EXPRESS ARTICLE ON SINGLE MUM SHOWS JUST HOW CLOSE THE PAPER IS TO THE FAR-RIGHT

travelodge-657497

(Picture: SWNS)

The Daily Express has written a disgraceful article about an unemployed single mother currently stuck living in a Travelodge hotel.

Titled JOBLESS MOTHER WANTS THE RIGHT TO CLAIM BENEFITS AND FOR YOU TO PAY FOR HER BIGGER HOME, the article is about Shanique Vickerman, 26, (pictured), who has been temporarily housed in the hotel in Newcastle-under-Lyme with her four-year-old son for the last five months.

Ms Vickerman is currently looking for work. She was placed in hotel accommodation by Staffordshire Council following a brief stay in the Elizabeth Centre for domestic abuse victims after fleeing an abusive relationship last October. Although she was born in the UK and her son is British, she grew up in Jamaica and her current immigration status means that she has no access to public funds.

Staffordshire Council are having to pick up the bill, which amounts to £400-a-week including food costs, while the situation is sorted out. Cue outrage from The Express who are keen to inform readers that Ms Vickerman is living ‘at the taxpayers’ expense’.

The paper tries to paint Ms Vickerman as a ‘benefits scrounger’ although it’s hard to see exactly what she has done wrong. She suffered domestic abuse, ran away and sought help and is now trying to get her life back in order with a job and a roof over her head so that she can raise her son. It’s not her fault that she is currently trapped in hotel accommodation while the public pays for it.

Like presumably any young mother, she doesn’t want to bring a child up in a single hotel room with no kitchen or cooking facilities. She has complained that it’s not a suitable environment, it’s causing her to have panic attacks and it’s affecting her son’s wellbeing. She also says having a hotel room as an address is making it difficult for her to find work.

But because Ms Vickerman wants to be rehoused in more suitable accommodation and is trying to get her legal status sorted out, The Express refers to her as ‘demanding a bigger place to live and the right to claim benefits’.

Unsuprisingly, The Daily Mail and The Sun also picked up on the story and reported it in much the same way. In each article it’s a ‘jobless’ single mum ‘demanding’ benefits and housing, playing into that ‘culture of entitlement’ narrative that these tabloids know inflames so many of their readers. The fact that Ms Vickerman is an immigrant of sorts is an added bonus to them.

Interestingly, all three reports treat the fact that Ms Vickerman suffered domestic abuse and that she is trying to find a job as incidental pieces of information.

The story quickly spread across far-right nationalist sites and social media pages such as Stormfront and Knights Templar International, including a Hitler-worshipping blog that changed only the title of the article. The main body was a verbatim repeat of the Express piece of work.

When actual Nazis are plagiarising from the tabloids, that’s when you know you’ve got a problem with the press being maybe a little too right-wing…

Tabloid Corrections Facebook page: here.

Advertisements

27 thoughts on “EXPRESS ARTICLE ON SINGLE MUM SHOWS JUST HOW CLOSE THE PAPER IS TO THE FAR-RIGHT

  1. I fail to see what is ‘right-wing’ about the Express article.

    It’s a typical story about the struggle to house people after they have fled domestic abuse. It is not the Express’s fault that she keeps leaving the country then returning ( a fact you ‘forgot’ to mention) without securing her status.

    There is a complete absence of ‘demand’ in the article.

    Her son was born in 2012. I fail to see how he is ‘British’ when the following year she returned to the UK. We aren’t told under what circumstances she was living whilst engaged in her abusive relationship, but it is a disgrace if someone relocates to the UK without first securing a place to live.

    So what happened to that property in Essex?

    And why did she return penniless? And without first securing a job? I know many ex-pats living in Spain, and they only moved there when they had secured a place to live and a job or ensured that they had sufficient income to obviate the need to sponge off the Spanish authorities.

    No, the Express was fair in its treatment of her.

    Like

    1. Yes, just a typical story about the struggle to house victims of domestic abuse, with the headline ‘Jobless mother wants the right to claim benefits and for you to pay for her bigger home’ and a sub-heading saying she is ‘demanding a bigger place to live’.

      Just because she’s trying to access affordable social housing doesn’t mean she’s trying to ‘sponge off the state’. She’s looking for work so if and when she finds a job, she’ll be paying for her accommodation out of her own wages. Yet there has been every effort to paint her as a scrounger who just wants things given to her on a plate. Yes, very fair treatment by the Express.

      The article quotes a politician saying the son is British. She also returned in 2009 so he could well have been born here. How do we know she returned penniless and without a job? She returned 3 years ago and fled an abusive relationship last year. So you shouldn’t flee an abusive relationship unless you’ve got enough cash, a job and somewhere else to go? If the Express and other papers think there’s something fishy about her story, they should be getting off their arses and doing some investigative journalism for a change, instead of resorting to writing nasty, lazy crap about someone who appears to have done nothing wrong.

      Like

      1. Subheadings aren’t part of the article, and are written by people other than the journalist.

        “Just because she’s trying to access affordable social housing doesn’t mean she’s trying to ‘sponge off the state’. ”

        She is already doing so. The local council is currently paying for her accommodation and food.

        I cannot understand why a British-born person is having to apply to stay in Britain and ask for access to the benefits system. Something doesn’t ring true.

        “How do we know she returned penniless and without a job? ”

        We are told that she doesn’t have the funds to pay for her next house/flat. That means she is penniless. If she owned the property in Essex, then it is still hers. If she was employed in Essex, that job should still be available for her.

        And if she fled Essex to get away from an abusive partner, why is she advertising to him and the nation her current whereabouts?

        The article quotes her as saying:

        “I have thought about packing my bags and leaving but then they will say I have made myself intentionally homeless.”

        But she has already done that by fleeing the residence in Essex. I am not saying that she should have stayed in it, but the authorities should establish what claims she has to it and see if she is able to sell it and finally leave the area where the abuser lives.

        If, that is, he still lives in Essex, or existed at all.

        We do not know how much verification the Express has done, nor do we need to. She volunteered to be interviewed and posed for pictures, and if she believes the Express got anything ‘wrong’, she is free to complain.

        Like

    2. She didn’t volunteer to be interviewed by the Express. She went to the local press who printed an article about her. The tabloids then picked up the story and put their own ‘scrounging single mum’ spin on it. Original article below.
      http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Taxpayers-pick-8-500-mum-son-Travelodge/story-29028154-detail/story.html

      This article gives a bit more detail about her immigration status.

      It doesn’t really matter who wrote the subheading. Whoever it was is employed by the Express and that’s who’s being criticised here.

      You have an interesting definition of ‘sponging off the state’. Presumably you see all prisoners and all people housed in charity buildings or homeless shelters that receive any form of government funding as sponging off the state. Would you prefer to see this woman and her son kicked out onto the streets?

      You can ask as many questions as you like, but all you’re doing is unearthing questions that the Express should have made an effort to properly answer before writing this excuse for an article.

      Like

      1. You’re blaming the Express for something the Sentinel wrote.

        You accept that it was she who approached the Sentinel, and not vice versa. She was complaining about her treatment, and used the Sentinel in order to publicise it and hopefully bring pressure on the authorities to ‘do something’.

        She is manipulating everyone.

        Don’t presume anything about me or my views on how prisons are funded, because that is where your bigotry and prejudice gets exposed. You assume that just because someone says one thing, it means that they think a particular thing about something unrelated. You have already made your mind up about them on the strength of a small amount of information.

        You’re the type of person who will think ‘racist’ about someone who admits to crossing the street in order to avoid passing someone of another race. That person may have many reasons in order to do that, but you’ll call them ‘racist’.

        See what I just did? I made assumptions about you that may be incorrect, just like you did to me, yet I’m ‘the bad guy’ of the piece.

        This woman voluntarily came to the UK knowing her status and to what she was entitled, because she has been here before. I suspect she came here with nothing, moved in with someone who turned out to be abusive, and now she is in the UK with nothing to her name. She is now using the press whilst claiming state funding via a council to which she has paid ZERO in council tax.

        She claims that her son was born in the UK, but the dates don’t add up. When she last returned to the UK, he was already one year old. She also claims that she was born here, but the authorities have already told us that is not the case; if she were, then she would be entitled to everything the UK offers its nationals.

        Like

    3. Interesting that your comments are littered with assumptions about this woman, yet you take umbrage the moment an assumption is made about you.

      I have no problem with what the Sentinel wrote. My problem is with the Express and the other tabloids and the spin they have put on it without any additional research (jobless mum demanding more from the state, etc.). That’s the whole point of this blog, to look into how papers are reporting things. I’m only interested in standards of journalism. I’m not really interested in debating what this woman might or might not be or have done, to be honest.

      Like

      1. I didn’t take umbrage at your personal comments about me.

        I simply used your comments to explain how your prejudice and bigotry had been exposed.

        I haven’t made any assumptions about this woman. She has stated that she was born here, that her son is British, that she moved to Jamaica at least three times, that she lived in Essex, that she fled to Staffordshire in order to escape an abusive partner, that she is being housed in a hotel whilst her application for state funding is being considered after once being declined, and that she receives state funding via a local council to which she has no connection.

        I have simply questioned the alleged ‘spin’ from the Express and her claims which don’t add up.

        In particular, this bit from the Sentinel:

        “Shanique was born in the UK and lived here until she was four. However, she does not have citizenship because her mother is Jamaican and didn’t have leave to remain.”

        Her mother’s status is irrelevant; Shanique automatically became a UK citizen at birth. If her mother didn’t have leave to remain, how come she stayed here for four years? How many years did she live here in total? What is the status of the father?

        Shanique’s entire story seems to be a fabrication. We aren’t even told what documentation she used to enter the UK in 2013, especially as she had a UK-born child with her.

        No, the Express has been entirely fair with her, and there is a complete absence of ‘right-wing’ in its presentation.

        Like

    4. I am sure she had every right to move from country to country….. Unless she had a crystal ball which showed her that in the future she was going to become a victim of domestic abuse so she would need to flee her home and ask for help!!!
      How is it her fault! It is an article written to stir up more hatred, in a country that already has enough hate for people who are not British enough!

      Like

      1. Michelle, she’s not British in the slightest. If she were, she’d not have to enter the UK with a visa and she’d be granted access to the welfare system in its entirety.

        Whose home did she flee? It wasn’t hers, because she’d be spending more time fighting to have the abuser (who probably doesn’t exist) evicted.

        The person stirring up hatred is her, because it is she who has come to the UK to seek benefits. Her appeal against the decision proves that.

        Like

  2. ‘I haven’t made any assumptions about this woman.’

    ‘I suspect she came here with nothing, moved in with someone who turned out to be abusive, and now she is in the UK with nothing to her name. She is now using the press whilst claiming state funding via a council to which she has paid ZERO in council tax.’

    ‘Shanique’s entire story seems to be a fabrication.’

    ‘She is manipulating everyone.’

    ‘And why did she return penniless? And without first securing a job?’

    If you are not making assumptions, you seem to know a lot about her background and her motives, given the info that is readily available in these articles. Care to reveal your sources?

    Like

      1. You’ve made a few assumptions about her life over the past few years, you’re also assuming she’s after state benefits whereas the article is really about her wanting affordable housing rather than being in a hotel. If she’s able to get a job, she’ll be paying for this herself and won’t be reliant on the state.

        Re: her background, it seems she was born here to Jamaican parents who never had citizenship, was brought up in Jamaica, has spent a couple of periods in this country over the past few years and her son was born here. The ruling on her immigration status seems a bit woolly – who knows, maybe she should have been given access to state support and has been denied it. I guess time will tell.

        Or maybe you’re right in your assumptions. But journalism shouldn’t be based on assumptions, the journalists should be investigating these issues and reporting accurately on what they find. That’s what’s wrong with this article.

        Like

  3. ” You’ve made a few assumptions about her life over the past few years”

    Identify them, instead of blithely claiming I have.

    ” you’re also assuming she’s after state benefits”

    I’ve pointed out that the state is already providing them to her.

    ” it seems she was born here to Jamaican parents who never had citizenship, was brought up in Jamaica, has spent a couple of periods in this country over the past few years and her son was born here. ”

    ‘Seems’ being the crucial word.

    If she were born here, she would be a British citizen regardless of whatever status her parents enjoyed. Her birth would be a matter of record here, especially as many illegal immigrants manage to have children in order to stay.

    Her son cannot possibly have been born in the UK, given the information she provided about her visits to the UK. If he had been she would have told us that she returned between the dates of her two previous returns. According to her, she wasn’t in the UK in 2011/12, which is the period covering his possible birthday. She claims, however, that he is British. He cannot be, because he would be entitled to everything the UK provides.

    The Sentinel claims she came here on a visa. This proves that she isn’t British, so her claim to have been born here is a lie. The Sentinel also claims that her visa allows her to work and obtain private housing. So why isn’t she doing? It is plain that she is here to seek financial assistance from the state. Her case isn’t related to the right to work or right to remain, because she already has both. She is appealing against the decision because she “is not entitled to state help or social housing.”

    In other words, she is seeking state benefits, some of which she is already receiving, even though she is free to get a job, buy a house, and support herself.

    THAT is why some rightly call her a scrounger.

    You’re welcome.

    Like

    1. I already have identified them above. You said she came here with nothing, that she returned penniless without a job. Where did you get this info?

      The state is picking up the bill while she’s in temporary emergency accommodation, but she hasn’t claimed benefits and nowhere in the articles does it say that she wants to claim benefits. Only that she wants to move out of the hotel and into proper accommodation.

      ‘Her son cannot possibly have been born here…’

      The articles say she returned in 2009 and again in 2013. Nothing about duration of stays. So why couldn’t she have given birth to him here in 2011/12? That’s quite a big hole in the story if it were the case. You’d think the media or the authorities would pick up on that pretty quickly.

      ‘The Sentinel also claims that her visa allows her to work and obtain private housing. So why isn’t she doing so?’

      She is looking for work. Do you have evidence that she isn’t doing this, other than your assumption that she is a scrounger who wants to live on benefits? It’s also a bit difficult to access private housing unless you’ve got enough money for the rent plus deposit.

      ‘If she were born here… her birth would be a matter of record here’

      How do you know it’s not? Another assumption. All the articles appear to accept that as fact, none say ‘she claims to have been born here’. You seem to know different though. I’m very curious to see your sources, as you’re so adamant you’re making no assumptions.

      Like

      1. ” You said she came here with nothing, that she returned penniless without a job. Where did you get this info?”

        From the Sentinel article.

        I know it irritates you that I’m able to understand plain English, but I’m not here to please you.

        It is claimed that she fled Essex. If she had come to England to support herself financially, she would have secured her own place to live and may even had a job in Essex. The article doesn’t say that she left either. If the abuse took place, she would have at the very least reported it to remove the threat to her property and job. Because she had neither, it made it easy for her to flee Essex at a moment’s notice. That is what fleeing is.

        In fact, you acknowledged that she doesn’t have the funds to find private accommodation: ” It’s also a bit difficult to access private housing unless you’ve got enough money for the rent plus deposit.”

        Women who travel across several counties seeking a refuge will have no money for rented accommodation. Lord knows how she ended up at the Elizabeth Trust, but we do know that it shelters women for peanuts.

        She came to England without a penny to her name. We are not told why she did so, nor where she intended to live once she got here. Most people who up sticks and relocate on the other side of the world generally have secured some accommodation prior to doing so.

        “The state is picking up the bill while she’s in temporary emergency accommodation, but she hasn’t claimed benefits….”

        If the state is picking up the tab then she is claiming benefits.

        And if she weren’t penniless, then she would have removed her and her child from that Travelodge and moved into rented accommodation. She hasn’t a bean, which is why they are both still there.

        “The articles say she returned in 2009 and again in 2013. Nothing about duration of stays. So why couldn’t she have given birth to him here in 2011/12? ”

        Because she wasn’t in the UK in that period. For her to have returned in 2013 after returning in 2009, she must have gone back to Jamaica at some point after 2009. You can’t return to a place that you’re already living in. The article doesn’t document the post-2009, pre-2013 return to the UK, which means that it didn’t take place, which means that she wasn’t in the UK in 2012.

        This means her son wasn’t born in the UK.

        “That’s quite a big hole in the story if it were the case. You’d think the media or the authorities would pick up on that pretty quickly.”

        They already have.

        If he were a UK citizen, he would be entitled to be here with his parents and be entitled to everything that a UK citizen is. In effect, he would be giving his parents those entitlements, because a child of four cannot fend for himself.

        “She is looking for work.”

        She may well be, but the Sentinel doesn’t say that she is.

        “How do you know it’s not? Another assumption. All the articles appear to accept that as fact, none say ‘she claims to have been born here’.”

        There is no record that she was born here. If there were, she would not have had to apply for a visa to come here in 2013. Britons do not require a visa in order to enter the UK.

        The authorities have accepted that they have no evidence that she was born here. This is because they are denying her entitlements that all Britons have.

        Like

  4. I don’t think you really understand how citizenship works. Just because someone is born here, doesn’t mean that their passage to full UK citizenship is guaranteed. That much should be clear from reading these articles (every article mentions both she and her son were born here, without disputing it, but neither have full citizenship status). Try reading up on British nationality and citizenship if you’re unsure on things.

    You’ve written a lot but we’re going round in circles here. Yes, it appears she has no money now and obviously no job as she has relocated. But she returned in 2013. There is nothing written about her financial or employment situation from back then. Yet you seem certain she had no money or job when she arrived. You say it again – ‘she came to England without a penny to her name’.

    Yes, she must have returned to Jamaica after 2009. But she may have returned in 2012, after her son was born, then returned again to the UK in 2013. As nobody other than yourself appears to be disputing that her child was born in Britain, I think that’s the most sensible thing to assume unless new info emerges.

    Sentinel article mentions that she says she has had difficulty finding work due to the accommodation situation.

    Like

    1. “Just because someone is born here, doesn’t mean that their passage to full UK citizenship is guaranteed. ”

      That is entirely correct, and is applied to persons born here after 1983. This includes her, and for her to qualify by birth, the government says:

      “you’ll be a British citizen if your mother or father was either:

      1.a British citizen when you were born
      2. ‘settled’ in the UK when you were born.

      In most cases you’ll be a British citizen if your mother or father was born in the UK or naturalised there at the time of your birth.If you were born before July 2006, your father’s British nationality will normally only pass to you if he was married to your mother at the time of your birth.”

      We are told that her mother wasn’t a British citizen who didn’t have the right to remain. This leaves the father; why are we not told what happened to him? Is he British? Is he still here?

      What we do know is that she had to enter Britain on a visa, which means that she isn’t British. She is what is technically known as a foreigner.

      So she is basically a foreigner telling the UK via the Sentinel that she wants access to the UK welfare system.

      “Yes, she must have returned to Jamaica after 2009. But she may have returned in 2012, after her son was born, then returned again to the UK in 2013.”

      We know that didn’t happen, because if it had, she would have told us. It is impossible to believe that she didn’t tell the Sentinel about a trip she allegedly made between 2009 and 2013 during which she gave birth to a child. The most important event of her life, and she doesn’t even mention the trip during which it occurred. Yeah, right….

      ” Yes, it appears she has no money now and obviously no job as she has relocated. But she returned in 2013. There is nothing written about her financial or employment situation from back then. Yet you seem certain she had no money or job when she arrived. ”

      Let’s look at the evidence. She cannot currently support herself and she is currently unemployed. As she ‘fled’ Essex, you are expecting me to believe she left behind both a property and a job. That isn’t what happens. Someone with means who relocates 3,000 miles isn’t going to leave behind her hard-earned situation at a moment’s notice just because someone who has moved in with her is causing problems. They eject the abuser, inform the police, and they carry on with their life.

      Also, it would add to her sob-story if she claimed she had left behind a property and a job in Essex. She chose not to do that, which suggests that neither existed. We don’t even know that the abuser exists, and I suspect that the fact she has splashed her precise location across the newspapers shows that she isn’t worried about anyone tracking her down.

      None of this disguises the material facts of the case, that she applied for leave to remain in the UK after coming here as a non-British citizen, that she was granted that leave along with the right to have private property and a job, and that she subsequently appealed against the decision not to allow her full access to the UK’s welfare system.

      The fact that she is appealing instead off getting her backside into the jobs market to support her and her child shows that her sole intention is to live her off benefits.

      THAT is why some rightly call her a scrounger.

      Like

  5. The appeal is related to housing, not jobs/benefits. She is looking for work so a bit unfair to say she’s not getting off her backside into the jobs market. If she’s in proper accommodation, she’ll probably have more chance of getting a job.

    If he father is/was not British, it would explain the issues around her immigration status. Anyway, she can hardly be to blame for the Sentinel and subsequent journalists not asking her questions about her father or interrogating her on exact dates and times for trips to Jamaica. I hope she’s able to get adequate housing and a decent job. A Travelodge hotel is no environment to bring up a 4 year old child.

    Like

    1. ” The appeal is related to housing, not jobs/benefits.”

      Have you actually bothered to read your own link?

      The Sentinel report states: “UK-born Shanique – who was raised in Jamaica – was granted the legal right to stay in this country this year, but is not entitled to state help or social housing.

      She appealed that decision in late January”

      ONE decision covering benefits.

      Social housing is partially-funded by the government, so it is classed as a welfare benefit. The charity Shelter confirms this: “Registered providers are financially regulated and funded by the government …”

      So, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, she is appealing against a decision to allow her full access to the welfare system.

      ” She is looking for work so a bit unfair to say she’s not getting off her backside into the jobs market.”

      We have no idea what efforts she is making, but she is unemployed and actively seeking benefits. She is already receiving some, as I’ve pointed out, so she has ‘form’ on that.

      “If he father is/was not British, it would explain the issues around her immigration status. Anyway, she can hardly be to blame for the Sentinel and subsequent journalists not asking her questions about her father or interrogating her on exact dates and times for trips to Jamaica. ”

      Such information is irrelevant given the fact that she had to obtain a visa in order to enter the country, which explains why the Sentinel didn’t need to make such enquiries.

      ” I hope she’s able to get adequate housing….”

      Even if the taxpayer funds it?

      You’re no better a person than she is.

      Like

  6. I’m talking about what her appeal is related to. She is appealing on the grounds that she wants access to better housing rather than being stuck in a hotel room. It’s kind of what the whole article is about. I know you’re terrified that if the decision is overturned, it will also give her access to benefits and she might just sponge off the state forever. But I’m gonna put my faith in her and say I hope she manages to sort her life out and get a job. Which makes me an asshole, I know.

    Anyway, as I think I said before, this is going round and round in circles. I think the phrase ‘we’ll have to agree to disagree’ is appropriate in this case. Come back when you’ve found a decent, well-researched Express article (that should get rid of you for at least 1,000 years ;-))

    Like

    1. “She is appealing on the grounds that she wants access to better housing..”

      Better free housing and the right to get state benefits, both of which were declined. There is one one decision and one appeal. She applied for leave to remain which she was granted, so there was no need for her to take matters further. She’s in the UK legally with no risk of deportation ever.

      But that wasn’t good enough for her. She applied to stay but now she’s telling us she wants more.

      ” But I’m gonna put my faith in her and say I hope she manages to sort her life out and get a job. ”

      In that case, she won’t require access to benefits, so when she withdraws her appeal, she’ll be justifying your faith. If she doesn’t, it shows that she’s a scrounger.

      “Come back when you’ve found a decent, well-researched Express article ”

      This wasn’t an Express article. You don’t even have the intelligence to accept that it was YOU who provided the link to the original article.

      Like

  7. ‘Come back when you’ve found a decent, well-researched Express article’ was a joke comment, a polite way of telling you to **** off. I didn’t realise you were going to take it seriously in a desperate attempt to continue the argument. Enjoy your evening! X

    Like

    1. “a polite way of telling you to **** off.”

      It was your way of admitting that you’d lost the argument.

      Lefty filth have terrible problems with admitting they are wrong, which ironically they have a great deal of experience of.

      Like

      1. Haha. You’re quite the comedian, exposernator. Highlight was definitely my ‘come back when you find an Express article’ quip going over your head.

        But you have inadvertently raised an important point (I know, I’m shocked too).

        ‘I suspect that the fact she has splashed her precise location across the newspapers shows that she isn’t worried about anyone tracking her down.’

        As with much else, we don’t know the precise ins and outs of the situation with the ex-partner (is the threat of him tracking her down even a concern? is he in jail?). But she may well have thought she was safe contacting the local press in another part of the country. Now that the tabloids (rather than her, although I do admire your commitment to blaming her for absolutely everything) have picked up the story and advertised her location, we’ll know who to blame if the angry ex does suddenly show up and start threatening her.

        Like

  8. “As with much else, we don’t know the precise ins and outs of the situation with the ex-partner”

    That’s probably deliberate, but I have pointed out that her behaviour suggests that he doesn’t exist and therefore neither did the abuse.

    I said that for two reasons. Firstly, she has an inflated sense of entitlement. She thinks the British state owes her a living, as shown by her appeal against the decision not to allow her full access to the welfare system. Secondly she took herself and her child 150 miles across country to a refuge for free accommodation and from there to a council with which she had no connection. She then publicly advertised her precise location. You and I could go there tomorrow and have coffee with her, or he could go there and give her a good kicking, all thanks to her broadcasting her whereabouts.

    Women hiding from abuse tend not to advertise anything.

    ” But she may well have thought she was safe contacting the local press in another part of the country. ”

    Or she could have thought that as she was able to reach Staffordshire from Essex that her ex might also have been able to, and stfu about where she was pending her appeal.

    After all, her interview with the Sentinel was designed to be a sob-story for the gullible. What better way to enhance her victim status than invent an abusive partner?

    “we’ll know who to blame if the angry ex does suddenly show up and start threatening her.”

    Yes, the one person on the planet who saw to it that her location was publicly announced her precise location…Shanique Scrounger.

    Like

  9. “As with much else, we don’t know the precise ins and outs of the situation with the ex-partner”

    That’s probably deliberate, but I have pointed out that her behaviour suggests that he doesn’t exist and therefore neither did the abuse.

    I said that for two reasons. Firstly, she has an inflated sense of entitlement. She thinks the British state owes her a living, as shown by her appeal against the decision not to allow her full access to the welfare system. Secondly she took herself and her child 150 miles across country to a refuge for free accommodation and from there to a council with which she had no connection. She then publicly advertised her precise location. You and I could go there tomorrow and have coffee with her, or he could go there and give her a good kicking, all thanks to her broadcasting her whereabouts.

    Women hiding from abuse tend not to advertise anything.

    ” But she may well have thought she was safe contacting the local press in another part of the country. ”

    Or she could have thought that as she was able to reach Staffordshire from Essex that her ex might also have been able to, and stfu about where she was pending her appeal.

    After all, her interview with the Sentinel was designed to be a sob-story for the gullible. What better way to enhance her victim status than invent an abusive partner?

    “we’ll know who to blame if the angry ex does suddenly show up and start threatening her.”

    Seeing as he doesn’t exist, that won’t happen, but if it did, the one person on the planet who saw to it that her precise location was publicly announced was….Shanique Scrounger.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s