1/4 of mothers are single parents after being enticed by benefits 'lifestyle choice'

sjaypink

Graham_Devon wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You won't be laughing when I've got the CSA on your a*s Dev :cool::p

Pobby

If it`s in the Mail it must be true! We get it on a Sunday as Mrs. P likes the mags. I used to read it but can`t be bothered now unless there is something that draws my interest. Bridget Jones is a funny one.

As an aside, going back to the late 70`s, Richard Desmond, The Express owner and I were both sales reps in the same industry. He and I got on pretty well and there was talk, after he started Northern Shell of me working for him. Most likely I would be a lot better off if I had. Oh well.

vaporate

Go to Folkestone. Fine example of teenage mums on benefits.
Pram city.

Andy_L

vivatifosi wrote: »

The long and the short of what Flat Earth News says about the Mail is that it is very good at selecting stories that reflect its readerships, that may then be manipulated to reflect their readership's point of view more accurately than any other paper.

ISTR a quote a few years back from the DM's editor that he didn't consider his job done properly unless he made his readers angry

vivatifosi

moggylover wrote: »

I have certainly worked on a report recently that give a VERY different picture to that (but does appear to suggest figures of around 25% for single parenthood) and that was done in quite diverse areas so "possibly" (and I say that because I think only a complete census give a complete picture) gives a better picture.

For instance, if you went and interviewed 100 people on a sink estate and 25 in suburbia the results would be slewed;)

The sample size was relatively small - 3-4000 (depending on what you read, some sources say 3,000 others say 4,000). I'd say looking at the other results, such as greater tolerance of homosexuality, the sample they used was probably quite balanced as some of the other results are not those that you would normally find among single mums on sink estates.

However my main objection is that the primary source is not available and the results are being published differently in different papers. For example, one paper led not on single mums, but on the improved tolerance of homosexuality. Unless you can see the source data (I'm with you moggylover in that this is my background), its a bit to work out where fault lies, though the jump in inference on what the 25% is about is a bit of a Mail-ism, I'm pretty sure of that.

moggylover

As an example: early last year I was sent vast quantities of paperwork and data from which to collate a pretty hefty report on "long-term joblessness". I was one of 15 people working on it and 5 of us decided, having looked at the initial data, that we would not be prepared to write the reports (despite turning down our fees) because NO post-code data was available, and yet we knew that this data had been collected, and appeared to have been "sifted-out" at the preliminary collation stage.

We were eventually all given the post-code information and it became clear that this threw a VERY different perspective on the whole situation and not one that was at all in line with the results they wanted to get:D

However, not everyone working with that data is even bothered about what is done with it or how it is perceived and thus lots of the reports that are done show very skewed results and I seldom feel confident that a fair picture is arrived at.

moggylover

sjaypink wrote: »

:jHi moggy
Errr, thanks. Y'know, as the boards resident chav I fort it was my duty to back up m' fellow ditched b!tches

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Shame I own my house or I could join you:D

moggylover

carolt wrote: »

Darn - I did know that, but hoped no-one else would spot it.

:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

moggylover

Just as another example of how even the stereotyping of "teenage mums" can be really vile is that I currently have a carer/housekeeper (call her what you will as long as it is polite:D) who had two children by the time she was 17 by a man old enough to be her father (and whom I truly believe had groomed her as he left her as soon as she was 17 for another younger model). Her eldest was born when she was just 15 and only the fact that she would not name the father saved him from jail imo!

She is the last in quite a long line of "carers"! Some have been diabolical (including the one who turned every trip out she took me on into a shopping trip for herself with her friends who "just happened" to meet us in town, and then threatened to tell the authorities I was abusing my kids when I said I no longer wanted her "services" and why! Very nice she had seemed, middle class even! Forced into taking a "carers" job cos her hubby had sodded off with another woman and making sure those she "cared" for paid for it!

My current little lass has been with me for well over a year. She started with me as an agency worker and is now employed by me directly as I need more hours and more regularity now. We treat each other with mutual respect and she is brilliant. Always willing to go the extra mile to help, actually does know how to clean, and works her but off, not only for me but also to help her mum who has some problems after a car accident that involved serious back and leg injuries! She comes from the local council estate and would be looked on, I am sure, with scorn by lots of the usual suspects hereon!

She is an example of young girls who HAVE made mistakes, but who are willing and eager to try very hard to make some sort of life for themselves and their children in a society that is often very harsh and unforgiving: if not financially then in attitude. I'm am perfectly certain that she is not the only one, but the media never, ever wants to tell their story!

I HATE stereotypes! They give very false impressions in very many cases and are just used (especially by the media) to give the smug and self-satisfied something/someone to hate!

lemonjelly

sjaypink wrote: »

So basically then, there is no stats in the article relating to the quotes:

'Researchers called for more efforts to encourage young men to take jobs so that more young mothers will choose living with a reliable breadwinner over a life on benefits.'

One in four mothers is now a single parent, having made a 'lifestyle choice' to rely on benefits

hmmm, this is why (some) people detest the DM :cool:

...not saying there aren't issues, there blatantly are, i just hate the DMs journalistic style!

My comment about the blue rinse brigade is tongue in cheek.

I love the posts in this thread highlighting how it appears that the DM seek to rile/raise the anger levels of their readership.

I'm actually confused by the DM actually. I don't understand how they haven't alienated the whole of society from their readership. In addition to journalistic style (which is dire at best), they appear to hate single mums, gays, the disabled, jews, blacks, asians, anyone with HIV, anyone on any welfare benefits whatsoever.

The only group they don't alienate are white pensioners.

It seems to me that their own idea of their readership has flaws too. I picture the majority of DM readers as being middle england middle class white people with framed pictures of diana & maggie t on their sideboard. They do a lot of "tut-tutting" & probably write letters a lot to their MP's about the disgraceful things they've read in their paper.