A former weekly newspaper newspaper columnist dubbed “Mr Angry” has admitted more than £50,000 of benefit fraud.
Prolific letter-writer Clive Wilkins-Oppler was given a column by the Kentish Gazette which earned him a cult following and an appreciation society on Facebook.
But he has now admitted pocketing more than £51,500 in income support and council and housing benefit to which he was not entitled after the Gazette led the way in covering the case.
The 47-year-old, who was not paid for his column by the KM Group, pleaded guilty to two charges of making fraudulent claims when he appeared at Canterbury Crown Court.
Gazette editor Leo Whitlock said: “We found ourselves in the very unusual position of uncovering the fact one of our unpaid columnists was facing fraud charges.
“We broke the initial story and have followed every twist and turn of the case. Wilkins-Oppler’s guilty plea topped our www.kentishgazette.co.uk and www.kentonline.co.uk websites yesterday and appeared on page three of this week’s paper.
“The controversial nature of his column and the fact he was a prolific letter writer to every local newspaper in the patch, means there has been enormous interest locally.”
The offences were committed between 2006-11 when Wilkins-Oppler failed to declare that he had assets which would have meant any claim for benefits would be rejected.
Philip Rowley, defending, said he had since repaid more than £48,000 of the money which he was not entitled to.
Sentencing has been adjourned until next month and Wilkins-Oppler was bailed until his next court appearance.
He had written numerous letters to the paper before being given his own column, which sparked the creation of a Clive Wilkins-Oppler Appreciation Society by Facebook fans who dubbed him “Mr Angry of Canterbury”.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Yet again, the folly of allowing untrained ‘citizen’ journalists and me-me-me amateur writers into the heart of local newspapers is exposed.
Report this comment
Maybe Kentish Gazette should have paid him then?
Report this comment
I wonder whether Subbed Out can think of any paid, professional journalists who have ever commited crimes.
Report this comment
The unpaid rants of a local activist sounds like a good deal to me. I don’t see any folly in giving Mr Angry a column, as suggested by Subbed Out. And to be such a well known figure in the town must magnify his shame of being exposed as a scrounging welfare cheat – assuming he is ashamed. Mr Angry has become Mr Highly Embarrassed.
Report this comment
“Yet again, the folly of allowing untrained ‘citizen’ journalists and me-me-me amateur writers into the heart of local newspapers is exposed”.
I’m an “untrained” full-time freelancer and have penned newspaper columns for over a quarter of a century as well as over 1,200 features and fourteen books. And your hint that a lack of formal training in journalism, or an amateur status, is more likely to make a person commit benefit fraud is based on what, exactly? Just curious.
Report this comment
I don’t mind untrained citizen journalists if their copy helps a title put on sale or (to adopt yardstick more appropriate to our times) reduces the rate of sales decline. “Mr Angry” sounds unpromising material, but he may well have done a better job for the Kentish Gazette than some of the bores who are helping to wreck daily and weekly newspapers the length of the land.
We have lost too many proper columnists and gained too many public and voluntary sector finger-waggers telling us to stop smoking, stop drinking, grow more vegetables and be nice to travellers. Their copy is so tedious that after a couple of pars you start losing the will to live.
So what could possibly be the attraction for editors?
Doh! I forgot. These columns come without an invoice.
This point will be utterly lost on higher management in the regional press, including those editors who have unconvincingly championed so-called “pro bono” copy, but in journalism, as a general rule (and with the greatest respect to Mike Hallowell, who may be the exception) you tend to get what you pay for.
Report this comment
So agree with your comment about the nannying finger-waggers. As for other than in-house columnists, I’m not sure its safe to generalise. Whether they’re from the voluntary sector, public sector or are freelance writers like me who do it for a living, you get everything from the excellent to the execrable. As a rule you’re right, though; you probably do get what you pay for. There are a few journos who think that you’ll never get the same quality of copy written by “citizen journalists” outside of “the house”, but I disagree. Some in-house columnists are absolutely dire. I get paid for my columns, but I know of others who don’t and yet produce damned good copy.
Report this comment