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

[aufaniae]

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?

Tellling people how to spend their money. I think you mean taxpayers money. Mumsnet will make a Tory out of me yet. Can't believe the stuff I am reading here. No wonder labour didn't get in last time. Even though I voted for them. Wish I hadn't but in the end it didn't matter. Every time any suggestion is made like food vouchers and so on people are up in arms oh it won't work, it won't work. Well the system isn't working now.

Philpott would still have been a murdering abusing violent rapist of a bastard no matter how many children he had, and whether he was on benefits or not.
As other posters have pointed out, he was a violent murdering (attempted) rapist bastard before he had any childen and while working.

Osborne needs to study causality before shooting his mouth off.

Totally offensive to many striggling families who despreately need the welfare system to imply that murdering children is a lifestyle choice which goes hand in hand with claiming benefits.

You lot really do live in la la land!

Vouchers are a terrible idea, and yet another one which will make life tougher for vast numbers of decent people, at the same time further stigmatising the poor, while failing to tackle the problem it sets out to.

Why? Well ...

The number of people who genuinely put their own feckless needs (e.g. drink and drugs) before their DC's own basic needs such as food is very small indeed.

However the number of people receiving some kind of benefit is massive.

If you bring in vouchers you make life more difficult for everyone involved. It's likely they will only be accepted by participating i.e. mainstream retailers. People on very low incomes can't always afford to use the same shops you do. People also use fruit & veg markets, second hand shops, ebay etc etc to make ends meet. It's unlikely that vouchers would be accepted there.

The small amount of feckless individuals will simply circumvent the system. Drug addicts are nothing if not inventive for example. As soon as you bring a voucher system, a black market will appear. Feckless individuals will not stop being feckless, they won't suddenly start caring for their previously neglected and abused DCs!

As a RL example - vouchers were brought in for asylum seekers here. However the shops they could be used in were limited (and didn't include Halal butchers, which affected some of the asylum seekers). A black market quickly appeared, with unscrupulous shop keepers buying them for less than the face value.

It's an attractive idea to the Tories however as it'd be an income stream for big business, it's likely that they'd do it by card, and a card company would stand to make money here.

Vivienne - I agree that the system isn't working, but treating people like children is the answer? Really? Have you ever had some misfortune that landed you on benefits for a period? Would you have been alright with being told how to spend the money you were given when you probably have enough about you to decide what's best for you and your family?

Also who will food vouchers actually benefit? Likely the large corporations...just as the workfare scheme is doing now. The rich getting richer and looking down their noses at the poor who are to be used at their pleasure at all costs....

Vivienmary you have no right to dictate how I spend my carer's allowance. If I choose to spend it on the odd bottle of wine, that is what I shall do. In fact, that is a rare occurance, but that's none of your fucking business. How would you feel if, as a higher taxpayer (I was), I had demanded to know how you spent your household budget. How dare you tar all benefit recipients with the same brush.
Oh, and just because the system may not be working now, doesn't mean that fixing it your way is the right way.

Feckless individuals will not stop being feckless, they won't suddenly start caring for their previously neglected and abused DCs!

if the DCs are neglected and abused SS would be need to be involved. better they shop for the family.

Fasterstronger - were the SS involved with the Phillpotts?

But if they are feckless individuals, they will remain so, they will sell said vouchers and use them for the precise things you don't want them to.

Oh, and by the way, the last time I was on benefits (other than just carer's allowance) I was reported for daring to buy basmati rice rather than cheaper long grain rice. How idiotic is that!

Osborne pointed out that there is a debate to be had about whether the taxpayer should subsidise, through the benefits system, the lifestyles of those who choose to have 17 children and not work.

I, personally, think he makes a very valid point. That, to me, is not demonising everyone on benefits. He maybe should've ducked the question - in retrospect it would've been wise as he should've known that twats like Ed Balls would immediately begin frothing at the mouth and accusing him of all sorts - but as a taxpayer who thinks the benefits system should be there to catch people if they fall and then help them back into paid work as quickly as possible, I agree with him. Philpott is a scumbag, a murderer and had no right to sit on his perfectly able-bodied arse and be supported by the taxpayer.

Yes I would have accepted that benefit could be part paid in food vouchers. Because everyone needs to eat. I have no power to dictate to anybody. That's what a ballot box is for. I wish people would get off their high hourses and appreciate that people are allowed to disagree. We don't live in a dictatorship.

'horses'!

"Osborne pointed out that there is a debate to be had about whether the taxpayer should subsidise, through the benefits system, the lifestyles of those who choose to have 17 children and not work."

But the mothers were working!

flamin - i dont think so.

But by recommending food vouchers you are creating a dictatorship.

Or would be if they were brought into use.

juneau The women in the household were in receipt of IN WORK BENEFITS

Osborne can state all he likes that there is a discussion to be had about having seventeen children, but there are very few families that have that many children, either on or off benefits.

The problem with this discussion, not of the Philpotts and the murdering idiot that 'headed' the family, but of benefits, everybody is being tarred with the same brush, due to one, yes, just one psychopath.
I didn't see people stop visiting the doctor when Shipman went to prison, and I didn't see anyone having this discussion when the Wests were arrested.

flaminhoop that wasn't a criticism of you. It was a point of yours I found interesting.

I am a Lefty, btw, except that I have some views that I suppose are quite Right wing when it comes to the level of State intervention into people's private lives.

However, I do believe in quite a lot of State intervention, taxation being a definite and I agree with you about the things you mention.

Obviously some people don't. I don't understand why. It's not just because I'm a nice person that I want all children to be able to go to school. It's that I look at other countries and think it would be terrifying to live somewhere there is an enormous gulf in income and opportunity between rich and poor.

Viviennemary Yes, taxpayers' money is exactly what I'm talking about. Like the money spent on education or health say, that some people who have private arrangements argue that they should be excused from. See above.

I agree that 'the system' may not be perfect but I am content with it and the levels of fraud and abuse which I understand are not as high as commonly believed.

But if you don't like it, what do you suggest?

Vouchers are not the answer. They become currency and will be exchanged for whatever value the market dictates no different to a £10 note with the Queen's face on it.

Plus it's disgusting and degrading to treat everyone on benefits according to the relatively small number that abuses them.

I don't think there is very much chance of food vouchers being brought in. But I think it might be an idea especially as there are such scare stories about children going to be starving under this new scheme. So vouchers would be a way of helping families to budget and ensure children didn't go hungry. I don't see why there is such fury about it. Nobody is suggesting all a person's benefit is paid in food vouchers.

I was about to say the same thing, Dawndonna.

Viviennne - who said we are not allowed to disagree? From that statement I get the feeling you don't like anyone disagreeing with your opinion. If that's the case I do not understand why you are posting your opinions on a public forum. Public forums are for debate are they not? I'm quite happy that that people will disagree with my opinion, but I don't expect them to try to make me feel uncomfortable with subversive tactics of throwing their hands up in the air and complaining that they are not being allowed to disagree with someone. You're very much welcome to your opinions, and on a public forum, I am very much welcome to challenge those opinions in a respectful manner - debate is healthy.

I no more want to see people taking the Michael out of the benefits system than the next person does, but I also don't want to see people brought to such an all time low in their opinion of who they are and where they stand in society that they become hopeless, dispassionate and feel less of a person than the next person. The benefits trap already does that to many people.

I have no doubt that we are funding some people who are milking the system. But no system is perfect and it would be impossible to make it so. But we need to ask ourselves what we would rather do - do what we can to help those who need it and in the process pay money to some who abuse the system or make life more difficult for all those who need help (remember that more than 40% of disabled children live in poverty in the uk already). We could equally reduce the burden of proof in criminal trials from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "more likely than not". We would catch a lot more criminals but jail a lot more innocent people too. I know which kind of a society I would choose.

Limited, sorry, I didn't see you as criticising...I saw it as an opportunity to explore :) But, I suppose also, that's digressing a bit from the OP's original post....

Yes, I know the mothers were working, but Philpott was choosing not to work, when he could have done so, and the family was claiming a lot of benefits, presumably because 1) they had a lot of DC and 2) because with a jobless adult in the house they could claim a higher amount of working tax credits than if he'd been working and bringing money into the house himself - something he was perfectly capable of doing as he apparently did nothing to care for the DC.

But Osborne shouldn't have been drawn on this question - he should've ducked it. I'm surprised he didn't TBH.

DarkesteyesFri 05-Apr-13 00:02:52

And this is what i heard today.

DarkesteyesThu 04-Apr-13 22:44:19 I experienced first hand today the kind of attitudes that are being enforced.
A few years back we had a domestic abuse murder in the town where i live. A woman and her young child.
Today i overheard two people discussing the Philpot case and the conversation then focused on a local case.
the words were "they are just council house scum"
yes those were the words spoken about a dead woman and her dead child. Just because they were claiming benefits.
And these words were spoken by a woman who also has had problems with a controlling ex.
But the woman who spoke these words isnt a claimant so her logic is that she herself is an abuse victim but the woman who was murdered isnt. No she is just council scum just because she claimed benefits.
As i left the coffee shop i felt like screaming. its fucking despairing

Add message | Report | Message poster
SomethingOnceFri 05-Apr-13 07:39:56

The existence of a welfare state isn't the reason why sociopaths exist.

George Osborne is a despicable man.

Add message | Report | Message poster
jennywren45Fri 05-Apr-13 08:11:44

That's appalling darkesteyes , utterly vile.

Scum is a foul word. And yet on here I see it used fairly frequently about the Tories, " tory scum" is apparently a perfectly acceptable term according to MN.

But those of us who are tories feel exactly as you did when we see it written about us on here .

My God Jenny how can you even compare the two. The council scum comment i heard yesterday was made about a MURDERED WOMAN AND HER MURDERED 3 YEAR OLD CHILD.
There is a world of bloody difference between this and a fellow MNer who you have only talked to annonymously on here and dont even know in RL calling you scum (and i havent seen anyone here do that) just because you vote Tory.
However you interpreting my post and turning it around and trying to say these two situations are the same does speak volumes.
CHRIST ALMIGHTY

"But the mothers were working!"

Yes, they were. But for the minimum wage, which would have no way supported their lifestyle or their 11 children!