MORE than ever before, there are television programmes dedicated to the welfare state – in particular, its claimants and their families.

They call it ‘benefit porn’, with such shows named Benefits Street, Can’t Work Won’t Work, Too Fat To Work and so on.

These are not documentaries. They do not seek to show a balanced view of a family’s plight of living off the state. They’re designed to entertain, not inform.

As viewers, we’re supposed to hoot with laughter at these people’s blinkered views on the world, their pontifications from the dole queue; to snort with derision at the reasons they claim benefits, their excuses for them not trying to find work.

See what I’m doing there? These people. Their. They. Them. That’s my deliberate use. Because that’s how everyone talks about benefit claimants, it seems.

The subjects of these TV shows are vilified by the media. Because it’s their fault we’re in financial mess. Because they are taking our taxes.

It is completely rotten. To allow a section of society to be called criminals and be made figures of fun in the name of entertainment masquerading as documentary is something I want no part in.

It is why I signed a petition against Benefits Street coming to Stockton recently.

The last thing Teesside needs is another negative portrayal of life.

The people these documentaries make fun of are my neighbours. They’re also my family.

In the interests of full disclosure, as a child my family claimed benefits, and did so right up until I left home for university.

There were hard times. But we got through them. If it wasn’t for the welfare state then I wouldn’t be where I am today.

Making us all out to be feckless is plain wrong.

Incidentally, benefits fraud makes up just 2% of all fraud in the UK, costing the Treasury £1.2billion. Tax fraud costs the Treasury £20billion. Where are their TV programmes?

And if you think it’s easy to ‘play the system’ – just see what you have to do to make a claim. The forms are the size of magazines, and many claimants have to appeal before getting an award. And if you lose your benefits, good luck getting them back as there’s no Legal Aid for that now.

Don’t judge someone until you can walk a mile in their shoes.

THE SUN, for all its failings, pulled a blinder this week – by not doing anything.

News emerged earlier in the week that the newspaper’s Page Three feature had been quietly returned. Campaigners against the display of breasts in the tabloid celebrated. They had won.

The Sun said nothing.

Until Thursday, when, fresh from a week of opinion, comment, debate and free advertising, readers were treated to the sight of Nicole, 22, from Bournemouth. Reports of its demise had been greatly exaggerated.

I couldn’t help but raise a smile. You have to admit that in terms of PR stunts, getting other newspapers to advertise your own brand is a pretty impressive one.

That does not mean I support Page Three as a concept. I can’t believe that it has been relevant at any time. Gratuitous sexual imagery in a national newspaper? It just doesn’t make sense.

Imagine, ten minutes into the News At Ten, they display a picture of a topless lady, for 30 seconds, without explanation, or context. Then they return to the news. How odd would that be?

The Sun will say that its readers don’t complain about it and that Page Three is an institution.

That doesn’t make it right.