I lost everything when my £4.3k UC stopped.. now I've been sacked from my new job for eating a customer's chips
Ebony Wood, 26, used to be living off a mega UC payment, which saw her allegedly receive an astronomical £4.3k every month.
3
3
3
At the time, the young mother insisted that those who spent long hours working to earn money were ''dumb''.
However, it all took a sharp turn at the end of June when TikTok trolls ''mass reported'' her to Jobcentre and she allegedly lost her rights to UC.
Universal Credit is a payment to help with your living costs.
According to the Gov website, it's paid monthly - or twice a month for some people in Scotland.
Brits may be entitled to it if they're on a low income, out of work or you cannot work.
''They're taking away all my money and I don't know what I'm going to do,'' she cried in a video posted on her page at the time, sparking fury.
Since then, Ebony, who previously begged strangers to fund her boob job, has managed to find a job - and lose it in a matter of days.
The 26-year-old was chuffed when she announced ''boss man'' had given her ''a delivery job at a kebab shop ''.
While the young mum was ''very excited'' after not being in employment in seven years, she skipped the first shift after struggling with ''bad'' period cramps.
Sadly, her employment journey didn't even get a chance to start properly, as a few days later Ebony found herself without a job again.
Begging to get her ''Universal Credit back'', Ebony took to TikTok to share the unfortunate update.
''Just lost my job because I ate a chip, fam.
''Did my first delivery job last night and they literally fired me two hours after I started because I ate a chip.
''I'm not gonna lie, I was bare hungry because I worked for an hour solid, and they literally didn't offer me food - so I just robbed a few chips.
''Other excuse was I didn't show up for the first three nights but it was because I was on my period and I was at home ill, you get me?
''So yeah, I'm bare unemployed again. If anyone's got a job, hit me up,'' she begged in the clip.
''Sick of thisss! This is how poor people are really treated!'' she ranted in the caption.
Am I entitled to Universal Credit?
According to the GOV website, if you're on a low income or need help with your living costs, then you could be entitled to Universal Credit.
To claim, you must live in the UK, be aged 18 or over (with some exceptions if you're 15 to 17), be under State Pension age, and have £16,000 or less in money, savings and investments.
Other circumstances are if you are out of work, or unable to work, for example because of a health condition.
'Welcome to the real world'
The video, posted under the username @ bonniedontcare, has since racked up close to 13k views, leaving many TikTokers furious.
More than 100 people flooded to comments, where critics slammed the former UC recipient.
One person commented: ''Are you serious one hour of work and your hungry why didn't you have something before you went.
''Some people work 12 hours and only get 1 hour on break . your so used to living off of other people HARD EARNED taxes you think an hour's work is hard work. welcome to the real world.''
Another chimed in: 'This is what is wrong with society.''
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
12 minutes ago
- The Independent
Sturgeon: ‘Witch-hunt' MSPs investigating me were being directed by Salmond
Nicola Sturgeon has said she believes some MSPs who investigated the Scottish Government's handling of sexual harassment allegations against Alex Salmond were 'taking direction' from him. The former Scotland first minister wrote in her autobiography, Frankly, that she thought either Mr Salmond or his allies were guiding some opposition MSPs on what to ask her. She accused her opponents in the special Holyrood committee of a 'witch-hunt' against her. The committee ultimately found Ms Sturgeon misled the Scottish Parliament over the Salmond inquiry. However, she said the probe that 'really mattered' was the independent investigation by senior Irish lawyer James Hamilton which cleared her of breaking the ministerial code. The former SNP leader said that while she was 'certain' she had not breached the code, 'I had been obviously deeply anxious that James Hamilton might take a different view', admitting that 'had he done so, I would have had to resign'. She said that she felt 'on trial' as part of a wider phenomenon that when men were accused of impropriety, 'some people's first instinct is to find a woman to blame'. Ms Sturgeon did admit to 'misplaced trust and poor judgment' in her autobiography, which was published early by Waterstones on Monday, having been slated for release this Thursday. She wrote: 'This feeling of being on trial was most intense when it came to the work of the Scottish Parliament committee set up to investigate the Scottish government's handling of the original complaints against Alex. 'From day one, it seemed clear that some of the opposition members of the committee were much less interested in establishing facts, or making sure lessons were learned, than they were in finding some way to blame it all on me. 'If it sometimes felt to me like a 'witch-hunt', it is probably because for some of them that is exactly what it was. 'I was told, and I believe it to be true, that some of the opposition MSPs were taking direction from Alex himself – though possibly through an intermediary – on the points to pursue and the questions to ask.' Ms Sturgeon described the inquiry, to which she gave eight hours of sworn evidence, as 'gruelling' but also 'cathartic'. MSPs voted five to four that she misled them. The politicians began their inquiry after a judicial review in 2019 found the Scottish Government's investigation into Mr Salmond's alleged misconduct was unlawful, unfair and tainted by apparent bias. Mr Salmond, who died last year, was awarded £500,000 in legal expenses. Ms Sturgeon wrote of the inquiry: 'It also gave the significant number of people who tuned in to watch the chance to see for themselves just how partisan some of the committee members were being. 'Not surprisingly, the opposition majority on the committee managed to find some way of asserting in their report that I had breached the ministerial code. 'However, it was the verdict of the independent Hamilton report that mattered.' She said her infamous falling out with her predecessor was a 'bruising episode' of her life as she accused Mr Salmond of creating a 'conspiracy theory' to defend himself from reckoning with misconduct allegations, of which he was cleared in court. Ms Sturgeon said her former mentor was 'never able to produce a shred of hard evidence that he was' the victim of a conspiracy. She went on: 'All of which begs the question: how did he manage to persuade some people that he was the wronged party, and lead others to at least entertain the possibility? 'In short, he used all of his considerable political and media skills to divert attention from what was, for him, the inconvenient fact of the whole business. 'He sought to establish his conspiracy narrative by weaving together a number of incidents and developments, all of which had rational explanations, into something that, with his powers of persuasion, he was able to cast as sinister.' Ms Sturgeon speaks about Mr Salmond several times in her autobiography, which also has a dedicated chapter to him, simply titled 'Alex Salmond'. In it, she speaks of an 'overwhelming sense of sadness and loss' when she found out about his death, which she said hit her harder than she had anticipated. Ms Sturgeon says the breakdown in their relationship happened long before Mr Salmond's misconduct allegations. She said it had begun to deteriorate when she became first minister in 2014 following his resignation in light of the independence referendum defeat. Ms Sturgeon claims her former boss still wanted to 'call the shots' outside of Bute House and appeared unhappy that she was no longer his inferior. She also accuses him of trying to 'distort' and 'weaponise' his alleged victims' 'trauma' through his allegations of conspiracy. Ms Sturgeon claims that Mr Salmond, who later quit the SNP to form the Alba Party, would rather have seen the SNP destroyed than be successful without him. Despite her myriad claims against her predecessor, though, Ms Sturgeon said: 'Part of me still misses him, or at least the man I thought he was and the relationship we once had. 'I know I will never quite escape the shadow he casts, even in death.'
The Guardian
13 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Lucy Letby: Who to Believe? review – just when you thought this case couldn't get any more confusing …
In May 2024, the New Yorker published an article with the headline 'A British nurse was found guilty of killing seven babies. Did she do it?' Access to the online version of Rachel Aviv's piece was banned in the UK due to reporting restrictions, with Letby's retrial on an additional count of attempted murder then imminent. Rules aside, asking whether Letby was in fact innocent also felt taboo at the time, a pursuit for social media conspiracy theorists. Fast forward 15 months, and 'did she do it?' is merely par for the course when it comes to the case, with even experts cited by the prosecution apparently unconvinced of Letby's guilt. This new Panorama comes hot on the heels of an ITV documentary that aired earlier this month, Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt?. That programme focused on holes in the evidence that was presented to the jury who found Letby guilty of killing seven babies and attempting to kill seven more at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2016. Hers had been, said Neena Modi, a professor of neonatal medicine, a 'deeply disturbing' trial based on flawed evidence. Claims made in the trial were roundly rubbished by a panel of specialists who reviewed the case, and by experts found by the programme makers, making the evidence sound more like a series of sad anomalies than conclusive proof of wrongdoing by Letby. In any case, one would be unlikely to come away from that programme without at least a measure of doubt about her convictions. And yet, many other doubts do persist, leading – one fears – to a continued stream of programmes about the case. This is the third instalment of Panorama that Judith Moritz has made about Letby; the first, released in 2023, was subtitled The Nurse Who Killed, another last year was named Unanswered Questions, and now, in keeping with the rising sense of uncertainty, we have Who to Believe?. Like the ITV documentary, it considers the limitations of the evidence that put the 35-year-old behind bars. Unlike that documentary, though, it also considers whether the alternative version of events put forward by experts such as Modi and Shoo Lee – who rebutted the prosecution's interpretation of his work on air embolisms – holds water. It is a muddled hour of television, in which Moritz and producer-director Jonathan Coffey (who have also written a book about the case together) describe various things as conjecture, before supplying more conjecture of their own, and ultimately concluding that it's a right old mess. It certainly wouldn't be right to take the ITV documentary – or any other for that matter – as the ultimate authority on the case. But this Panorama seems to add very little in the way of conclusive information. Take, for example, this lightly heated exchange between Moritz and Coffey, who are discussing whether or not it is significant that the prosecution's expert witness, Dr Dewi Evans, changed his mind on one of the babies' cause of death, from air pumped into the stomach to an intravenous air embolism. Moritz: 'It's not like you had a situation where [someone was] saying, this person was shot … actually, no sorry, there's no gunshot wounds at all, I've decided instead they drowned.' Coffey: 'Some people would say that's exactly what we're dealing with here.' Moritz: 'It's certainly a difficult case to get your head around.' Coffey: 'Well, some people would say it's not a difficult case to get your head around, that actually they have got their head around it and the prosecution expert evidence is all over the place.' Moritz: 'Yeah – and other people would say they got their head around it and convicted her!' It's more like a drivetime phone-in than serious investigative journalism. Clearly, Moritz and Coffey care about the case, and about finding out whether Letby has indeed been wrongfully convicted. But in an investigation remarkable for the sheer number of theories involved – and now counter-theories – the addition of counter-counter-theories is hard to compute. A long tangent into the death of one child – Baby O – and how he may or may not have sustained injuries to his liver, only underscores the lack of consensus among experts, and the possibility of falling down rabbitholes at every turn. Similarly, inflated insulin levels in Baby F and Baby L lead to wildly different interpretations depending on who is explaining it all. We are told that the immunoassay tests that were used during the trial were highly unreliable, and shouldn't have been relied on in court. And yet, we also hear that those levels of insulin just cannot be explained away. Unless, of course, the tests were wrong …? And around and around we go. In determinedly not taking any claims at face value, Who to Believe? will surely confuse viewers even more, and brings us no closer to understanding whether there is indeed a compelling alternative to the events set out by the prosecution. It concludes that Letby was either 'spectacularly bad' at her job or this was a major miscarriage of justice. Taking us right back to where we started. Lucy Letby: Who to Believe? aired on BBC One and is on iPlayer now.
Telegraph
13 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The full story of why Palestine Action was proscribed as a terror group
It was no ordinary break-in. On June 20, under the cover of darkness, two activists entered what should have been one of Britain's most secure military bases, RAF Brize Norton, and vandalised two Voyager planes. There was no question as to who was behind the attack: Palestine Action, a pro-Palestinian direct-action organisation formed in 2020, quickly admitted responsibility. And the response from the Government was almost as swift. Three days after the attack, Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, told MPs that Palestine Action would be banned using powers under the 2000 Terrorism Act – the legal terminology is 'proscribed'. At first glance, it appeared to be an uncharacteristically quick move. The case for proscription typically takes months, if not years, to build. But the attack on Brize Norton, which ministers said had caused £7m of damage, was far from the only reason why the Government decided to class Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation – where it is now listed alongside 83 banned international groups, including al-Qaeda, Hamas and Islamic State, and 14 linked to Northern Ireland, such as the pro-republican IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries, the UVF. Indeed, proscription of Palestine Action had been under consideration for some time as the organisation ramped up its drive against Britain's defence sector, targeting companies linked to Israel in particular. Now, the Government is facing a backlash over the move, with the arrest of hundreds of supporters of the group over the weekend fuelling accusations its response has been 'draconian'. But insiders and experts have pushed back, arguing the decision would not have been taken lightly and suggesting the Government is likely to have an extensive dossier of troubling evidence about the group's true, sinister nature – one that may include links to Iran and perhaps even the explicit targeting of Jewish-owned businesses. 'Unacceptable criminal damage' A large amount of information about Palestine Action has already been put into the public domain. In her Commons statement, Cooper said the Brize Norton attack was the 'latest in a long history of unacceptable criminal damage' committed by the group. Among more than 300 incidents which Palestine Action has claimed responsibility for was an attack on the Thales defence factory in Glasgow in 2022 which caused over a million pounds of damage to submarine parts. Lord Walney, the Government's independent adviser on political violence and disruption from 2020 to 2025, told The Telegraph that Palestine Action had carried out a 'five-year long campaign of criminal sabotage' and had been allowed to operate 'with impunity' for too long, live-streaming its attacks on social media. In May 2024, the former Labour MP wrote a report, Protecting our Democracy from Coercion, warning that prosecutions of Palestine Action activists appeared to be having 'little impact' on the group's determination to shut down Elbit UK, a defence technology company targeted for its links to Israel. Walney called on the government to do more to protect the defence sector from 'sustained ideologically motivated criminal campaigns', though he stopped short of recommending proscription for Palestine Action. He has since changed his mind. 'They meet the bar,' he says. 'We need to educate people that sabotage can constitute terrorism as well as violence against individuals.' What altered Walney's thinking and helped convince the Home Secretary to ban Palestine Action is evidence of a serious escalation in its activities, including an attack in May on a Jewish-owned business in Stamford Hill, north London, an area with a large community of Orthodox Jews. The premises was daubed with red paint and had its shop window smashed. Palestine Action said the property was linked to Elbit, a claim the business denies. Sir Keir Starmer outlined his own concerns that the group was targeting Jewish companies at a meeting of Labour's National Executive Committee last month, reportedly telling its members that he was not going to 'apologise' for proscribing the group. Adding to alarm about Palestine Action is a lack of clarity about its funding sources. It has been reported that Home Office officials have been investigating whether the Iranian regime or proxy groups linked to Iran have been supporting it financially. While Palestine Action has described claims to that effect as 'baseless smears', it has received public backing from the Iran-aligned Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC). The IHRC – which has been described as an 'Islamist group ideologically aligned with the Iranian regime' that has a history of 'terrorist sympathies' in a government review of the counter-terror Prevent programme – has repeatedly campaigned in support of a number of Palestine Action activists over the past year. A spokesman for the IHRC has said it has 'no institutional or financial link' with the Iranian government, and that allegations suggesting otherwise are 'baseless'. Assertions that it was 'ideologically aligned' with Iran was 'not evidence – it is opinion, and a deeply prejudiced one at that', the spokesman added. In July, Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee warned of Iran's growing influence in Britain through proxy groups, criminal networks and militant organisations. The committee said in a report that there had been 15 murder or kidnap attempts against British citizens or UK-based individuals between 2022 and August 2023 with an increased threat to Jewish and Israeli interests. As for what Whitehall is seeing behind the scenes that has caused such alarm, No 10 is keeping schtum. Many people 'may not yet know and understand the reality of this organisation', the Prime Minister's official spokesman told The Telegraph on Monday, but it is 'very clear' that it is not 'non-violent'. Chris Phillips, who headed the National Counter Terrorism Security Office for six years, says the Government will have received secret intelligence about Palestine Action that it is unable to disclose alongside reports of recent incidents. 'To take the extraordinary step of proscription shows there's a great deal more that is not out in the open,' he says. 'There must be a lot of intelligence or a lot of fear about what's being planned,' adds Phillips, who served in the Metropolitan Police for 30 years before working as a security consultant. 'Proscription is the extreme – they will have gone through other options.' 'Strong security advice' The process for deciding whether to proscribe an organisation is described by insiders as 'rigorous' and involves submissions from counter-terrorism detectives, analysts at the Security Service, MI5 and other law-enforcement agencies. The information is pulled together by specialists in the Joint Terrorism Assessment Centre (JTAC), which is based in MI5. Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said his force had 'laid out to government the operational basis' for proscribing Palestine Action which he described as an 'organised, extremist criminal group'. Cooper said the decision followed 'strong security advice' and an assessment from JTAC that the group 'prepares for terrorism'. She cited 'concerning information referencing plans and ideas for further attacks', but said the details could not be revealed publicly because of ongoing legal proceedings. 'Many people may not yet know the reality of this organisation,' the Home Secretary added. The Prime Minister's spokesman added that proscription followed an 'assessment from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre that concludes that Palestine Action has committed three separate acts of terrorism'. One of Cooper's predecessors, Amber Rudd, who held the post from 2016 to 2018 under the Conservatives, says she is 'confident' there is material which has not been made public but which supports the decision to ban the group. 'The Home Secretary has… to take the toughest line that is legally possible,' says Rudd. 'She has done exactly the right thing.' Yet even the Conservatives – who are firm supporters of the decision to ban Palestine Action – have floated the idea that more information could be put into the public domain to explain why the decision has been taken. Without doing so there's a risk the measure will lose public support, they argue. 'Palestine Action has used violence to advance its political agenda including sabotaging RAF planes, smashing up property and attacking a police officer with a sledgehammer. In this country we decide issues through debate and elections, not violence,' says Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary. '[But] it is important the Government maintains public confidence and it should always put relevant information into the public domain where possible.' Political fallout Some Labour MPs echo those concerns, saying privately that they fear the Government is losing control of the narrative in the absence of a full explanation of what it knows about Palestine Action. 'I don't think the people of the country feel threatened by Palestine Action because there is no explanation about why they should be,' says one Labour MP on the socialist wing of the party, who argues that the scenes which played out in Parliament Square on Saturday will have done little to help matters. Half of those arrested during the demonstration were aged 60 or above, according to police figures. 'When people see 90-year-old pensioners and blind people in wheelchairs being pulled away gently by police officers, those images stay with you,' the Labour MP says. The same source wondered whether the political fallout from the move to ban the group and the weekend's arrests, however jarring the intelligence the Home Office is seeing behind the scenes, could lead No 10 to consider a U-turn on proscription. But with intelligence and law enforcement experts giving ministers their backing there is no sign of that at the moment. Lord Carlile, Britain's first independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, from 2001 to 2011, said the Government had national security in mind when it proscribed Palestine Action and had done the 'right thing', though he questioned whether the police had dealt with Saturday's protest proportionately. 'There should be more of, 'If you go home we won't arrest you, if you do it again we will',' said the crossbench peer. 'If I was advising the police, I'd say, do it with a softer touch.' But as the debate spurred by the weekend's scenes raged, the Home Secretary defended her position, hinting that she was privy to disturbing information about Palestine Action that would change people's perceptions about her decision, once it was out in the open. 'There may be people who are objecting to proscription who don't know the full nature of this organisation, because of court restrictions on reporting while serious prosecutions are under way,' Cooper said. 'But it's really important that no one is in any doubt that this is not a non-violent organisation.'
