I never doubted that people are doing something but it needs more. The point i made in my second post is that too many working class people are struggling to survive so it is upto the enlightened Middle calss to take the lead oin the ideological battle.

Please point me in the direction of the i[size=150mportant and influential[/size artists, filmakers, dramatists poets singers and writers who are challenging the mainstream view and making waves
what i would give for the new Ken Loach, Caryl Churchill, alan bleasdale etc

I had the misfortune of my finger slipping on the remote control at the half-time point of the NZ/Scotland quarter.
i was greeted by Mother Cheryl of Newcastle and after wretching hurriedly turned back.

I'll point you in this direction ... [urlhttp://www.channel5.com/shows/on-benefits-proud/episodes/on-benefits-proud[/url, Channel 5's "documentary" on the unemployed and how much they take in benefits and the lives they lead at taxpayers expense.

I won't mince words - its a fookin disgrace.

But not for the reasons you may think.

The documentary makers from the 1960s and 70s that you speak of presented social issues to an ignorant public and made a difference, they made the ignorant sit up and take notice, they made the politicians sit up and take notice and eventually some good came of it, some social changes were made because the majority watched and said "this is not right".

What is happening now is that documentary makers go for the shock factor but for the titillation, the scorning disdain of a middle class who read the tabloids and believe that there is a scum lower class who take thousands of pounds in benefits from their hard earned taxes and waste it all on getting drunk, getting high, and sleeping all day long while their 42" 3D TV sets play Jeremy Kyle all day long in the corner.

If you missed the Ch5 offering have a look on catch up and ask yourself while you are watching it if the two families that were chosen as the subjects are GENUINELY representative of the unemployed, stand in front of a mirror and look at yourself and ASK yourself if you really believe that the 2 million plus unemployed ALL behave in this way.

And when you have honestly answered yourself, then ask yourself who commissioned that documentary and dozens like it and what was the brief to the director and who gave the director the brief, and for why.

If it was for pure entertainment then we can bin the "documentary" as being as educational and informative as "Made in Chelsea" or "Geordie SHore", ie completely irrelevant, if it was intended as education then it was a disgraceful use of propoganda the likes of which has not been seen since the 1930s when the Nazi party presented their "Jew-hating" films to cinema patrons.

THATS what has happened to your documentary makers.

Easy tiger.



Spenny, Binky, Mark-Francis etc are the best fooking comedy entertainment on tv.

It also raises an interesting question. It seems that some people place responsibility firmly at the feet of those who make documentaries/entertainment, but if we do that, we also patronise 'the rest' as being too stupid to look for things themselves, to think things through in the way that 'we' enlightened ones think they should, and having no responsibility in the equation themselves.

Whether we like it or not, we have a media that, for the most part and as it always historically has, serves the interests of the proprietors of that media. The idea of a separate and 'free' fourth estate is pretty much a daydream.

The overwhelming majority of journalists, for instance, do as everyone else does – what their employer tells them to do.

And the reality is that vast amounts of people easily believe the worst they're told, and they seem to like it that way, just as vast amounts of the population suck up the sort of drivel that you mention. And the market in TV (for instance) means that they have plenty of that to choose from and do so.

If we were a civilised humane planet, not being driven by greed, then we wouldn't need charity.
However the planet is full of ignorant selfish people, particularly in the G8 countries who through globalisation ensure there is no chance of the ripped off countries challenging them.
The "keep the natives in their place" is prevalent on this planet.

A fair point, although in situations of disaster/emergency it would probably still be welcome.



And it is often a sense of common humanity and shared citizenship that means that many millions choose to donate to charitable appeals, even when they have little to give.

But let's not big up the positives, eh?

And the overwhelming majority of people had no say in globalisation and what has accompanied it – there wasn't actually even a vote on it. Indeed, as part of the doctrine of neo-liberalism, its chief evangelists claim that, together with the de-industrialisation of the first world, it would allow other countries to industrialise and 'challenge' the G8 etc.

But hey, let's not let such niceties get in the way of a post that provides no positives but allows you to berate most of the population of a chunk of the world, while presumably, feeling smug yourself.

I know that there is a wider political and social agenda, but I still find it difficult to reconcile the situation of:

Cameron speaking about continued long term austerity in the UK then immediately pledging £50M for the disaster in the Philipines.

I loathe the TV spectacle of Children in Need.

Nonetheless, with such a bunch of selfish, heartless 2@s in government, charities are even more necessary now than they should be in a "civilised" society.
Just because rich greedy baaastaaards are pushing us towards a feudal society is not a reason to abandon compassion.

"Charity" is a word that means love, compassion, caring for your fellow humans ... etc
"Charities" on the other hand, encompasses organisations spread across a wide spectrum that includes, at one end, genuine care for others and, at the other end, tax breaks for Eton College ... with a huge range of worthy/less-worthy causes (depending upon your opinion) in between.

There are charities where we all (or the majority of us) believe that they are vital causes, these should be funded by taxation according to the donors ability to pay.
The rest are matters of personal choice.

I have a couple of issues with "Charities", in so much as:

a. A large number of Charities sit on assests worth millions, yet are still allowed to fund raise. I think that they should only be allowed to hold a small 'emergency' fund then have to spend whatever they collect each year.

b. Smaller charities - loads of people seem to set themselves up as fundraising charities, then take a "directors" salary from the takings - or use the charity money to 'fund' their money making endeavours / stunts / chosen 'lifestyle' of do-gooding.

That is pretty easy to justify. It's simply that at this point in time their needs are greater than ours in simple terms.

Even rich countries need immediate help sometimes when a natural disaster occurs as the infrastructure can be shot to pieces.

What is harder to reconcile is giving overseas aid on an on-going basis to countries like India who have a space program!

I think the [igovernment [/iare stopping doing this but I am sure there will be [icharities[/i that still help in India's slums and in other areas. Perhaps the money would be better spent by the charities in lobbying the Indian government to look after its own better. (And of course the same could be said here).