Dont worry, there will be another show about people claiming a couple of grand in benefits soon to take people's mind of it.

I think there was one on Channel 5 at the same time, but when poverty porn has sunk as low as Channel 5 you know it's been done to death.

You can always tell the posters on here who get a little bit of a hard on when discussing cash.
Those who've got it.
Those who haven't, but would really love to have it.

It's mildly amusing.

At my wifes work people were discussing this program and try as she might she could not get them to see how the issues in the super-rich program were far bigger than a minority exploiting the benefits system.

The propaganda has worked.

It really pi55es me off. People get so worked up about the unemployed having loads of babies or claiming disability when that money is just small change in reality. These people don't realise that large companies avoiding taxes and banks needing to be bailed out is what's costing them the real money. Politicians are claiming benifits on anything they can get away with but I'll ignore that, some bint without a job has gone and got herself pregnant.

It's not people on benefits that cost money. What costs money is the ridiculous number of people employed in public sector office jobs who are unproductive, spend their time in meetings and get good pension provision. That and the number of ultra-high paid "executives" who have had their packages justified by comparison with the private sector when in fact they could never command such salaries in the private sector. All public sector staff earning more than, say, £35,000 should be dismissed and asked to reapply for their jobs with lower salaries on offer. Let's see what their "market rate" is then!

I know a human resources manager who works for a well known high street bank and she's on over 90k a year for basically attending meetings and making calls. Show me a 'real world' HR Manager who earns over 90k. She'd be lucky to get even half that.

You could say the same about the NHS pen-pushers that were shipped-orf by Hunt and his predecessor, all with good pay-outs.

Problem was, it didn't take them long before they realised they shouldn't really have these bods go and they were soon re-employed as independent contractors and ended up costing the NHS more. But hey, at least Camoron could point to the number of staff they'd shed.

We all know you have a particular beef about what you perceive to be non-productive public sector staff but as usual, "you know nothing Jon Snow"

I can't speak for the whole NHS but whilst I was at York Hospital it needed more not fewer admin staff, it would've saved them money.

The same went for doctors and nurses. It needed more not fewer, and so would save on locum staff.

Coming from a family with multiple NHS workers I can also vouch for this, based on 2nd hand info of course. The one complaint I hear about admin is the number of management types who do square root of feck all in the way of actual admin, that allows patients to get sorted faster etc, and just go to meetings about why they aren't getting through enough admin.