Poor people with TVs and tattoos inspire more anger than MPs with duck houses and moats. But in Westminster the perks of the job, often termed 'benefits', are funded by the taxpayer
Whenever the debate about social security rages, so do the commenters harping on about how everyone in their street has a "massive fucking telly" – the implication being that they claim benefits, ergo, the complainants' taxes paid for their plasma screen.
Then we have Edwina Currie, claiming poor people are only poor because they have tattoos. I expect to see David Beckham and Angelina Jolie at the front of a food bank queue at any moment, glumly ruing the day they spent so much of their money on body art, a slippery slope that led them straight into financial despair.
Continue reading...