OK, is this verbose enough for ya ...
What are Ed Howker’s criteria for ‘ghetto’? The word implies that there is a segregated group living within the 134 (designated ‘Lower Super Output’) areas. The criteria that I assume he’s using are related to those who live on welfare benefits, which is a false qualifier due to that not being a criteria needed to be living in the area referenced by Ed Howker. The very concept of a ‘welfare ghetto’ doesn’t withstand argumentative analysis. But that’s semantics. Not important for this thread but would be for a self-respecting journalist.
In order to receive benefits such as jobseeker’s allowance you have to look for work or you do not receive it, that is ‘promoting a return to work’. If someone is receiving DLA and IS they have been deemed to be unfit for work by a doctor and that benefit is means tested. You can’t just get it by applying for it.
The bailiff that Ed Howker meets in the Falinge cafe claims to know a lot of personal information about the residents of this estate, this is hardly what I’d call ‘researched’ information. It’s entirely anecdotal. I seriously doubt that this bailiff actually knew what he was talking about considering the scope of personal information he was telling Ed Howker. Not the kind of information a bailiff would have on his targets. The unnamed bailiff continues to paint a caricature of the benefit recipients on the estate which is what this thread is reiterating. The bailiff that Ed Howker is interviewing even states that “People make judgements about you if you’re a resident” which is exactly what he’s doing himself, so that’s a true statement. If the bailiff knew of any welfare fraud that was being commited he should report it. It is an unsubstantiated caricature so my previous comment stands.
As for the statistical information included in the article, it doesn’t address the causes of welfare dependency for the referenced Lower Super Output Areas. Ed Howker does though, he writes about how there had been investment in the area and despite that investment the residents don’t have adequate access to local jobs due to the previous employers leaving the area and moving to other parts of the country. This information also supports my assertion that masses of people living on welfare isn’t due to some kind of lifestyle preference.
You can’t bully and stigmatize people into work when it isn’t there to take just like you can’t force employers to hire someone they don’t like. Employment is a two way thing, not simply down to the applicant.