# What message does this send out?



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

Makes me so glad i worked my arse off. No, really, it does.

*Jobless refugees who SNUBBED a six-bed home in Coventry to be with friends in London (in a £2m home funded by the taxpayer)*

They say beggars can't be choosers.
But in the case of jobless Somali refugee Saeed Khaliif and his family, it seems they can.
The Mail yesterday revealed how the Khaliifs have been given a £2million home in one of London's most exclusive neighbourhoods, with taxpayers funding their £8,000-a-month rent.









Luxury home: The £2m house where the Khaliif family live in West Hampstead

The family had rejected a previous six-bedroom home in Coventry - where the bill for the public would have been a more reasonable £1,000 a month - simply because they wanted to live 'closer to their friends'.
Yesterday the Daily Mail tracked down their old address in Coventry and found a beautiful semi-detached house in one of the city's most desirable districts.
The red-brick Victorian property is situated opposite a park known as Gosford Green which has survived since the 1300s, and there is also a parade of shops and restaurants nearby.









Ungrateful: Saeed Khaliif and his wife turned down another luxury home in Coventry so they could be near friends in London

Their fellow refugees in the area said the 'very lucky' family should have counted their blessings to have been given such a property.
Abdi Ibrahim, chairman of the Coventry Somali Community Network, a charity which works to integrate Somalis into the wider community, said: 'In all my time in Coventry I have not even seen a six-bedroom house advertised for rent.

From yesterday's Mail
'My family have been stuck in three or four-bedroom accommodation - a six-bedroom house is exceptional. This family should really have stayed in the area because it is much cheaper than in London.'
Mr Khaliif, 49, moved to the seven-bedroom property in West Hampstead, North-West London, with his wife Sayida and their children after deciding their previous accommodation was too far from their friends, even though Coventry is barely more than an hour away by train.
Leafy West Hampstead is one of the most sought-after areas in London, and well beyond the reach of many well-heeled house-hunters in the capital.









Plenty of living room: The lounge area of the £2m home provides plenty of space for the Khaliif family









Mod cons: The kitchen is fitted out with all the latest gadgets

On top of their free accommodation, the family is also thought to be eligible for a raft of benefits including incapacity benefit, income support and child benefit, which could potentially add many thousands of pounds to their monthly haul from the taxpayer.
The Khaliifs and their brood of children - eight youngsters have been seen at the property - fled war-torn Somalia and arrived in Britain about three years ago as asylum-seekers.
Since then, they are believed to have been granted refugee status, allowing them to claim benefits. Speaking via his children, who act as translators, Mr Khaliif said he had not worked since arriving in the UK and admitted he was on benefits.









Room with a view: The property contains six double bedrooms - some with walk-in wardrobes

Their new home has a 90ft garden and has been recently refurbished, with a large living room, sprawling kitchen, six double bedrooms - two with walk-in dressing rooms - and five shower rooms, four of which are en-suite. Another living room has been converted into a seventh bedroom.
Councillor Jonny Bucknell, who is on Camden council's housing committee, said: 'There are big families living locally who need more space, and I've never managed to get anyone rehoused.
'It is shocking that these people can just turn up from out of town and get such a magnificent property. The whole country is rightly outraged.'


----------



## NaughTTy (Jul 9, 2003)

But are they happy? :roll: (You bet their pampered arse they are :lol: )

And yet rioters on benefits reckon that the rich owe them a living [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## Lovinit (Mar 5, 2011)

James


----------



## Charlie (Dec 15, 2006)

Crazy crazy crazy [smiley=bomb.gif] [smiley=bomb.gif] [smiley=bomb.gif] [smiley=bomb.gif] [smiley=bomb.gif]

Charlie


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

To be fair though, I don't think anyone here can blame him for not wanting to live in Coventry...


----------



## Gforce (May 10, 2011)

Grrrrr and to think my dad who had worked all his life had to beg for a crap one bedroom flat when my mam passed away truly makes me sick!!!


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Gforce said:


> Grrrrr and to think my dad who had worked all his life had to beg for a crap one bedroom flat when my mam passed away truly makes me sick!!!


+1 fuk off home and see if you get a six bed house or a mud hut and a floor to kip on with dirty water and disease ridden streets.


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

Spandex said:


> To be fair though, I don't think anyone here can blame him for not wanting to live in Coventry...


That's a very good point. :lol:


----------



## Hark (Aug 23, 2007)

This is the mail though. Lol


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

Hark said:


> This is the mail though. Lol


This is also true, but it doesn't detract from the story really.
If you want to have a laugh, post in the comments section, you could say that black is very dark and someone would disagree with you, someone will then start a "black isn't dark" group on facebook followed by a group calling themselves "black is dark and the other group is talking utter shit".

Opinions are like assholes, some leave skidmarks.


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

STTink said:


> Hark said:
> 
> 
> > This is the mail though. Lol
> ...


Oh, and just before i get accused of racism on here again.

This is also true, but it doesn't detract from the story really.
If you want to have a laugh, post in the comments section, you could say that white is very light and someone would disagree with you, someone will then start a "white isn't light" group on facebook followed by a group calling themselves "white is light and the other group is talking utter shit".


----------



## Hark (Aug 23, 2007)

What I mean is that the mail looks for stories like this and tells it from it's skewed view point. I don't agree with these people being given a £2m pound house, but I used to have the Mail delivered but cancelled it due to the bs they seem to print.


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

Hark said:


> What I mean is that the mail looks for stories like this and tells it from it's skewed view point. I don't agree with these people being given a £2m pound house, but I used to have the Mail delivered but cancelled it due to the bs they seem to print.


What point of view would you prefer?

"*Poor Somalian family on paltry benefits have to suffer the indignity of living in 7 bedroom house worth £2m because evil Queen Elizabeth refuses to vacate Buckingham Palace.*"

I don't really think you can skew this that much


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

The problem is, the Mail doesn't just take a load of facts and put a spin on them... They'll happily make up stuff too, if it helps make the story seem more outrageous. It all might be true... But it could all be complete rubbish too. Rags like the Mail know they can get away with that sort of thing because their typical reader *Wants* to believe stories like this because it reinforces their opinions of the world.

Unfortunately, it's hard to verify this story, as everything I can see in the net seems to be a rehash of the original.


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

Spandex said:


> The problem is, the Mail doesn't just take a load of facts and put a spin on them... They'll happily make up stuff too, if it helps make the story seem more outrageous. It all might be true... But it could all be complete rubbish too. Rags like the Mail know they can get away with that sort of thing because their typical reader *Wants* to believe stories like this because it reinforces their opinions of the world.
> 
> Unfortunately, it's hard to verify this story, as everything I can see in the net seems to be a rehash of the original.


And how does that detract from the story, so what you're saying is that we shouldn't believe this story in a national newspaper, or, don't you think that in light of recent events concerning News International, it's not worth losing a newspaper over a bogus story?

I'm pretty sure if that's all the paper does, is happily makes things up, they'd be out of business by now.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

STTink said:


> And how does that detract from the story, so what you're saying is that we shouldn't believe this story in a national newspaper, or, don't you think that in light of recent events concerning News International, it's not worth losing a newspaper over a bogus story?
> 
> I'm pretty sure if that's all the paper does, is happily makes things up, they'd be out of business by now.


I'm saying that one or more of the 'facts' of that story could be lies, heavily misrepresented or unverified info from third parties. On the other hand, they may all be true. Generally though, when I read a 'righteous indignation' piece in a tabloid, I don't believe it till it's verified in a more serious paper. It's not like Im losing out by waiting a few days to see if something is true.

Oh, and to answer your other point, I don't think the Mail makes up all it's stories. I do know from friends in the industry that newspapers do occasionally make up entire stories though (the ones I know of were pretty light hearted 'filler' pieces though).


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

Spandex said:


> STTink said:
> 
> 
> > And how does that detract from the story, so what you're saying is that we shouldn't believe this story in a national newspaper, or, don't you think that in light of recent events concerning News International, it's not worth losing a newspaper over a bogus story?
> ...


Oddly, it's been reported in quite a few places, maybe they're all at it. Spreading wild rumours and righteously indignant sentiment because there's not enough going on in the world right now to report on. How cynical am i? (Smell the sarcasm?)

But maybe that's not the reason i posted this, maybe it's a bit more personal from my point of view. Maybe after 28 years of paying into the system, turns out when i need some help, i cant get it. And maybe many others who are not in a position to work are finding through no fault of their own, they can't get a penny either. And maybe, and i'm going to go out on a limb here and say a family that have probably never paid into the system have the luxury to turn down homes because they're a bit too far from their friends.

Don't get me wrong, i dont mind opening the doors to aid people that have it worse off than anyone else in this country, seeing the money i've paid into the system put to good cause even though i can't get my hands on any of it. See, i'm not starving, the mortgage gets paid and i've not had to resort to sitting outside train stations with my dog with my hand out.

But there's a line where i tend to say, "fuck me, that's taking the piss." I'm also guessing i'm not alone on this one. All it does is drive people into voting for the BNP in local elections. See, after reading this kind of thing, next time they see the British National Racists handing out leaflets in the street maybe they'll take a leaflet where as in the past, they wouldn't have dreamed of doing so.

I read through the spin, i read through what's believable and what's spin on spin built on bullshit.
Whether this wasn't written in a blank and flavourless style to your liking doesn't detract from the point of the story, you just have to read the bullet points without the "Oh my god, look at this, it's taking the piss" rhetoric. I made the choice that it was myself.

Times are hard and getting harder for most people by the day.
Reading this, whether you choose to believe it or not just makes it that little harder.


----------



## Hark (Aug 23, 2007)

Spandex said:


> Rags like the Mail know they can get away with that sort of thing because their typical reader *Wants* to believe stories like this because it reinforces their opinions of the world.


This I agree with.


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

Don't want to upset you guys, but everything you've read ever reinforces a point of view that you will make at some point.

Like i said, you either read the story or you read the rhetoric. 
I'm watching DIY SOS on BBC, always brings a tear to my eye, maybe i shouldn't fall for it, they do it to me every time i watch it. :wink:


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

STTink said:


> Don't want to upset you guys, but everything you've read ever reinforces a point of view that you will make at some point.
> 
> Like i said, you either read the story or you read the rhetoric.
> I'm watching DIY SOS on BBC, always brings a tear to my eye, maybe i shouldn't fall for it, they do it to me every time i watch it. :wink:


im watching brenda takes a bbc up her tight butt.......bringing a tear to her eyes also....sumat in common lol


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

Different to the BBC I'm watching Gaz. :lol:

No little tear in my eye this week, decided the woman with M.E. probably didn't have it, maybe it's something the shows producers came up with, i've decided she was just a bit tired.


----------



## T3RBO (Dec 9, 2003)

Fuck me that comment hit a nerve


----------



## alun (Aug 2, 2010)

this is gonna sound like im being racist, but let me say i have lots of freinds from various races and colours and they all work hard sometmes harder than most white people i know.. so here goes..

FAMILIES LIKE THIS SHOULD EITHER GET JOBS AND PAY TOWARDS THE COUNTRY......OR GET THE FUCK OUT. WHY THE FUCK AM I WORKING HARD AND HAVE A SMALL FLAT WHILE THESE SPONGING WANKERS DO FUCK ALL AND GET A MASSIVE PLACE FUCKING CUNTS..


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

alun said:


> this is gonna sound like im being racist, but let me say i have lots of freinds from various races and colours and they all work hard sometmes harder than most white people i know.. so here goes..
> 
> FAMILIES LIKE THIS SHOULD EITHER GET JOBS AND PAY TOWARDS THE COUNTRY......OR GET THE FUCK OUT. WHY THE FUCK AM I WORKING HARD AND HAVE A SMALL FLAT WHILE THESE SPONGING WANKERS DO FUCK ALL AND GET A MASSIVE PLACE FUCKING CUNTS..


Same here.

This has nothing to do with anything else other than fairness.
The fact that people are arguing the fact that they don't like the source is a moot point, or are you arguing the point for the sake of it?

I don't like some of the BBC news presenters or their accents, same goes for Sky news, CNN, Al Jazeera etc.
I don't discount the news they present because of that.
I'm also not a fan of Andrew Marr, but i've read two of his books and watched a couple of his tv series, enjoying the content immensely. I don't sit there with a screw face on thinking "wanker, i'm not falling for this shit", because of his gonk face and big ears.

But then, reading back most of Spandex's posts on this site, they do seem to go against the grain quite often. Maybe you do this out of boredom and in that case, you have no point at all.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

STTink said:


> But then, reading back most of Spandex's posts on this site, they do seem to go against the grain quite often. Maybe you do this out of boredom and in that case, you have no point at all.


Is going 'with the grain' desirable in some way? Does it show that you have a point, because everyone else must have a point, so yours is the same as theirs?

There's nothing inaccurate about what I've written. At no point do I even say your story isn't true. I thought we were having a conversation about the reliability of stories in the Mail and in tabloids in general, started by Hark commenting on the fact that because the Mail tends to make it's living from this sort of story, it means it's harder to trust them. Surely that's common sense?? The point is, newspapers don't just take all the same facts as each other and put a slight spin on it to match their editorial bias - they omit facts that don't help their bias - they make up facts that do - they only quote the people who agree with their view. That's just how it works.

So, unless you wrote the story, why are you getting your knickers in a bunch? Was this thread supposed to just start with your post, then follow with a bunch of 'I'm outraged' comments? Sounds exciting.


----------



## Gforce (May 10, 2011)

Don't know why anyone wouldn't be outraged by it myself unless they actualy don't care what there tax is being used for or they had a £2m council house themselves and wanted to keep it on the down low 

---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=54.994543,-1.755011


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Gforce said:


> Don't know why anyone wouldn't be outraged by it myself unless they actualy don't care what there tax is being used for or they had a £2m council house themselves and wanted to keep it on the down low


Shhhhhh....


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

[quote="Spandex"

There's nothing inaccurate about what I've written. At no point do I even say your story isn't true.

"The problem is, the Mail doesn't just take a load of facts and put a spin on them... They'll happily make up stuff too, if it helps make the story seem more outrageous. It all might be true... But it could all be complete rubbish too. Rags like the Mail know they can get away with that sort of thing because their typical reader Wants to believe stories like this because it reinforces their opinions of the world.

Unfortunately, it's hard to verify this story, as everything I can see in the net seems to be a rehash of the original."

Firstly, it's not my story, but you seem intent on debunking the source. Why? I mean, is this how you spend you day, trying to debunk every thing your read? :lol:

So, unless you wrote the story, why are you getting your knickers in a bunch? Was this thread supposed to just start with your post, then follow with a bunch of 'I'm outraged' comments? Sounds exciting.[/quote]

"But maybe that's not the reason i posted this, maybe it's a bit more personal from my point of view. Maybe after 28 years of paying into the system, turns out when i need some help, i cant get it. And maybe many others who are not in a position to work are finding through no fault of their own, they can't get a penny either. And maybe, and i'm going to go out on a limb here and say a family that have probably never paid into the system have the luxury to turn down homes because they're a bit too far from their friends."

It's all there in the words.
Or does this have more to do with the subject matter which is more akin to "they come over here, take our jobs, sleep with our women" etc.
I wish they did come over here and take our jobs, at least they would be paying for this farce.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

STTink said:


> Firstly, it's not my story, but you seem intent on debunking the source. Why? I mean, is this how you spend you day, trying to debunk every thing your read? :lol:


If that was my idea of sport, debunking the Mail wouldn't exactly be a challenge, would it.



STTink said:


> But maybe that's not the reason i posted this, maybe it's a bit more personal from my point of view. Maybe after 28 years of paying into the system, turns out when i need some help, i cant get it. And maybe many others who are not in a position to work are finding through no fault of their own, they can't get a penny either. And maybe, and i'm going to go out on a limb here and say a family that have probably never paid into the system have the luxury to turn down homes because they're a bit too far from their friends."
> 
> It's all there in the words.
> Or does this have more to do with the subject matter which is more akin to "they come over here, take our jobs, sleep with our women" etc.
> I wish they did come over here and take our jobs, at least they would be paying for this farce.


I'm sure there are loads of stories of people receiving nothing when everyone would agree they deserved something and there will be loads of stories of people receiving more than most of us have, when they deserve nothing. Thats not what I was talking about really. My point was that the Mail have every reason to not only spin this story, but to make bits of it up too. As I've said 3-4 times now, I'm not saying they definitely have done - maybe they got lucky and everything in this story is true (and believe me, their 'journalists' have wet dreams about stories like this) - but they've got form and they've got a motive. This makes my instantly distrust any story of this nature from them.

As for it being 'reported in quite a few places', I looked yesterday and couldn't find anything that didn't just reference the original story in the Mail. If it's now appeared on more reliable sites, then hopefully that will confirm whether or not it's true.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Oh, and as they're asylum seekers, I don't think they're actually allowed to work. That's a whole other can of worms though...


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

Spandex said:


> STTink said:
> 
> 
> > Firstly, it's not my story, but you seem intent on debunking the source. Why? I mean, is this how you spend you day, trying to debunk every thing your read? :lol:
> ...


Obviously missed the Sun and the Express then.

So, where's the spin? There's a few words of embellishment, but nothing i'd truly call "spun". So what do you need, estate agents to go around and put valuations on the properties? (That could vary the property values by up to 25% either way.)
See, personally, reading the story, it doesn't matter to me about how the story was written and like i said, with recent things coming to light with News International i very much doubt the Mail would publish this story without the hard facts behind it. It's a story not worth losing your newspaper over.

But the saddest thing of all is while you waste thought trying to debunk it you miss the biggest point of all.
You may previously note that i said even though i can't get any of the money i've paid into the system that i dont mind it being used for those that need it most. Theres only so much in the pot, and from that i can only assume that maybe another 2 or 3 families of refugees that come here for asylum will be turned away because this family has already taken the share of money that would have been allocated to them.

And lets not forget the BNP. They've probably had a collective orgasm over this story, knowing damned well they're going to garner votes from this story. Not for the reasons they think either, not because of the old and tired "They come over here, blah, blah, blah" but because in this economic climate hard working people with sane minds and empty pockets will look at it as going one more step too far. And come the general election this will be brought up again and cases like it. With that deal breakers will have to be made by all the main parties to make sure that they get tough on this kind of thing, again leaving a few more poor bastards who could do with moving their families out of a country where rape and murder of women and children is commonplace without giving them the chance of having a crack at life.

And of course they've got motive to over sensationalise a story, i don't know one newspaper that doesn't.
But even if this was hypothetical, the story or points still stand and you sit on the fence arguing a moot point rather than taking a standpoint of any value.


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

Spandex said:


> Oh, and as they're asylum seekers, I don't think they're actually allowed to work. That's a whole other can of worms though...


Varying courts have allowed asylum seekers the ability to take paid and volunteer work placements and i believe if they can't work it's only for 6 months, but any work negates benefits.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

STTink said:


> Obviously missed the Sun and the Express then.
> 
> So, where's the spin? There's a few words of embellishment, but nothing i'd truly call "spun". So what do you need, estate agents to go around and put valuations on the properties? (That could vary the property values by up to 25% either way.)
> See, personally, reading the story, it doesn't matter to me about how the story was written and like i said, with recent things coming to light with News International i very much doubt the Mail would publish this story without the hard facts behind it. It's a story not worth losing your newspaper over.
> ...


First of all, if you think that any newspapers are suddenly, in light of the News Corp controversy, fact checking every story they print for fear of losing the paper, you're hilariously mistaken.

To be honest, the reason I'm talking about the press and how they regularly tell the public outright lies is because it's about a million times more interesting than the actual story that started this. But, as you're keen, lets go back to the original topic:

"What message does this send out?" - Probably none, because the loophole used in this case was closed earlier this year, although Mr Khaliif was sly enough to get in early enough to get away with it for this year.


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

Spandex said:


> " Mr Khaliif was sly enough to get in early enough to get away with it for this year.


That sends out no message then? :lol:

The story isn't about press integrity though is it.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

STTink said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > " Mr Khaliif was sly enough to get in early enough to get away with it for this year.
> ...


Well, it sends out the message that if you're reading this and thinking about how much you'd like a £2million house for free, you've probably missed your chance by a few months.

The story in the Mail isn't about press integrity, no. The conversation in this thread was for a while. I don't think talking about press integrity in a thread about the Mail actually counts as 'off topic' though.


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

Spandex said:


> STTink said:
> 
> 
> > Spandex said:
> ...


 :lol: 
I've not read twoddle this obtuse for a long time.

My pig's got worms.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

STTink said:


> My pig's got worms.


Hold on... I've just noticed your sig... Even you think the Daily Mail's awful.


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

Spandex said:


> STTink said:
> 
> 
> > My pig's got worms.
> ...


Just cottoned on? It's been on there since day one of this forum.

Try spending some time on the papers forums. :lol:

The above comment, "My pigs got worms",well i thought i'd try your posting method.
Post any old shit and see if any of it sticks.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

STTink said:


> The above comment, "My pigs got worms",well i thought i'd try your posting method.
> Post any old shit and see if any of it sticks.


Ahhh... Interesting. How's it working out for you?


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

Spandex said:


> STTink said:
> 
> 
> > The above comment, "My pigs got worms",well i thought i'd try your posting method.
> ...


Probably about the same as you but with a little more sense and a lot less irony. :roll:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

STTink said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > STTink said:
> ...


More ironic than someone who's sig strip says "The Daily Mail. Like spending 20 minutes in a mental hospital" defending a Daily Mail article? I must be *very* ironic.


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

More ironic than someone who's sig strip says "The Daily Mail. Like spending 20 minutes in a mental hospital" defending a Daily Mail article? I must be *very* ironic.[/quote]

Uhuh.










Oh, i stand by my sig strip. Still doesn't really detract from the story.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

STTink said:


> More ironic than someone who's sig strip says "The Daily Mail. Like spending 20 minutes in a mental hospital" defending a Daily Mail article? I must be *very* ironic.


Uhuh.

Oh, i stand by my sig strip. Still doesn't really detract from the story.[/quote]

I disagree.

Here are thefacts as I see them. The Mail is a paper that loves to get the readership riled up about something. It's entirely possible that their version of events is entirely the truth, but not the entire truth.

Now, I don't know how this story actually unfolded, but let's paint a different picture with the facts I've gleaned from your post.

Refugee family flees homeland and never wants to go back. Arrives on British shores and figures that London is the place for them to settle. Goes through all the correct channels to apply for help. Is offered a house in Coventry, but decides that that would take them too far away from what they now call home. A place where, even in their short time in the country, they've established a support network for people in their position.

So they say, we're bery grateful for the opportunity that you've given us, but isn't there something closer to where we are? We'd like to remain nearer the friends we've established as they're vital to us in supporting us and our young family.

It would be wonderful if you could find us something closer to 'home'.

And the people who are in charge of housing them say - we'll do what we can.

Miraculosuly, a house comes up, which is available, just around the corner from you.

I have no idea which way it went.

In truth, I'm of the opinion that if you're seeking benefits, you either have to go with what you're offered or go to the back of the queue. But where I do agree with Spandex is that the Mail will tell you the bits of the story that will make you think a certain way, when, in truth, an impartial reporting of the story _could_ give you an entirely different slant. But as mentioned above, the readers of the Mail want to believe the Mail's telling of events - justifying their own zenophobia with comments like "it's in the papers, it must be true".

And to quote the Sun and the Express as serious is taking the piss isn't it? If the Times or the Guardian had reported the same story, then it would have some gravitas.


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

Kell said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Here are thefacts as I see them. The Mail is a paper that loves to get the readership riled up about something. It's entirely possible that their version of events is entirely the truth, but not the entire truth.
> 
> ...


So, " the facts" as you see them. 
Shall we add in "I have no idea which way it went" to these facts?
Let's gloss over that because that just adds to the pedantic nitpicking already diluting the O.P.

And at any point I said i held any newspaper in any state of gravitas, you will point it out to me won't you.
By the way, I don't see the Times or the Guardian as the bastions of British journalism either.

See, it doesn't matter who's to blame, whether the family were grateful, whether Joe Bloggs who first broke the story is a racist fuckwit, or whether the Mail broke the story for it's own hidden agendas.
Because i've not read anywhere that it didn't happen, and on that point it's still, to me, a monumental wrong for the reasons i've previously stated.

You know, if anyone want's to prove to me this didn't happen i'll remove the post.
As for expecting agreement with my sentiments, i didn't post it for any affirmation to my thought processes, it was to see what the thoughts of others were.

But what i didn't intentionally post it for was to test the waters of the story's credibility, and if that's to be tested, instead of some hypothetical and pretentious standpoints, i would like to see some proof the story is a load of bollocks.
Because for me, the crux of the post is the story, not it's source.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

like forum tennis this topic lol............so many aces served and then back to deuce. will pop off and grab my deckchair and strawberries.........oh and my copy of the mail :lol: :lol:


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

Still, not been quietly warned about racism because i used the word "India" in a post this time. :lol:


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

STTink said:


> And at any point I said i held any newspaper in any state of gravitas, you will point it out to me won't you.
> By the way, I don't see the Times or the Guardian as the bastions of British journalism either.


However, in reply to Spandex asking for someone to point out more reliable newspapers yoiu did respond with the following.



STTink said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > As for it being 'reported in quite a few places', I looked yesterday and couldn't find anything that didn't just reference the original story in the Mail. If it's now appeared on more *reliable* sites, then hopefully that will confirm whether or not it's true.
> ...


Seems like the inference was there. Unless you were being ironic of course.

The point I made though was interestingly picked up in your post - where you selected certain parts of my post to highlight because they agreed with your particular argument. Exactly what I was suggesting the Mail might be doing.

What I said - if you read the whole post and sum it up - is ...

The story is probably true - no one's yet disputed that that I'm aware. But it's probably not the whole story. The Mail has reported it one way - another paper may have reported it a different way by focusing on the human angle of that particular family's struggle to escape war-torn Somalia. The result will be that both versions of the story are true, but they've only reported half the facts.

As it happens, I don't read papers at all as I can't stand the whole way they put their own slant on stories. Tell me the facts, let me make my own mind up about how I feel about the story. Don't tell me to be outraged by somehting which isn't outrageous. Similarly, don't expect me to be sympathetic, when no one deserves sympathy.

In conclusion, I do think it's a joke that a refugee family can be given a house like that over and above a British family with similar needs that's been on the waiting list for longer.


----------



## STTink (Jun 28, 2011)

Kell said:


> STTink said:
> 
> 
> > And at any point I said i held any newspaper in any state of gravitas, you will point it out to me won't you.
> ...


There's more than one side swipe at journalists in my posts, often the irony isn't picked up.

Actually, i didn't think i was picking on points you made that agreed with me, on the whole it was the opposite. I also don't think the header to my post, or the piece in the Mail is telling you what to think, it's asking you what you think, certainly moreso in the OP title. Maybe it should be pointed out to people at the top of the story in the Mail in a disclaimer that if you're too stupid to see beyond the spin, maybe you should forget reading this one and go straight to the cartoons. Being a long time blogger, i spend some of my time debunking and taking the spin out of stories, leaving them unspun to get to the meat and potatoes of a piece of bad journalism and i'm quite proud that in the last 18 months i've forced one retraction and pushed a few online journalists to use spellchecker, as it seems that online stories aren't under the same protocols as print.

I don't post blindly, down that road madness lies. I also can't remember the last time i saw a newspaper in this house, i dont agree with having everybody in my household having access to the internet via varying outlets and demanding trees be chopped down so you can read it in a different format.
Also, on your final point.

"In conclusion, I do think it's a joke that a refugee family can be given a house like that over and above a British family with similar needs that's been on the waiting list for longer."

I don't think anyone on benefits should be given this house. 
To a certain demographic it sends out the message that it doesn't pay to slog your balls off, the state will provide and in certain cases, the state will provide above and beyond the call of duty.
But then, there's lots of messages this story sends out, many of which i've posted and probably many more i can't think of.

Finally. Maybe i should have titled the post "What does reading this story say about you?" (As in all that read it.)
Because i have found more than once on various forums, that those that a critical of instantly debunking a story are either mad conspiracy theorists,or, so busy trying to look big brained that they miss the fact that anybody with half a brain saw through the bullshit immediately or just want to argue with the person that made the post rather than discuss the bones of it.


----------



## skitty (Apr 1, 2011)

Regardless of various newspapers exaggerating the facts I think we can all agree this bullshit is happening all over the country and that's a fact. My mum is 71 years old and has worked since since she was 15 years old and paid tax and national insurance all these years, she carried on working after she had us three kids and only retired last year as she could not afford to retire earlier, her second husband died and left her with 30 grand, she now lives off this money, because of this money she is entitled to absolutely fuck all in housing benefit and any other help, Now ..... Her neighbour who is of similar age and had 6 kids has never worked a day in her life and claims every benefit under the sun and is way better off than my mum!!!! The logic in this country is fucking ludicrous, when are we gonna stop rewarding the lazy fuckers in this country and start looking after the grafters and people who actually pay money into this fucked up system. Maybe we should have a system where as you can only claim benefits if you have actually paid money in, as for these fuckers getting the big house, this is absolutely ludicrous, what happened to the days when families with four plus kids used to cram into a small house and make do???? Again my mum and her three brothers and sisters used to live in a one bed flat, five people in a one bed flat!! Did they ever fucking complain!!!! NO. Wish I had never read this now as makes me fucking mad, wish I could run this shit hole for a while.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

skitty said:


> Regardless of various newspapers exaggerating the facts I think we can all agree this bullshit is happening all over the country and that's a fact. My mum is 71 years old and has worked since since she was 15 years old and paid tax and national insurance all these years, she carried on working after she had us three kids and only retired last year as she could not afford to retire earlier, her second husband died and left her with 30 grand, she now lives off this money, because of this money she is entitled to absolutely fuck all in housing benefit and any other help, Now ..... Her neighbour who is of similar age and had 6 kids has never worked a day in her life and claims every benefit under the sun and is way better off than my mum!!!! The logic in this country is fucking ludicrous, when are we gonna stop rewarding the lazy fuckers in this country and start looking after the grafters and people who actually pay money into this fucked up system. Maybe we should have a system where as you can only claim benefits if you have actually paid money in, as for these fuckers getting the big house, this is absolutely ludicrous, what happened to the days when families with four plus kids used to cram into a small house and make do???? Again my mum and her three brothers and sisters used to live in a one bed flat, five people in a one bed flat!! Did they ever fucking complain!!!! NO. Wish I had never read this now as makes me fucking mad, wish I could run this shit hole for a while.


hear hear.......nice and honest post skitty


----------



## leenx (Feb 8, 2010)

If this story is true then this country can be well and truly ashamed of itself. These poor old pensioners who fought for our country wouldn't get this same treatment. Truly embarrassing.


----------

