offering and that being ‘poor’ is the fault of the individual. Although this stigma can still be seen, it is not as common as it used to be; especially with research being made in the last decade that has shown that ‘for 2011-12 it is estimated that 0.8%, or £1.2bn, of total benefit expenditure was overpaid as a result of fraud. This is far lower than the figures widely believed by the public, as revealed repeatedly in opinion polls’ (Reporter, 2013). This evidence not only disproved the common thought that a large number of the public on benefits do not actually need them, but also proved that the majority of those who are on benefits depend on them. Additional evidence has also shown that the cause of poverty is down to a number of factors including; ‘low wages, insecure jobs and unemployment, lack of skills, ineffective benefit system, high costs including housing, and family problems’ (Foundation, 2016), instead of the conservative idea that it is purely down to the individual being lazy. This common view, of course, is not helped by the way in which the media publishes these sorts of issues. In 2008, The Mail Online published an article in which they wrote ‘David Cameron has unveiled a tough new stance by declaring people who are fat, poor or addicted to drugs could only have themselves to blame’ (Boden, 2008), and then proceeded to follow the line of thought throughout the article. The way that the media frames an issue ultimately affects how much support an issue will gain. This means that that if the media frames the social problem as at the fault of the individual then the issue is unlikely to gain a base for campaigning for human needs to be met as it is not deemed a collective issue. This then, in turn has significant influence over the making of social policy as it controls the way in which the public views the issue and therefore, in some cases, the success of a social policy being made.