Thursday, June 12, 2008
Prejudicial pandering or subtle satire?
But the really disturbing aspect of the McFaddens' lifestyle is that they are far from alone. Six million Britons are living in homes where no one has a job and “benefits are a way of life”, according to a report by MPs. Shock figures also revealed that 20,000 households in Britain are pocketing more than £30,000 a year in state benefits.
With thousands of children growing up in families where their parents and grandparents have never worked, a senior government adviser warned this week of a “terrible legacy” of youngsters who had no expectation of ever getting a job.
Sue herself is defiant. “People don't understand how hard it is to keep a family like this going—no wonder we can't work. How could I go out to work with all these children at home? Local people call us scroungers and that is so unfair. We need the money to keep the family going.”
Meet the families where no one's worked for THREE generations—and they don't care
I came across this article about welfare queens living in England and I just couldn't believe what I was reading—the comments of these people on the dole were so outrageous (“I just wanted to be at home and live off other people”) that this had to be satire, right?
Right?
Then again, maybe not.
It's hard to say.
I had to ask Wlofie if he knew anything about The Daily Mail. I mean, for all I know, it could be the British equivalent of The Onion, only more subtle and a bit drier.
Turns out, not quite—according to Wlofie, it's a step or two above the tabloids, if that. But that still leaves the question of whether this is a paper pandering to the prejudice of the readers, or a paper subverting mainstream society via satire.
![[The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades]](https://www.conman.org/people/spc/about/2023/1023.t.jpg "The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades")