I'm disgusted by Osbourne jumping on the Phillpott bandwagon created by the DM

(374 Posts)
aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 14:18:50

So, yesterday there was outrage after the pictures of dead children were used in the most cynical way by the Daily Mail to sell the idea that welfare "scroungers" are evil, with Phillpott branded a "vile product" of the benefit system by the DM.

What's our government's response today?

George Osborne, when asked about the claims, said a debate was needed about whether the state should "subsidise lifestyles like that". link

To add insult to injury, he was visiting Derby when he said this (which is where the children lived and died).

How fucking insensitive can you get? angry

Latara Thu 04-Apr-13 14:48:42

Marmalade i'd be tempted to say you have a point re. the trial date. How very politically expedient for the govt.

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 14:48:56

galaxy you don't need to get rude. It was a civilised debate. None of us have said benefits made him but we have said that they enabled him to have children he may well not have had if he had had to raise them himself. The system also made him feel powerful and cocksure.

There is a real but subtle difference.

SherbetVodka Thu 04-Apr-13 14:50:30

I do think some of you are missing the point.

That is that none of these children would have been, left to starve by a tighter welfare system but simply that most of them would probably never have been born ( and subsequently killed) under a tighter system.

I do get that Osbourne's (and the Daily Mail's) point is that the children should never have been born in the first place.

And I think that no matter what you think of the Philpotts' lifestyle, it's absolutely disgusting not to mention extremely insensitive to imply that the main problem was that the children existed at all.

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 14:51:37

"we have said that [benefits] enabled him to have children he may well not have had if he had had to raise them himself."

"The system also made him feel powerful and cocksure."

And your proof of this is .... ?

This is conjecture! You are making dangerous assumptions and running with them.

HappyJoyful Thu 04-Apr-13 14:51:41

I saw this too and wondered what on earth he meant by "subsidise lifestyles like that" aufaniae

So he's going to get the '50"plasma tv and snooker table police' round to monitor what people are and aren't going to spend benefits on?

I know now there is going to be some changes to emergency payments that are made and these are in voucher form rather than cash. Perhaps this is where he is heading, I guess this would be an option in some ways.

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/26/payment-cards-emergency-assistance-food-stamps

LetsFaceTheMusicAndDance Thu 04-Apr-13 14:51:47

YANBU to be disgusted.
YWouldBU to be at all surprised.
Bastard - Osbourne, not you.

Owllady Thu 04-Apr-13 14:52:05

I think it was incredibly disrespectful of Gideon sad

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 14:52:43

Not at all. Or do you think being dragged up by Philpott and then being burnt to death by their parents was worth it because everyone's entitled to take what they want from the system? Are they a worthy sacrifice to the lefts cause?
Poor, poor children.

grovel Thu 04-Apr-13 14:53:29

I saw the interview.

Osborne was asked whether he agreed with the Daily Mail headline. I'd say he distanced himself from it because he said that Philpott, not the benefits culture, was responsible for the awful events.

He also said that the stuff about having a debate about benefits for people with lifestyles like Philpott's. I'm pretty queasy about spending £50,000 a year supporting the lifestyle of a convicted "attempted murderer" who has fathered 17 children by five women. It may be we conclude we've got no alternative (for the sake of the children or because compulsory sterilisation is beyond the pale) but I'm not averse to the idea of a debate.

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 14:53:31

" it's absolutely disgusting not to mention extremely insensitive to imply that the main problem was that the children existed at all."

Absolutely.

jennywren you would do well to pay attention to this.

"It was a civilised debate"

When 6 children have been killed, it's absolutely inhumane and certainly not at all civilised to react by saying they shouldn't have existed in the first place. Can you not see that?

MarmaladeTwatkins Thu 04-Apr-13 14:55:11

It's either been planned or has worked out to be a very happy coincidence for the Tories.

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 14:55:14

I have never said they should not have existed. Don;t put words in to my mouth.

I am saying that Philpott might have thought twice about having 17 if he'd had to pay for them all, like most of us have to.

PeachActiviaMinge Thu 04-Apr-13 14:55:46

It doesn't matter how much money you give someone you can't fix something thats broken. I'm on benefits my children come first every time I don't smoke or drink I have the internet as my luxury but if you gave someone like the Philpotts £500k a year it still wouldn't of been enough to save those children it wasn't money he wanted it was revenge. Some people aren't capable of loving another unconditionally and money won't fix it.

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 14:56:14

I'm not sure even the Tories have control over court dates, marmalade!

But I do agree it's a fortunate coincidence for them.

Latara Thu 04-Apr-13 14:56:20

I too feel that the DM & others are implying that the children 'should not have existed' - that is a disgusting and inhuman way to think.

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 14:56:57

Okaaay.

So how is saying "Philpott might have thought twice about having 17 if he'd had to pay for them all, like most of us have to."

and

"That is that none of these children would have been, left to starve by a tighter welfare system but simply that most of them would probably never have been born ( and subsequently killed) under a tighter system"

not the same thing as saying they shouldn't have existed?

FairyJen Thu 04-Apr-13 14:57:46

Indeed marmalade "coincidence" indeed

<< puts tin hat on >>

SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter Thu 04-Apr-13 14:58:10

jennywren45 he wouldn't have thought twice about having 17 children, he'd just have found a different way to exploit them. Maybe sent them out burgling, or pimped them out.

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 14:58:13

I think we may be reading things differently, then. I don;t think they are sating at all that those children shouldn't have existed but that they may not have existed under a less generous system.

I only have three children because two I would have liked to have had don't exist because I can't afford any more.

MarmaladeTwatkins Thu 04-Apr-13 14:59:06

"I'm not sure even the Tories have control over court dates, marmalade"

It must be nice living in your naive little world jenny but there are strings to be pulled both in the government and in courtrooms.

FairyJen Thu 04-Apr-13 15:00:17

Oh yes court dates are computer generated are they????

BruthasTortoise Thu 04-Apr-13 15:02:31

All conjecture of course but I don't believe that Philpott would've stopped having children had the money not been available for them. The implication behind that is that he cared about his children's welfare and there is no evidence to suggest that he did. As much as the children did bring income into the home, having small children also makes it much harder for women to flee so they are frequently used by abusive men to control their partners. Philpott was, imo, fundamentally a control freak as demonstrated by his first crime. He didn't attempt to murder his ex and her mother for financial gain, he did it because he lost control.

PeachActiviaMinge Thu 04-Apr-13 15:04:02

Philpott might have thought twice about having 17 if he'd had to pay for them all, like most of us have to.

He still would've recieved child tax credits and child benefit for them. More is paid out for in-work benefits than unemployment benefits. You can not change who someone is deep down. He is greedy, selfish and evil benefits or no benefits.

grovel Thu 04-Apr-13 15:05:06

I think we've got a commendably bolshy judiciary at the moment to be fair. Ask Theresa May or Grayling.

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 15:06:17

grovel that's interesting. I've only seen the summary on the BBC site. Who was the interview done by (was it BBC / on iPlayer?) I'd like to see it.

Sounds to me he tried to distance himself on the surface while making as much as he could out of the supposed "connection" between the tragedy and benefits anyway.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now