How Shaming the Poor Became Our New Bloodsport

By Barbara Ellen, Guardian UK

04 March 13

Politicians have taken the lead in blaming poverty on the poor.

erhaps some of you are aware of the phenomenon of "slut-shaming" - whereby generally a female (why bother pretending, it's always a female) is contemptuously attacked, usually online, for anything from her dress style to what is perceived as sexually promiscuous behaviour.

A much-mimicked online example, "Hey Girls, Did You Know?", produced such observations as "Hey girls, did you know that boobs go inside your shirt?" and "That you spread Nutella, not your legs?". It burns like acid that girls and women would do this to each other, though guys do it too, sometimes filming their victim "sluts" naked or engaged in sexual activity, then passing the footage around.

On a wider level, one disquieting feature of these modern takes on slut-shaming is how quickly (indeed shamelessly) they embedded themselves into the collective psyche as borderline normal. Another disturbing aspect is that it doesn't take much imagination to draw parallels between slut-shaming and attitudes towards the poor.

How long would it take for "poor-shaming" to embed itself in the national psyche as borderline normal? Or perhaps it has already done so? The Methodists, the United Reformed Church, the Church of Scotland and the Baptist Union have joined forces to publish a study called The Lies We Tell Ourselves. It highlights myths surrounding people and poverty, including Iain Duncan Smith's much trumpeted "families out of work for three generations" line (which, it turns out, has never been backed up by data).

The report argues that the government is "deliberately misrepresenting" the poor, blaming them for their circumstances while ignoring more complex reasons, including policy deficiencies. Moreover, they feel that this scapegoating is the result of collusion between politicians, the media and the public.

This resonates with my feeling that, increasingly, the shame is being taken out of poor-shaming. It didn't seem so long ago that most people would think twice about denigrating fellow citizens who were having a hard time. These days, it appears to have been sanctioned as a new national bloodsport, regularly slipping under the PC-radar as little else manages to.

Nor is it just coming from politicians such as Duncan Smith, though he could be termed "Poor-Shamer General" for his absurd apocalyptic visions. A politician is one thing but these attitudes are spreading and hardening among ordinary people too. Indeed, poverty seems a trigger to inspire hate speech that would be quickly denounced if it related to race or gender. Only recently, there were startling amounts of venom levelled at a woman with 11 children, who needed a bigger council house. The fact that this woman had a notable number of children seemed to be a convenient hook for the more generalised abuse and resentment directed at pretty much anyone in need of council accommodation, or any help whatsoever.

Is this our new default setting - that the needy are greedy? This chimes with a slew of government policies that appear to be founded on notions of bulletproof self-reliance, making no allowances for circumstances or sheer bad luck, and which many would require huge amounts of help to put into practice, never mind sustain. Meanwhile, the more fortunate are invited to pour scorn upon anyone who fails.

How does this kind of thing escalate? That's easy. At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, the poor are poor. They have no money, no voice, no representatives, and no means to establish their own public profile. Poverty is a big domino - once it falls, everything goes. In such circumstances, if a group of people are "deliberately misrepresented" then there's precious little they can do about it. The churches got it right - if anything, the truth seems so much worse that it must surely be time to put the shame back into poor-shaming. Just like slut-shamers, poor-shamers are bullies, and right now they're getting away with it.

Surely, David's not turning his back on his beloved Bridlington?

Is it all a terrible misunderstanding, or has artist David Hockney really snubbed his new home, the Yorkshire seaside town of Bridlington?

Bridlington is featured in Hockney's recent works, and plans were afoot to rename the local gallery after him, as well as give him the freedom of the town. However, Hockney failed to respond, and the council was forced to conclude that the idea "did not appeal to him".

How could anyone turn down the freedom of beaches, promenades, amusements, gulls and (according to the visitor website Aboutbridlington.co.uk) not one but two Keep Britain Tidy awards?

I'm still hoping that Hockney is merely unaware of the offer, and would snap it up given the chance. It's the silence that wounds. The thought of Hockney not responding to the good folk of Bridlington, not even with a curt "No ta", is just too dreadful.

Perhaps Bridlington council should try just once more. If there's still no response, then Hockney only has himself to blame if no self-respecting Bridlington chippy will serve him.

Meat crisps - where's the fun in that?

Vegetarians are peaceful people who hate to make a fuss, mainly because many of us are vitamin-deficient, and frankly don't have the energy. But I digress. Even though we're laidback and adorable, there are lines you just don't cross, especially with crisps. Did Walkers realise this when it decided to add meat to its smoky bacon and roast chicken crisps, in order to lose the junk food stigma?

I don't care for these flavours, but it's the principle. Putting flesh in crisps is consumer heresy. It's long been part of the vegetarian lifestyle to drone at people that there is no meat or fish in crisps, and therefore we're allowed to eat them. Is all this fun to come to an end?

Moreover, where is the loyalty? Unlike omnivores, who periodically ditch such products in favour of Atkins/Dukan diets, vegetarians have remained faithful to the crisp. In fact, many of us are insanely out-of-control carb addicts, who probably make up a sizable portion of the worldwide crisp-market.

Non-vegetarians need to realise that these flavours, and many others, would change for them too. Healthier products are usually to be welcomed, but not crisps. As all crisp-loving travellers could testify, there is a delicate global balance between good crisps and bad crisps, and who's to say we won't end up with grisly, soggy US-style "chips"? Just putting it out there.

There's a conspiracy theory that this is a marketing scam, and Walkers just wanted to cause a similar furore to when Mars backed down over putting rennet in Mars bars. Well, if that's true... I'm too wan to care. I'll just say this with the passion that only a vegetarian who's just taken an iron supplement could muster - hands off our crisps!