Our thanks to Graham for this. He writes:
“A Daily Star masterclass in narrative framing.
Apparently the central antagonist isn’t the repeat offender with a growing list of convictions, it’s the “taxman.”
Curious branding, in an era where most workplaces nudge staff toward gender-neutral language; “tax authority” or simply HM Revenue and Customs, would seem the more appropriate terminology.
The details are more interesting than the headline spin:
26 years old, six convictions, 11 offences (over half for theft/attempted theft); On police bail at the time (for something conveniently “undisclosed”); Initial denial only revised when CCTV said otherwise. All indicators of personal responsibility.
We’re also told the “financial pressure” comes from tax debts tied to a former business — which would, presumably have been her own responsibility. And yet the headline framing leans toward “driven to it,” with a vaguely personified “taxman”.
The result is an inventive piece of storytelling. It shows how wording alone can tilt where readers place responsibility, framing accountability into a fictionalised, top-hatted, Dickensian antagonist, drafted in from the Victorian era to take the blame.
Outcome: £162 fine + costs + compensation — no jail time.”
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
And this a classic of how women are “married to the state” Benefits cheat mother raked in £75,000 after claiming partner was homeless From knowing people working for the DWP the cases that go to court are the tip of a very large iceberg indeed. This article gives the figures illustrating the huge perverse incentive for couples to pretend they aren’t. “Prosecutor Katy Appleton outlined that the total sum reached £75,000, comprising more than £42,420 in Universal Credit, £9,500 in income support, £8,097 in housing benefit, £12,850 in tax credits, and a £2,207 council tax reduction.” There is every reason for the partner to collude with this given he’s unlikely to earn this sort of money ! So tax payers are funding 10,000s (probably much more)of families where the man/father may well be in a glass cellar job or with contracts rather than steady employment. There are huge incentives that drive the ballooning “single parent” numbers and the fragile families where to be frank the husband/father/partner may be a financial liability compared to the money handed out if he is or appears to be absent. We are literally paying people not to be married and form stable families.
LikeLiked by 1 person