A typical DM 'story'.

I have personal experience of the DM distorting information to suit their agenda. Like with Jess's OH they went ahead and published lies despite being contacted with the facts, which didn't suit their stance on the story. This young woman has spoken about what she wants to do as a 20 year old, not what she has done. They've put spin on a non-story as usual.

I wonder if those people who think getting pregnant and living on benefits is a cushy number have ever tried looking after a baby (or several children) by themselves, and on a very limited income.

If it's such a tough life bringing up children alone funded by the tax payer then don't do it. Get a job and contribute to society instead.

The Daily Mail picked up the story from another publication. There is no wonder that people who struggle to work day in and out get angry.

Well I may be mistaken but I always thought women sometimes get pregnant by accident.

Then they have three alternatives don't they?

Anyway, why all this acrimony towards this type of person and no mention of the very wealthy freeloaders in our society (Royalty, inherited wealth, tax avoiding, fiddled expenses etc)?

Lastly if getting pregnant and living on benefits is such a good deal, well, those who think so are free to do it themselves (if they are women)

Fact 1) This is a non-story
Fact 2) it was lifted from another magazine possibly better known for "sleb "gossip than informed social comment (Closer, I believe)
Fact 3) it is getting people worked up whether violently for or against this young woman's use of her benefit money, hardly matters any more.
Fact4) it is an unfortunate reflection on a sector of society that "designer" clothes are seen to be something aspirational. (Although, secretly, I do wonder at which "designers" she has in mind, as what you and I might call "designers" are clearly beyond her reach even given the figures quoted)

Yes, we may think she should be using this money more sensibly, putting some aside for a rainy day if she really has it to spare, buying healthy food, taking her children to the seaside, whatever we feel is worthier. But she won't and neither will thousands of people whose priorities are not our priorities, whole values are not ours. Was this article meant to arouse anger or pity? I can feel both as I despair for the future of a generation who measure hapipness only in terms of glitzy clothes, smarter mobiles and 21st century gee-gaws.

The DM does not have a monopoly on printing lies.

Of course not, kitty, but it's an easy target, what with it being right-wing and all....

Of course not, kitty does't make it right though does it? There are too many of these non-news items being peddled and our intelligence is being seriously underestimated if not even eroded in the process. Give me The Economist any day.

And as someone has already pointed out ana it does not position itself as a low rent, rubbishy gossip rag. It pretends to be a newspaper. So fair game I'd say. Nothing to stop a member starting a thread analysing an article in any other publication.

That very rarely (if ever) happens, though, does it? (Apart from Bags's science articles, of course). I am always surprised at the incandescent rage the DM seems to generate among a lot of Gransnetters when The Express carries almost indentical stories. But as Greatnan doesn't even look at it because of who its owner is, it never gets a mention.

Ana, I will peruse the Express every day from now on.

Won't take long annodomini

We won't tell on you, anno!

I could quote the case of a certain celebrity who has been the target of some very vindictive articles in the DM over the years. After a friend of mine started working for her I began to see how much of what had been written was either mistaken or downright fantasy. Presumably she is not the only example.

ooooh Deedaa who? clue please!

I look forward to the broadside anno when you offer up an Express front page story for our delectation.
ana give it a rest! Enough with your digs. If you want to deconstruct an article from the Guardian that is a tissue of pinko liberal lies then no one is stopping you.

I'm finding it hard to understand why some of you seem to think it is impossible for this girl to live on £516 a month. She doesn't work so therefore has plenty of time to make good nourishing meals from scratch, charity shops are a fantastic source for bargains, (many of us have recounted our wonderful finds on this forum), she seems savvy, so is no doubt on the cheapest tariffs for gas/electricity and there are plenty of mother and baby groups that charge very little for the children to be entertained. I'm not saying it is easy, just that it's not impossible. Stop being so anti DM and take off the blinkers for heaven's sake!

Because many of us have experience of living on very low incomes maybe?
But that is not really the point is it. The story is not about her budgeting ability but about the supposed generosity of the benefit system and the feckless nature of most of those who are on benefits.

I wonder why you feel so threatened by the Daily Mail. You may sneer at the content 'gossipy rag' 'low rent' (?) and keep on with the same 'damned lies' rant BUT why do you think people read it? It actually reflects the views of a large percentage of the population. If the circles you move in restrict your views then you really can't see the bigger picture.

Ceesnan above says take off the blinkers. The last Government ruined the country in so many ways and were thrown out because of it. The left wing clique on GN can huddle together reiterating their correctness for all they are worth but they do not reflect society.

That's a fair point, sel, and I think that in that respect – serving as a 'mirror' if you like of fairly prevalent attitudes – the DM and its ilk do serve a useful purpose in society. Better the devil you know....

Just because someone reads a certain paper doesn't mean they support all the views portrayed by that paper. As I have said before, I read the DM, I also read various other papers, listen to news radio and watch TV news on various channels. Each one angles a story to reflect their ethos. Most people are intelligent enough to see through this to the real story.

I knew a journalist who worked for a variety of newspapers and TV channels across the whole spectrum during his career. He told me that when he was sent out to cover a story he was always told to bring back bad news. If there was a accident they wanted to know how many were dead - not how many had survived. He became very disenchanted and left the profession

If you are correct Sel, that the DM reflects the 'views of a large percentage of the population', and I think you might be, I would feel very worried. I wouldn't feel threatened by a newspaper that was just making point different from my own point of view. But instead it plays up to people's fear, encouraging dislike of people who are of a different race, or those who are getting something for nothing, or using up limited resources.
Where will this all lead? I don't wear blinkers and I can see just how many people in the 'real world' have a real hatred of some of the groups I have mentioned. I have listened to their rantings.
There are those like yourself, who hope it will simply lead to closing the immigration door. But in the meantime there are others who have been stirred to hating 'foreigners', especially some racial groups, hating those in benefits and those who are different in some way.
It was in the 1960s that Enoch Powell made his 'Rivers of Blood' speech. I thought he'd been proved wrong. Let's hope that that never comes true.

I read quite a few papers on line including the DM. What I really dislike about it is how relentlessly negative it seems to be about everyone and everything. I don't share the political views of the Telegraph, but I think it is mostly well written with some good journalism. I never see this in the Mail, it seems to me to be sketchily researched at best and as someone said earlier, it rarely follows up a story. Remember the famous "weather experts"?
If I believed what it said, I think I would be a right old misery!

There is a lot of spin from both sides, right and left. I think it was POGS who said she looked at an issue and made her own mind up about it. I feel I do the same. What is annoying is the patronising, broadbrush way anyone who doesn't conform to the sterotype is treated. It's just so...outdated. I was going to use another adjective but worried I might not be able to spell it

I do see, I hope, both sides. I always try to. I've certainly experienced both sides. I'm the furthest thing from a racist but when someone living in the West Country, Warwickshire or not even in this country tells me the correct way to think I just shake my head and think, sheesh, come to London. It's full!

And benefits - there has been abuse of the system. We have people for whom it's a way of life - the tragic result being, those who really need help and support are pilloried and made to feel guilty.

I also believe that the vast magority of people are good and decent and actually don't need to be told how to think. They're also capable of sifting - hopefully

sel it's you who need to take the blinkers off. There are also a lot of nasty people out there ready, at the slightest encouragement, to HATE. Am I the only one who's listened to racist or 'benefitist' rantings.

Don't you remember what happened in the Former Yugoslavia, when hatred was stirred up between neighbours of different ethnic groups who'd lived in relative harmony for years turned in each other? Or don't you think it could happen here?

Just because you are intelligent and/or educated enough to see others points of view and separate the rubbish from the truth doesn't mean everybody can. I was totally shocked when a 'friend' I'd known for years, a senior midwife, revealed her disturbingly racist views. '