Well, this morning’s twitter storm about the Mail’s ‘exposé’ on food banks rumbles on. It does illustrate neatly how disconnected twitter is, but I’d like to climb into the bandwagon driving seat for a bit and point out some ironies.
The first, and this was at 11am, in response to the piece being a dreadfully bad thing, I disagreed:
pete langman @elegantfowl · 7h
@rosamundi @robbyhickman no, it’s great they show that charity based on assumption of honesty of applicant – pure generosity of spirit
The Mail shoots itself in the foot by saying that you won’t be interrogated, stigmatized or noted down for asking for help. Yay the Mail! Thanks, guys. People need help. They need to know they can ask for it without prejudice. This is what this article showed.
Yes, that was far from the intention, but here’s the other epic fail. The headline bemoans the idea that you can get help ‘no questions asked’, and yet the body text of the article reads ‘then the assessor’s questions turned to …’. Perhaps the journalist responsible (whom I shall not attack) will be in need of help sooner than expected if this is the standard of logic …
Piss-poor journalism from the Mail, then.
Yes, there were some other bits that were of interest, but primarily we have this:
Charity helps people in need without branding them.
Now, how cool is that?
Support Trussell, OneCanTrust, or any local food bank. Why? If for no other reason than the Mail says don’t. And when a Daily Mail journalist knocks on your door? Make ’em a cup of tea. They have a shit life.
Interest piqued? Why not look at my publishing page, where you can find out about Early Onset Parkinson’s in my book Slender Threads