Absolutely. And no, I don't think it's just the general public's fault either. I think we (perhaps it's a particularly British thing?) expect media to be truthful - after all, if they lied all the time, they'd get sued into the ground - wouldn't they?

Take this as an example. Two years ago, the [iTimes[/i rang up UNISON and asked whether it was true that UNISON was, as an employer, ending final-salary pension schemes. The press office replied that, no, it wasn't, and went on to explain that a new system involving salary sacrifice had been agreed between the employer and the staff unions after negotiation. It gave the paper details and evidence to this effect.

The paper in question then went and printed what it wanted - which was that UNISON had ended final-salary pension schemes.

Now just to remind people, T'Other Half works there. He's in the pension scheme. He also just happens to be the NUJ rep, so he was actually involved in those negotiations. And he's in the scheme. So he knows what was going on - and has a vested interest in it and knowing the facts.

Anyway, UNISON complained - but then the [iDaily Mail[/i essentially ran the same story.

Now, what do you do?

UNISON tried, under the auspices of the TUC, to get a correction/apology. None was forthcoming, even though it was an easily disprovable story. But what do you do? Spend the members' money dragging these rags through the courts?

About a year later, the [iMail[/i pulled a similar stunt, alleging that UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis had been given a massive rise in his pension. He hadn't. He had chosen to use the aforementioned salary sacrifice - an option open to all staff - to bolster his pension. In other words, he was deferring some pay and having it go in his pension pot instead.

It took the press office a solid week of banging away at it to get a correction. Every bit as small and hidden as the one mentioned above.

Those are the kind of reasons I support Leveson and the kind of reasons the bulk of the press wants to retain self-regulation.

Absolutely. And no, I don't think it's just the general public's fault either. I think we (perhaps it's a particularly British thing?) expect media to be truthful - after all, if they lied all the time, they'd get sued into the ground - wouldn't they?

Take this as an example. Two years ago, the [iTimes[/i rang up UNISON and asked whether it was true that UNISON was, as an employer, ending final-salary pension schemes. The press office replied that, no, it wasn't, and went on to explain that a new system involving salary sacrifice had been agreed between the employer and the staff unions after negotiation. It gave the paper details and evidence to this effect.

The paper in question then went and printed what it wanted - which was that UNISON had ended final-salary pension schemes.

Now just to remind people, T'Other Half works there. He's in the pension scheme. He also just happens to be the NUJ rep, so he was actually involved in those negotiations. And he's in the scheme. So he knows what was going on - and has a vested interest in it and knowing the facts.

Anyway, UNISON complained - but then the [iDaily Mail[/i essentially ran the same story.

Now, what do you do?

UNISON tried, under the auspices of the TUC, to get a correction/apology. None was forthcoming, even though it was an easily disprovable story. But what do you do? Spend the members' money dragging these rags through the courts?

About a year later, the [iMail[/i pulled a similar stunt, alleging that UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis had been given a massive rise in his pension. He hadn't. He had chosen to use the aforementioned salary sacrifice - an option open to all staff - to bolster his pension. In other words, he was deferring some pay and having it go in his pension pot instead.

It took the press office a solid week of banging away at it to get a correction. Every bit as small and hidden as the one mentioned above.

Those are the kind of reasons I support Leveson and the kind of reasons the bulk of the press wants to retain self-regulation.

Don't worry, they've already thought of that. If you are no longer "eligable" for ESA you can apply for JSA but the DWP and job centre will tell you you can't apply for JobSeekers as you are too ill to work and can't sign to say you are actively seeking work and are capable of 40 hours a week. So you are left with nothing, hanging in limbo not even a benefit statistic.

I don't care what the likes of IDS and Ajw say, this is really happening, to real people.

www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... -help-me!!!

Don't worry, they've already thought of that. If you are no longer "eligable" for ESA you can apply for JSA but the DWP and job centre will tell you you can't apply for JobSeekers as you are too ill to work and can't sign to say you are actively seeking work and are capable of 40 hours a week. So you are left with nothing, hanging in limbo not even a benefit statistic.

I don't care what the likes of IDS and Ajw say, this is really happening, to real people.

www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... -help-me!!!

There you are then - the perfect storm.

This actually happened once before in history you know, a time when a class of people were defined as being undesirable and not required in a society where only perfect striving people need apply, the population as a whole acquiesced and so the government rounded them all up and ... well we know what happened next.

There you are then - the perfect storm.

This actually happened once before in history you know, a time when a class of people were defined as being undesirable and not required in a society where only perfect striving people need apply, the population as a whole acquiesced and so the government rounded them all up and ... well we know what happened next.