Advanced search

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

BruthasTortoise Thu 04-Apr-13 15:06:24

Oh and YANBU. I'm not sure exactly what "lifestyles" like that is, but if he means larger families one parent working and receiving ChB and CTC then he's talking about an awful lot of decent families that have fallen on hard times during the recession.

FasterStronger Thu 04-Apr-13 15:07:09

He still would've recieved child tax credits and child benefit for them

which is why a cap is needed.

grovel Thu 04-Apr-13 15:08:03

I saw it on Sky.

TheBigJessie Thu 04-Apr-13 15:09:14

He doesn't seem like the kind of man who would have paid attention to contraception without benefits. Very much a "feeding them and clothing them without money is your problem, woman" man.

BruthasTortoise Thu 04-Apr-13 15:09:35

What would the cap be though? So say 2 children but does that apply to people who had 3 children while gainfully employed but have fallen on hard times? What do they do with the third child?

currentbuns Thu 04-Apr-13 15:11:11

Six children have been killed. You have no way of knowing if they would have existed or not if state help didn't exist. That's pure conjecture. Yet you are using the horrible death of these children to push a political agenda, same as the DM and Osbourne.

I think both sides of the political spectrum have been equally guilty of this, tbh.

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 15:11:27

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

Philpott is not like most of us.

You are applying reasoning that just isn't relevant.

Do you think he would become responsible and have paid for all of them if benefits didn't exist, or left the mothers to deal with the fall out? Hmm, let's see ...

twofingerstoGideon Thu 04-Apr-13 15:12:31

...and would the cap be per father or per mother?

Charlesroi Thu 04-Apr-13 15:15:39

It is depressingly predictable that politicians would cash in on this act of barbarity.

I really shouldn't get started on the Mail but ... what if he'd blown all that cash on books and board games, instead of tellies and games consoles? Would that be better DM? Would he be less of a psychopath because he earned £200K?

FasterStronger Thu 04-Apr-13 15:15:48

we have a cap and it is per household app. 26k.

mercibucket Thu 04-Apr-13 15:16:22

How about we stop psychopaths from having/keeping their children? And how about attempted murder by stabbing someone 27 times is given a whole life term or at least a minimum of 25 years.

Can't believe this gets turned into a debate on benefits. Wake up people!

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 15:17:11

Actually Saskia's post is spot on, he would have simply exploited them in a different way. We used to have young kids near me (about 10 - 13) washing car windows at traffic lights. I always assumed they were being enterprising (possibly without their parents' knowledge) and earning a bit of pocket money.

However, one day I saw a van pull up at the lights. Two of the window washer kids jumped out, a man (their dad?) shouted gruffly out the window "don't come back till you've got £50" and drove off. I was stunned, and have never forgotten it.

I would say that there is a lot wrong with this family set up, and more the state could do to support children in this kind of abusive situation. Preventing their deaths for a start.

However it's worth remembering that the money being paid to feed, clothe and house children in abusive families might in fact be protecting them from much worse abuse and exploitation. If there's no money to put food on the table, some may well end up being exploited, not just window washing, but like Saskia says being pimped out, or photographed for money.

The sign of a civilised society is looking after our vulnerable, and that especially includes children. The problem with saying that benefits won't be paid to large families, or families on benefits is that it means ultimately the children will suffer. It won't stop people having kids or falling on bad times, much as you might like to think it would.

grovel Thu 04-Apr-13 15:18:45

Ironically the state have swapped a £50,000 pa benefits bill for a £90,000 a year prison bill.

Saski Thu 04-Apr-13 15:19:52

How is Jennywren or others saying they shouldn't have existed? She's saying they might not have existed if the welfare system had been structured differently (you might disagree with that sentiment, but that's a different kettle of fish entirely). It's a strange way of wording it, but bear in mind if you're on birth control, you're ensuring that your future children won't exist. Is this tragic?

This guy should not have been having children. Where we can find useful clues about apathetic parenting, we should.

It's odd that someone can't say that without people jumping down their throat.

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 15:20:40

I think your post is superb there aufaniae.

The problem is that we will never know whether generous benefits encourage Philpotts of this world or protect their offspring. I guess we all just have to draw our own conclusions and thoughts.

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 15:22:34

Thank you saski you have hit the nail on the head.

I certainly don;t believ that these children should NOT have existed but simply feel that they MAY not have existed.

Just like all the babies most of never have because we are too old or have run out of space/money.

PeneloPeePitstop Thu 04-Apr-13 15:28:22

It's not a fucking benefits issue.

An egotistical, abusive man like Philpott wouldn't have paid for their kids had benefits not been available. He and his like are too selfish. He had his almighty cock would have still produced them, though.

And where will you bashers get off? For says you have been told how your shameless agenda pushing is adversely affecting others round here but oh no, here you are stamping on the graves of these children to grandstand your agenda.

Just like our incompetent chancellor.

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 15:33:39

Thank you jennywren shock smile

I agree we may never know what Philpott would have done had circumstances been different. However much is being made of the fact that he was on benefits, and it's not relevant to the fact he killed his DCs IMO.

The right is using this terrible tragedy to solidify the idea on peoples' minds that benefit claimants in general are evil, potential child-murdering scum.

What is going on with the benefits system right now will leave thousands homeless, destitute, driven further into poverty, at the same time disproportionately affecting disabled people. It's being touted as being to help people, and save money but actually it's not about that, it's about dismantling the welfare state, of course.

The government's supporters are using stories like this as propaganda specifically designed to dehumanise people on welfare in the public eye, so that the majority turn a blind eye to the suffering that ordinary people are about to experience because of their policies. (This is an old trick, but a very well-used and successful one).

Using dead children in this game is beyond the pale, and exposes just how low they will sink IMO.

MsTakenidentity Thu 04-Apr-13 15:34:35

wannabedomesticgoddess / Speechless at that tbh. It just keeps getting worse All that's missing is Cameron telling the critics to 'calm down'..

FasterStronger Thu 04-Apr-13 15:36:37

the evidence in the trial mentions his strong interest in money. e.g. the money from the funeral collections.

it seems wishful to think that limiting the money he got from the state would not change his behaviour. if he had to dominate say 4 women who lived away from him, they would have found escape easier.

PeneloPeePitstop Thu 04-Apr-13 15:39:09

Again, bollocks.
Abusive, manipulative men like him will breed for their ego's sake.

This is not a benefits issue.

Particularly as he was sending the women in his life out to work.

Do you astroturfers ever post about anything else? Or are you just Tory bots?

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 15:39:12

Saski yes it would be a better world if psychopaths didn't go around creating children to abuse.

But can't you see how the media is manipulating the agenda here?
Philpott was in the army - why aren't they leading with that?

The fact of the matter is that benefits claimants are the current bogey man for the right wing and the press. They've been pulling this stunt for years! Don't you remember, it used to be all the fault of single mothers? And then illegal immigrants. Now it's benefit claimants.

The fact that we are even talking about benefits in relation to the deaths of these poor children is because the story has been hijacked for political reasons.

Can't you see how distasteful that it?

And how dangerous too? The right are using this story to gain support for cutting money to some of the most vulnerable in society, can't you see that?

DreamingOfTheMaldives Thu 04-Apr-13 15:41:20

I thought I read somewhere, although cannot remember where, that one of the reasons for the fire was to try to set up the partner/mistress who had left him and taken her benefits with her. He also wanted to make himself look like the hero when he rescued the children. He wanted to have the children (of the mistress) living with him so that he would be in receipt of the benefits which were paid to her.

There does therefore appear to be a benefits element to this tragedy - it seems his children meant nothing more to him than additional benefits.

I do think it is absolutely dreadful that all Osborne could think to say when asked about this tragedy was that there needed to be a debate about the welfare system and whether people should be allowed to live that. Nothing at all about those poor children or their family. Disgusting.

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 15:41:35

When Universal Credit comes in, it will be easier for men like Philpott to control women. At the moment, many benefits / top ups are done per person. That's changing and the will be paid to a household, going to one nominated person.

Where the "head" of the household is a controlling abuser, that means no independent access to money for people being abused.

Nice one hmm

currentbuns Thu 04-Apr-13 15:44:26

Where the "head" of the household is a controlling abuser, that means no independent access to money for people being abused.

That's a very good point.

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