and other Europeans happily living in India, which like any other place also has both good and few xenophobic or closed minded and full of prejudiced plus self opined people, just as we have you here in Southampton.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobs Your Uncle ?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?[/p][/quote]good point ,what are they trying to hide?[/p][/quote]Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,[/p][/quote]It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off. Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.[/p][/quote]You certainly have the right to know where your money goes. Right place for that should be to do bit of research into the accounts of the central government and your local council. This site will only provide you with biased guesstimates. Because it has no shortage of people like your own good self with plenty of fictional imaginations on various issues. When you find the time to look into real figures, I have the feeling that bill of welfare frauds (which only complete anarchists or fools will defend) may be far less than certain super rich people avoid paying taxes and by hiding their massive wealth in various tax havens. Also try to ask your MEP, how many times during last two decades the accounts of EU were signed off as accurate and fraud free by it's auditors, because part of your money and of the rest of us is put into the coffers of the EU, around £50 millions every day. You should also be looking into millions given to various corporations, and check the details because books may have been cooked. Some even pocket the money under the excuse of creating jobs and then relocate their production lines in places like Turky. Yes there should be zero tolerance for fraud, but why keep on and on ONLY about small percentage of people abusing the welfare benefits and conveniently ignore or stay quite about big sharks? Could the reason be that it suits the agenda of hate mongers xenophobes? I believe Southy is making the right point that if well balanced documentaries are produced it can be good, but controversies created by Love Production in Birmingham by salting participants makes many people wonder of their real intentions. So in my view some of the local councillors, Alan Whitehead MP and many others even in other political parties have very rightly expressed their serious reservations. By the way congratulations to Southy for posting an easy to read comment, which can be understood without using Enigma!!! (Sorry Pete couldn't resist that, seriously it's nice to see you having improved your style)[/p][/quote]And all this coming from the same person that accuses the Royal Family of benefit fraud. I used to think you had sensible views but your comments are just far fetched & twisted to suit your own argument (the same as Southy's but just with a better grasp of grammar). I'm not going by what is said on this site, I'm going by what I saw with my own eyes on "Benefits Street" which was blatant benefit abuse, drug dealing & theft. This is where taxpayers money is being wasted so don't try & belittle the fact by claiming a small percentage of people abuse benefits. I think you're getting confused with those that have been proven to abuse the system & those that know how to work the system. That fat monster on the programme that was unemployed, scrounging off benefits, DLA the lot because she was depressed. What happened to her depression when all the television & magazine interviews came along? Just because you know how to play the system, does not mean you're not abusing it. Are you suggesting then that as the documentary depicted James Turner Street negatively, this means this is what the programme set out to do & twisted everything to do this? Could it be the blatant scrounging & cheating was just highlighted to a wider audience? I'm sorry to tell you but you're full of crap. You sit there & accuse Her Majesty of being a benefit scrounger, the British Government of abusing the Indian Army for fighting for Britain & then rebuilding the country & now it's ok to abuse benefits because those that do are in the small minority. I'm surprised you're not still a councillor with qualities like these.[/p][/quote]You must be the the best specialist in making up stories for throwing mud at others to prove your point. With your fictional imagination It may be a good idea if you start writing horror stories than keep on posting on this site, or apply for the job vacated by Andy Coulson in Cameron's office. Where did I accuse the royal family or the Queen of "benefit fraud"? Can you produce that proof? Only indirect mention I made of that family was that they were also immigrants from the continent and benefit from public purse. So they may be suitable for making programme about immigration and immigrants becoming pillers of precived British respectability. Obviously either you dont understand the difference between 'benefit cheating' and legal benefit entitlement, which in the case of royal family is money paid under the laws of the land, or you have some other motives for inventing your false statement. And when did I ever say that it is OK to abuse the benefit system? Is there any limit to your ability of concocting? You have lied through your teeth by accusing me of having said that the British govt abused Indian army for fighting for Britain. Can you cut and paste that statement without doctoring it? I'd merely stated the fact that many from Commonwealth Countries (which during the war were part of British Empire) fought to save Britain and after the war British Govt requested Commonwealth nations to supply labour for rebuilding this country. Facts which even Enoch Powell could not deny and even UKIP's Nigel Farage accepts. In another reply to my comment you'd mentioned that your family lived in India and were in the army but had to leave because they were unsafe because of their skin colour (you may have meant either white or anglo Indians whom most English people used to refer as 'eight anna bits' or 'Chichiese' ) On reading that I honestly was shocked and even felt sorry, because a) I have sympthy with anglo Indians who were victims of prejudice and were often abused by both British and Indians. b) nobody should be picked upon because of their skin colour, race or origin. c) They may even have been colleagues of my own brother and cousin who were also officers in Royal Indian Air Force and killed during the war. But at the same time I found it to be very odd that a family from Indian army may have been harassed because of their racial origins. Because armed forces in that country were and still are very close knit community, which is well known for protecting each other. So I am starting to wonder if that was also one of your fictions. For your info there are still plenty of English and other Europeans happily living in India, which like any other place also has both good and few xenophobic or closed minded and full of prejudiced plus self opined people, just as we have you here in Southampton. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

6:28am Fri 18 Apr 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
southy wrote:
Bobs Your Uncle ? wrote:
George4th wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?
good point ,what are they trying to hide?
Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,
It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off.

Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.
You certainly have the right to know where your money goes. Right place for that should be to do bit of research into the accounts of the central government and your local council. This site will only provide you with biased guesstimates. Because it has no shortage of people like your own good self with plenty of fictional imaginations on various issues.

When you find the time to look into real figures, I have the feeling that bill of welfare frauds (which only complete anarchists or fools will defend) may be far less than certain super rich people avoid paying taxes and by hiding their massive wealth in various tax havens.

Also try to ask your MEP, how many times during last two decades the accounts of EU were signed off as accurate and fraud free by it's auditors, because part of your money and of the rest of us is put into the coffers of the EU, around £50 millions every day.

You should also be looking into millions given to various corporations, and check the details because books may have been cooked. Some even pocket the money under the excuse of creating jobs and then relocate their production lines in places like Turky.

Yes there should be zero tolerance for fraud, but why keep on and on ONLY about small percentage of people abusing the welfare benefits and conveniently ignore or stay quite about big sharks? Could the reason be that it suits the agenda of hate mongers xenophobes?

I believe Southy is making the right point that if well balanced documentaries are produced it can be good, but controversies created by Love Production in Birmingham by salting participants makes many people wonder of their real intentions.

So in my view some of the local councillors, Alan Whitehead MP and many others even in other political parties have very rightly expressed their serious reservations.

By the way congratulations to Southy for posting an easy to read comment, which can be understood without using Enigma!!! (Sorry Pete couldn't resist that, seriously it's nice to see you having improved your style)
I am sure that if he should investigate where his money goes I bet he soon stops when he realises that he's been voting for them for years .....
Oh & I refer to my post yesterday. Whitehead is concerned as the show could highlight his attempts to have immigration laws changed. The man who lives & works in Derby Road went & married a woman in an unsafe country, got her pregnant & then because he couldn't provide the £18,600 salary + £3,000 odd for each child, they all say immigration laws are discriminating against communities then tearing them apart!!

Yet another example of abusing the system, or in this case trying to. This man knew he couldn't provide for a family but went ahead & had one anyway as a bargaining tool.
Nobody should be surprised if you do not have full details of the case Alan Whitehead may have dealt with as MP, but have picked up bits and pieces from complex legal and moral arguments Alan may have put forward on behalf of his constituent.

In democratic society the MPs are always judged by the people, and they keep on electing Whitehead and muck thrown by you is not likely to stick.

If you are feeling so strongly why don't you contest election against Whitehead and find out how much support you have got?
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobs Your Uncle ?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: The Daily Echo along with the so called "leaders" are jumping on a bandwagon that doesn't exist! The Production company "Love Productions has built up a very good reputation and has won awards for their productions. It is clear that they are scrupulous about those being interviewed having the final say so on what is shown on TV - if the interviewed individual doesn't like it, it doesn't get shown on TV.(That was the case with "Benefits Street" too!) Ignore the sensitive souls and let the program go ahead or are those protesting in some way ashamed of Southampton?[/p][/quote]good point ,what are they trying to hide?[/p][/quote]Check out what happen in Birmingham the program there was so one sided it cause a hate the people on benefit (thankfully it was a very small number but it cause problems), in the end the Council with draw permission with in council owned property and in public areas, it also created demo's out side the local offices of LP because of there one sided show, it upset a lot of people of there portrayal, in the end they had to relocated to finish off filming in another area. Now lets take a look at this area, The By-Election that happened a little while back UKIP done pretty well on the East side since then they sort of flop a little and what is UKIP only real policy about "Immigration" , We know that Richard McKerrow the Creative Director is a friend to Milliband they had meet and became friends while R.McKerrow was in New York working for a magazine, but the rest it is known that a few do support UKIP, Kieran Smith the Creative Director for Factual leans towards that way this showed with "Why Don't You Speak English, The Cruel Cut, Make Bradford British". Its not a case of what are they trying to hide, its a case of what is LP up to, the timing of this will mean it would be release before the General Election next year. Myself I think it could be done/made and if done right it could be a good thing but LP are not interested in that way, they want to cause a reaction and it will, to them its its entertainment I would allow it but under the conditions that it don,t get aired till after the General Election next year we are to close to it now, or if another company done it one that will do a good documentary on it,[/p][/quote]It wasn't one sided. It clearly showed benefit abuse, theft & drug dealing & the lives of these people is funded by hard working taxpayers. It pi**ed a lot of working taxpayers off. Not one sided, just exposing the truth to a wider audience. As a taxpayer myself, I'm entitled to see where my money goes.[/p][/quote]You certainly have the right to know where your money goes. Right place for that should be to do bit of research into the accounts of the central government and your local council. This site will only provide you with biased guesstimates. Because it has no shortage of people like your own good self with plenty of fictional imaginations on various issues. When you find the time to look into real figures, I have the feeling that bill of welfare frauds (which only complete anarchists or fools will defend) may be far less than certain super rich people avoid paying taxes and by hiding their massive wealth in various tax havens. Also try to ask your MEP, how many times during last two decades the accounts of EU were signed off as accurate and fraud free by it's auditors, because part of your money and of the rest of us is put into the coffers of the EU, around £50 millions every day. You should also be looking into millions given to various corporations, and check the details because books may have been cooked. Some even pocket the money under the excuse of creating jobs and then relocate their production lines in places like Turky. Yes there should be zero tolerance for fraud, but why keep on and on ONLY about small percentage of people abusing the welfare benefits and conveniently ignore or stay quite about big sharks? Could the reason be that it suits the agenda of hate mongers xenophobes? I believe Southy is making the right point that if well balanced documentaries are produced it can be good, but controversies created by Love Production in Birmingham by salting participants makes many people wonder of their real intentions. So in my view some of the local councillors, Alan Whitehead MP and many others even in other political parties have very rightly expressed their serious reservations. By the way congratulations to Southy for posting an easy to read comment, which can be understood without using Enigma!!! (Sorry Pete couldn't resist that, seriously it's nice to see you having improved your style)[/p][/quote]I am sure that if he should investigate where his money goes I bet he soon stops when he realises that he's been voting for them for years .....[/p][/quote]Oh & I refer to my post yesterday. Whitehead is concerned as the show could highlight his attempts to have immigration laws changed. The man who lives & works in Derby Road went & married a woman in an unsafe country, got her pregnant & then because he couldn't provide the £18,600 salary + £3,000 odd for each child, they all say immigration laws are discriminating against communities then tearing them apart!! Yet another example of abusing the system, or in this case trying to. This man knew he couldn't provide for a family but went ahead & had one anyway as a bargaining tool.[/p][/quote]Nobody should be surprised if you do not have full details of the case Alan Whitehead may have dealt with as MP, but have picked up bits and pieces from complex legal and moral arguments Alan may have put forward on behalf of his constituent. In democratic society the MPs are always judged by the people, and they keep on electing Whitehead and muck thrown by you is not likely to stick. If you are feeling so strongly why don't you contest election against Whitehead and find out how much support you have got? Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: -3

8:40pm Sun 20 Apr 14

amelia75 says...

Mmmm apparently there are 47 languages there funny that we only speak English maybe they should get of their arses get a job and speak our language then there wouldnt have to be a stupid programme being produced. I dont work full time to subsidise lazy gits who have no right to be here does my head in. Its about time we had someone running this country the way it should be run and looking after the people who have a right to be here and who work hard.
Mmmm apparently there are 47 languages there funny that we only speak English maybe they should get of their arses get a job and speak our language then there wouldnt have to be a stupid programme being produced. I dont work full time to subsidise lazy gits who have no right to be here does my head in. Its about time we had someone running this country the way it should be run and looking after the people who have a right to be here and who work hard. amelia75
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree