• I Daniel Blake

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:22 pm**

Watched this film last night and its a well covered prospective into a life that can seriously happen.
Its about a 59 year old carpenter recovering from a heart attack that befriends a single mother and her two kids.
As they navigate their way through the impersonal, Kafkaesque benefits system.With equal amounts of humor, warmth and despair,the journey is heartfelt and emotional until the end.
Its based in Newcastle and shows what can happen to the older generation that got caught short of the technology era.
Top film and highly recommendable watch 9 out of 10

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:35 pm**

Yes an excellent film, I watched it at a Newcastle cinema which was brought to tears and silence at the ending.

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:38 pm**

It's on my list of films to watch. Might try and watch it tonight.

If you like the nice british films - give "the angels share" a try. About a young Scottish lads hardships and his attempts to get things done for a better future.

It's heartwarming and has some really funny bits (the opening scene had me laughing out loud)

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:06 pm**

Im surprised nobody got chinned in that job centre

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:39 pm**

bfccrazy thanks for that I will check it out. I really love films with real life down to earth relations.
These films don't cost a lot to make and are often the best real life run of the mill people acting very well and no posh ascents don't you just love them
Kes was the first for me, Rita Sue And Bob Too another.
Raining Stones

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:15 pm**

brilliant film, never come so close to crying over some lass eating a tin of peaches

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:22 pm**

The Scottish Guy outside the Job Center reminded me of Rocky

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:50 pm**

It's an excellent film and portrays what is happening
to thousands of others (mainly innocent folk) who have to confront the
benefits system at times when most are experiencing difficulties and job losses.

Should be compulsory viewing for all Ministers.

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:43 pm**

"forget abooot me ar5e it's me heart"

One of the best films I've seen for some time

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:26 pm**

I cried all the way through.- Great film.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:41 am**

There is a huge difference in the online experiences between trying to claim out of work benefits and doing an online tax return as a 'sole trader' With the benefits system you can only apply online, and if your application times out you have to start again from the beginning. Doing your taxes online (you still have the choice of posting them in), your work is saved at every stage, so that should something time out you only have to start from where you left off. The government discriminates.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:19 pm**

jurek wrote:... at times when most are experiencing difficulties and job losses.

Over two million (2,000,000) jobs have been created in the past 7 years. Employment is at record levels.

It's nice that a political propaganda film can be so widely acclaimed having achieved very little box office success. Director Ken Loach is an interesting chap with a lot to say about politics. His unwavering support of Jeremy Corbyn is as touching as Gary Glitter's fingers.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:35 pm**

Have you actually seen the film Rowls?

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:38 pm**

Rowls wrote:Over two million (2,000,000) jobs have been created in the past 7 years. Employment is at record levels.

It's nice that a political propaganda film can be so widely acclaimed having achieved very little box office success. Director Ken Loach is an interesting chap with a lot to say about politics. His unwavering support of Jeremy Corbyn is as touching as Gary Glitter's fingers.

Since when is a zero hours contract a job?

You may not get any work but as soon as you sign the contract you are no longer classed as unemployed.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:49 pm**

Enjoyed the film, although enjoy is perhaps not the right word.

It is too easy to label films with a social or political theme as propaganda - they all have to tell a story and from a certain point of view, otherwise what is the point. You may agree or disagree with the message, but in this case you would have to be a little loony to think that there are no people in the same position in the protagonists in this story and that the 'system' fails a lot of honest and genuine people.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:50 pm**

That would be the reason why the previous Conservative / Lib Dem government made exclusivity on zero hours contracts illegal. So you're free to look for work elsewhere if you're on a zero hours contract.

But of course, this is a silly side issue seeing as relatively so few people actually are on zero hours contracts. Had this been a burning issue, Ed Miliband would have won the last GE with a stonking majority and we all know how that turned out.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:19 pm**

Rowls, of those 2 million jobs how many do you think are full time positions on a decent wage (£9+/hr)? I suspect that many of the jobs created are part time on a minimum wage. Similarly many of full time jobs are likely to be minimum wage.

I don’t know who you are or what you do but does minimum wage of £288 for over 25’s working a 40 hour week strike you as fair and reasonable? Do you/could you live on that sort of money?

2 million jobs may sound a lot but many will be will be working for peanuts and struggling to make ends meet. Creating low paid jobs is nothing to shout about.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:59 pm**

Cryssys wrote:Rowls, of those 2 million jobs how many do you think are full time positions on a decent wage (£9+/hr)? I suspect that many of the jobs created are part time on a minimum wage. Similarly many of full time jobs are likely to be minimum wage.

I don’t know who you are or what you do but does minimum wage of £288 for over 25’s working a 40 hour week strike you as fair and reasonable? Do you/could you live on that sort of money?

2 million jobs may sound a lot but many will be will be working for peanuts and struggling to make ends meet. Creating low paid jobs is nothing to shout about.

I'm sure you could look up the figures yourself Cryssys.

A full-time job isn't necessarily better than a part-time job. It all depends on what kind of work/life balance you want.

Creating jobs IS something to shout about. Obviously higher paid jobs are better than lower paid jobs but *somebody* has to clean toilets, pull pints, pick fruit etc. Unless of course, you believe that this is the kind of work only befitting an immigrant?

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:04 pm**

Cryssys wrote:I don’t know who you are or what you do but does minimum wage of £288 for over 25’s working a 40 hour week strike you as fair and reasonable? Do you/could you live on that sort of money?.

Oh, and to answer your silly questions:

Yes.
Yes & yes.

I worked over 100 hours for the past fortnight averaging well over 50 hours per week. I worked 12 days in a row and 22 days out of 23 and although it was very tiring I enjoyed it tremendously.

Sorry but did you imagine I live in some country mansion in the Home Counties somewhere and have 'staff' doing my chores?

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:31 pm**

Like I said, I have no idea who you are or what you do. As such I don't see that my questions were silly. It's not uncommon for high earners to pretend that they could live on a minimum wage. The fact that you enjoy working long hours, day after day, for little money does tells me something about you though.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:36 pm**

Sorry to rudely interrupt, but I believe this is a thread about the film I, Daniel Blake

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:41 pm**

Cryssys wrote:Like I said, I have no idea who you are or what you do. As such I don't see that my questions were silly. It's not uncommon for high earners to pretend that they could live on a minimum wage. The fact that you enjoy working long hours, day after day, for little money does tells me something about you though.

And it's not uncommon for people on good wages to have no idea about thrift and how easy it can be to manage on a low wage with a bit of common sense.

I haven't ever earned more than £15k a year and I can tell you that I live like a veritable kind. I eat lobster, steaks, spring lamb etc etc. I go on holiday regularly and enjoy regular nights out with friends and family.

Admittedly if I had a family of my own to look after I'd have to up my earnings game but that's not something I have to contemplate.

It seems very popular for left-wingers these days to want to patronize lower-paid people and to imagine that the only way we could be helped is via benefits and welfare rather than just letting us get on with our lives and not taxing us excessively. First impressions seem to indicate you fit that profile.

Can you tell me exactly what you mean by this:

Cryssys wrote:The fact that you enjoy working long hours, day after day, for little money does tells me something about you though.

Because without explicitly stating what it tells you about me, it comes across as insulting and condescending?

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:10 pm**

It's no more condescending or insulting than your comment about my silly questions or your suggestion that I might think low paid jobs are only for immigrants. The fact that you don't have to support a family on your wages is your good luck.

Perhaps I could have phrased my original question a little better. Do you think that it is fair and reasonable that someone with a family to support is only earning £288 per week before deductions.

As for benefits, the fact that people in work can still receive benefits suggests that their wages are inadequate. They wouldn't be necessary if people had jobs that paid a decent living wage.

P.S. Sorry Papabendi - Rowls started it!

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:34 pm**

Rowls its a film and a question was asked of you have you took it in because what you have took in is out of context and a left wing load of tripe
If you have seen the film then you have got totally got lost in your mind set, as posters have said its full of humor yet bends you into solace, you have brought out your inner demons i afraid I made it into a political debate where in fact if you had put most of your effort into taking something out then your views would be some what of gladness instead of a sordid vision of mass destruction.
and in saying that your inability on the take leaves your input i must say a lot be desired.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:35 pm**

Longside4evr wrote:Rowls its a film and a question was asked of you have you took it in because what you have took in is out of context and a left wing load of tripe
If you have seen the film then you have got totally lost in your mind set, as posters have said its full of humor yet bends you into solace, you have brought out your inner demons im afraid you made it into a political debate where in fact if you had put most of your effort into taking something out then your views would be some what of gladness instead of a sordid vision of mass destruction.
and in saying that your inability on the take leaves your input i must say a lot be desired.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:41 pm**

Rowls - you lose all credibility when you sink to this level !
"His unwavering support of Jeremy Corbyn is as touching as Gary Glitter's fingers."

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:46 pm**

edit

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:01 pm**

Rowls wrote:I worked over 100 hours for the past fortnight averaging well over 50 hours per week. I worked 12 days in a row and 22 days out of 23

Really? Judging by your posts on here today, I'd never have guessed.

Do you always work such ridiculously long hours without a real break? Because that would explain a few things

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:05 pm**

Back to the original topic. It's an excellent film which I think needed to be made, despite it being a difficult and upsetting view for the audience. It's easy for certain people to dismiss it as 'propaganda' but that sort of thing is happening, and has been happening for several years now to a lot of unfortunate people.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:07 pm**

How much has the government given away recently in tax breaks to the wealthy by raising the Inheritance Tax threshold, and lowering Corporation Tax? All while reducing benefits to disabled people, and families on low incomes. It's disgraceful.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:20 pm**

Not forgetting the bedroom tax that was widely publicized in a part of this films scrips its a one way world sometimes !

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:44 pm**

It's a really good important film.
Just on the employment figures - the average Tesco store workforce wages are supplemented by £400 k in tax credits per year
Just think about that - £400 k of our taxes is enabling a corporation to underpay their staff in each of their stores every year
Fubar

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:02 pm**

I'm sure quite many of us can relate to this film.
I've been made redundant twice in my working life, the first time in 1979 when I was a single lad and I didn't feel the pinch too much.
The second time in 2002 I was married with a family to support and that was an extremely difficult time, even though I was back in a job within 2 months.
The part of this film which really struck a chord was the attitude of the jobsworths at the job centre.
Their smugness and arrogance was beyond the pale in my brief experience.
Telling you which jobs you must take etc, then when you asked them if they would work for such a pittance they wouldn't give an answer.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:07 pm**

Cryssys wrote:It's no more condescending or insulting than your comment about my silly questions or your suggestion that I might think low paid jobs are only for immigrants.

Agreed. The only difference here being that your comments came first. Which really makes the difference.

Cryssys wrote:The fact that you don't have to support a family on your wages is your good luck.

Nope. It's based on the free knowledge of contraception and birth control that I was taught at school. Added to that is the free service known as "Family Planning" which is offered by the NHS. Very little to do with luck at all.

Cryssys wrote:Perhaps I could have phrased my original question a little better. Do you think that it is fair and reasonable that someone with a family to support is only earning £288 per week before deductions.

Perhaps you could have researched your question better? Somebody with a family would never be expected to support them on that level of income.

Cryssys wrote:As for benefits, the fact that people in work can still receive benefits suggests that their wages are inadequate. They wouldn't be necessary if people had jobs that paid a decent living wage.

This is a vicious cycle. One of the main factors keeping working-class wages low has been the mass immigration the country has experienced for nearly 20 years now. On top of that has been Gordon Brown's "tax credit" benefits for working people. Bosses know exactly how much extra tax credit people are entitled to.

So what do they do? They award lower pay increases. It is immigration and tax credits that have kept working-class wages artificially low in the UK for a generation. Increases to the National Living Wage and increases in the lower tax threshold -both under Conservative Prime Ministers- have helped people on working-class wages enormously in this respect.

Cryssys wrote:P.S. Sorry Papabendi - Rowls started it!

See above. I've put it in bold for you. A poster named jurek posted something that was completely factually incorrect and I corrected him. You decided to turn it into a debate about politics.

And you also have not explained what you thought about the fact that I work in a low-paid industry. I'm simply dying to know what you think about me (and all the millions of other people) who work in the service sector.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:13 pm**

Zzzzzzzzz.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:37 pm**

chorleyhere wrote:Rowls - you lose all credibility when you sink to this level !
"His unwavering support of Jeremy Corbyn is as touching as Gary Glitter's fingers."

It was a vulgar expression but I picked it without much thought. But the simple truth behind it - that Loach IS an unwavering supporter of Jeremy Corbyn - in undeniable.

Ken Loach himself has come out and said it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... new-labour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's easy to make a fictitious film about how awful the welfare system is butit's far trickier to fix the damned thing. Ken can pose as many questions as he likes using the medium of film.

I gather (and believe) it's a well made film but so is Triumph of the Will. That piece of Nazi propaganda has stunning cinematography and editing. I do not think that good cinema equates to political judiciousness. That's why I'm not too bothered about Loach's latest piece. I'm sure it IS an excellent film. For the record, my admiration for Ken Loach should not be taken for an endorsement of Hitler.

Longside4evr wrote:Rowls its a film and a question was asked of you have you took it in because what you have took in is out of context and a left wing load of tripe
If you have seen the film then you have got totally got lost in your mind set, as posters have said its full of humor yet bends you into solace, you have brought out your inner demons i afraid I made it into a political debate where in fact if you had put most of your effort into taking something out then your views would be some what of gladness instead of a sordid vision of mass destruction.
and in saying that your inability on the take leaves your input i must say a lot be desired.

If I have correctly understood the gist of what you're attempting to say, I shall politely acknowledge your advice but take no notice. Thank you.

You really ought to put more effort into posting coherently Longside4evr.

JohnMcGreal wrote:Back to the original topic. It's an excellent film which I think needed to be made, despite it being a difficult and upsetting view for the audience. It's easy for certain people to dismiss it as 'propaganda' but that sort of thing is happening, and has been happening for several years now to a lot of unfortunate people.

I'm not dismissing it as "propaganda" it IS propaganda. Regardless of it's filmic merits.

And here's another thing:

Unlike the vast majority of people on this board and beyond I have years of experience of working in the reception areas of benefit claims offices.

I'm aware of the basic plot of the film. It does NOT ring true.

I've seen plenty of people harshly passed as "fit to work" in medicals - but I know that close to 100% won their appeals. I saw many multiples of that number get away with not turning up for medicals or passing them when they looked perfectly fit for work.

Just off the top of my head I remember a man who was signed off work for three -Yes, THREE- years with a broken foot. Hundreds of people with "bad backs" who limped into the office and skipped out once their excuse for not attending their medical had been accepted.

I've worked in the system and, for most of the people reading this board, you haven't. I don't claim the benefits system is perfect but I do re-state that it is very, very generous.

There *might* be one or two very unfortunate cases similar to the eponymous character's tale (I mean perhaps one or two out of the millions of claims, which is a very, very low figure) but if these are properly investigated they should be overturned. Does the film acknowledge this fact?

However, as for the female character in the film - her entire plot line is complete bull. Given that I saw 90% of the prostitutes working Nottingham's streets in order to get them to sign for their girocheques (and knew them all by their first names - ahahhahah) I can tell you for a fact that nobody but nobody ever fell into prostitution because they couldn't afford a sanitary towel or clothes for their children.

That is categorically NOT what drives women to sell their bodies on the streets.

There's an article here which describes it perfectly:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... YOUNG.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It may well be a brilliant bit of theatre but it categorically is NOT anywhere near the reality of benefit claimants or the benefit system.

And what of all the "real-life" Daniel Blakes?

Well, if anyone out there can find them it will surely be the Guardian but they've uncovered nothing at all similar. Perhaps this might be because the film does NOT accurately portray the real benefit system. They haven't found any real-life Daniel Blakes because there AREN'T any "real life Daniel Blakes".

Here's a challenge to all you who imagine the film is anywhere near the real benefit system - find me a "Real Daniel Blake" story and I'll tell you the main differences between that and the film.

Here's one to start with:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... e-benefits" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:12 am**

Another champagne socialist, god bless him.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:52 am**

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... wp-figures" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More propaganda no doubt.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:03 am**

"Nearly 90 people a month are dying after being found fit for work ..."
Possibly a Daniel Blake amongst them but Rowls will not accept the Guardian as a reliable source of evidence compared to his beloved Daily Mail.
He has still to answer my question above, have you actually seen the film?
What a pretentious, long-winded wally!

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:04 am**

You have lost all credibility posting that Toby Young article Rowls. It is well known what a tool that guy is. I read the article in silent disbelief. He couldn't even be bothered to do the slightest bit of research - for example, Ken Loach lives in Bath, not Islington. Wikipedia could have told him that.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ken ... 83461.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:05 am**

CleggHall - surely Rowls will accept the Guardian as a reliable source since he himself posts articles from said newspaper.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:20 am**

Thousands of people have died within six weeks of being found 'fit for work' according to DWP figures, and the success rate for appeals is around sixty percent. It's a failing system, probably costing more than it saves, in addition to adding a little extra misery to the lives of people who already have it hard enough.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:23 am**

Rowls wrote:I'm not dismissing it as "propaganda" it IS propaganda.

Propaganda, noun - Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

I don't deny that Ken Loach is politically biased, he is a socialist and is very open about that.

But the word misleading is absolutely key in the definition of propaganda.

Whatever you think of Ken Loach and his political views, you cannot honestly say that his film I, Daniel Blake is misleading. The DWP's own statistics confirm that cases like his aren't tiny anomalies. There are thousands of cases like his which have really happened.

It's as much of a documentary as it is a film. Which is why so many people on the right are quick to play it down. It's hard hitting and, more shockingly, it's true.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:36 am**

As I said McGreal - find me any real life verified (or even reported) stories that are like the fictitious Daniel Blake and I will reconsider.

The challenge is on! Find a real Daniel Blake. Go on - do it.

He doesn't exist. His story is a fallacy.

JohnMcGreal wrote:It's as much of a documentary as it is a film.

No, it's a work of fiction. Why didn't they just use real people and make a documentary? Because it wouldn't have fitted with their agenda.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:39 am**

I did the work for you here Rowls.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... wp-figures" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now kindly move on and accept reality.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:41 am**

Those figures have been examined and found to be no higher than expected.

When you deal in millions of people, a certain percentage are going to die. That's just a statistical truth. The fact that they were previously found fit for work is a misnomer in this respect.

Try again.

Edit:

As the article states:

"The DWP defended the accuracy of the WCA and said the statistics proved no causal effect between benefits and mortality. It said: “These isolated figures provide limited scope for analysis, and nothing can be gained from this publication that would allow the reader to form any judgment as to the effects or impacts of the WCA."

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:44 am**

No, it's a work of fiction. Why didn't they just use real people and make a documentary? Because it wouldn't have fitted with their agenda.

That would work - let's follow someone who we know is going to die in a few months...you're barmy mate. Obviously it had to be done the way that it was.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:44 am**

Those figures have been examined and found to be no higher than expected.

OK, show me that research then.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:48 am**

Papabendi wrote:OK, show me that research then.

https://fullfact.org/economy/reporting- ... t-purpose/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:48 am**

Next!

I Daniel Blake

I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake

Re: I Daniel Blake