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?

Lots of people I know disagree with my opinion. Even DH is very strongly Labour. I'm the one who is not allowed to disagree with his opinion. Though I often do. But he says it's the other way round.

flaminhoops I'm a bit concerned that taxation talk may be digressing too but I'm going to bang on about it a bit more

Lots of people, and possibly some of those on this thread, think benefit claimants are some kind of alien life form we can do whatever we like to because we pay for them and their feckless lives.

But we are all in receipt of benefits in one way or another.

It's a very popular idea to give tax breaks to married couples because a marriage is seen as the best place to bring up children. I'm not going to argue with that but it's purely a social lever. It has absolutely nothing to do with the economy and it will cost people who aren't married or who don't have children, possibly to the detriment of the economy.

So would it be a good idea to pay that portion of tax break in vouchers and tell people what they could spend it on? Or would that be not trusting them to do the best by their families?

FasterStrongerFri 05-Apr-13 14:32:33

waffly harold shipman did result in a review of the regulations & monitoring surrounding GPs, especially single practice doctors, like him.

its would have been foolish to suggest we didnt learn from him, like the Phillpotts.

The difference is that politicians didnt hijack it to make a point. And Vile Product of the Middle Class or Vile Product of Medical School WASNT splashed across the front of the Daily Mail.

There is no point to this debate really, is there?

The majority of ordinary people say: this is a cause for concern, how did he get away with this kind of lifestyle?

And The left say: How dare you say such a vile and terrible thing, never ever question benefit recipients' lifestyles!

And never the twain shall meet.

Yes, lemon, you're right.

It's just knee-jerk, headline-grabbing nonsense, all of it.

lemon what is this majority of which you speak? Can I have some figures please?

As many here have already pointed out, the issue of benefits is entirely separate from Philpott's crime, if we're sticking to fact rather than opinion, that is. The Philpott case is just a highly convenient vehicle for Osborne et al to continue their vilification of benefit claimants, as Aufaniae so rightly says. The mentality of a man like Philpott is the real issue here, and his type can be found across all social classes - many of those in corporate companies are indeed psychopaths or display psychopathic tendencies, as the writer Jon Ronson highlights. However, because these people have all the trappings of wealth and education, no one questions it, at least until it becomes so extreme that it's impossible to ignore - as in the recent banking scandals.

I wonder why it is so unacceptable to have nothing in our society, while it is entirely acceptable to have too much. I expect the right-wingers would claim that this proves their point about sheer hard work bringing rewards. So, all those hard working members of the aristocracy in past times or those who have inherited wealth or been born into a situation where they can be groomed for all the overpaid jobs are so deserving of their situation, while those who haven't been so fortunate have only themselves to blame.

I find it hard to believe that many people (usually those who are well off, of course) still refuse to make any connection between the accident of birth in terms of how fortunate we are with our start in life and how strongly that determines our future.

Our system is geared to produce a high number of losers for every winner, but the winners don't want to face up to that truth and will do everything to defend and preserve this inequality. Proof of the Darwinian theory of 'the survival of the fittest' is alive and well in our society and the wider global economy.

For the life of me i cannot understand what an earth his income had to do with the murder they commited.
6 children have been murdered, in an awful way.
George Osborne & pals should be focusing on what really matters and that is justice for these taken angels.

The need to change the Law on sentencing, they deserved 17+ per child, not for all.

All those arguing about everyone on low incomes, seriously you think we are all murderers?
Look at that posh bloke who shot his own family, funny how class wasn't bought into the argument then.

The government have used this tragedy for their own political gain, so we all fight each other instead of thinking about the real story, those angels taken by an evil group of people. There class does not come into it, they are evil to the bone, being rich wouldn't have changed anything as people like that are driven by power & hate, not the amount of money they own!!! [evil]

Lemonmuffin - you are missing the point by a pretty long shot. And really, left wingers are not "ordinary" people? I'm not a left winger BTW, but I disagree with using a horifically disturbed man's actions (and is wife's who obviously is pretty unhinged too because she WAS able to stand up for herself against him when the subject of debate mattered to her) to fuel a debate over something which is completely irrelevant to his actions.

Murdering your children has nothing to do with the benefits system. The benefits system does not create monsters.

Using the deaths of children to spark a shit-storm (which is what all of this is turning into) is vile! Ethically and morally barren and wholly despicable. And it seems plenty of people are buying into the whole smoke and mirrors of it.

If anything, what should be debated is this: where were the safety measures to ensure that these children were not suffering at the hands of these people? THAT is this government's huge failing, and they want to make damned sure they're covering it up with a paltry excuse of an argument to divert public attention.

The majority of ordinary people say: this is a cause for concern, how did he get away with this kind of lifestyle?

And The left say: How dare you say such a vile and terrible thing, never ever question benefit recipients' lifestyles!

I think the issue is that the right wing media is making his situation out to be typical of benefits claimants and are using this one, extreme example of a poor family with a large number of children to support their plans to cut back the welfare state in general.

People on the left, or even some who don't necessarily identify with any political spectrum, see it as wrong and unfair to pretend that the very rare and extreme case of the Philpott family are representative of benefit claimants as a whole.

I wonder why it is so unacceptable to have nothing in our society, while it is entirely acceptable to have too much.

What level of earnings is too much? Who gets to decide? And what do you suggest as a solution - confiscation of all monies earned above a certain level? The 'wealthy' in this country are currently taxed at 50% - that's a pretty large chunk of their earnings going straight to the government to support everyone else, plus VAT, petrol and alcohol duty, council tax, etc. So while those who earn more criticised for their 'privilege', they do a huge amount to support and sustain the lives of everyone else in the country.

Very true, where were the ss?

Welfare didn't kill those children, their father did.

Does class matter? well I would argue yes it does because the most vulnerable women tend to be those who lack a good education, good role models and aspiration. They are dependant upon a man or upon welfare to help them care for their children.

What Osborne seems to overlook is the fact that it is men of his class who benefit the most from a society that puts class and sex central to issues of social justice and economic justice. It is men of his class who gain most from a patriarchal society where men have power over women. Male violence towards women is born out of a social system where class matters very much. Whilst he is busy ensuring the Phillpots of this world have no equality with him, he is condemning women to the horror of living with a Phillpot.

Both Osborne and Phillpot are the evil creations of a class society.

Jennywren - what was that you were saying about being "better than that"? You just did exactly the thing you were pulling pansy up about.

Er, nope. I just quoted another poster.

Juneau - the wealthy are currently taxed at 50% - on a tiered system. Their whole earnings are not taxed at 50%.

Please do not forget that those who are wholly or partly reliant on benefits also contribute..VAT, petrol tax (sometimes), council tak (sometimes), alcohol/cigarette duty (dependant on the individual) - they spend the money they claim on the economy just like the rest of us do. Oh, and lets not forget, the multi-property landlords out there who are getting their properties paid for by HOUSING BENEFIT. (Who really benefits from the benefits system?) Some of those who are wholly or partly reliant also worked in the past and will work again in the future, they have and will pay income tax again.

But really, what does any of this have to do with benefits and a couple murdering their children?

You hurled abuse at another poster who had offended you by using another poster's comment - you abused by proxy jennywren.

And added a nice big grin (denoting that you agreed with the poster who posted the abuse) for effect.....

I think there is a difference between saying that Philpott is tupical of benefit claimants (which is bonkers, as well as offensive) and making the point that our current approach to welfare is one of a number of factors which enable the development of the mindset possessed and the lifestyle adopted by Philpott.
I have never been involved in a case of this horrendous nature but I have in my time represented a fair few people who demonstrated the attitude that, on the basis of my limited knoweldge, I would speculate Philpott has. These are people who have not developed the link between actions and consequences that most of us do, in part because of poor upbringings and poor education and in part because in later life they are never expected to take responsibility for their choices. They father a child - the state provides for it and the mother cares for it. They are not required to do anything. They commit an offence - legal representation is arranged for them at no effort or expense of theirs. They never show surprise at this or offer thanks for the work that you do for them. If they are convicted, unless it is for a very serious crime, the court will spend its time worrying about their problems and trying to help them. Punishment is low down the list of priorities.
No-one at any stage expects them to take responsibility for what they do, so unsurprisingly they never learn to, and very important moral faculties never get the chance to develop. Philpott is an extreme example - he probably thought his crazy plan would work, because his brain has had so little practice at thinking through consequences and he assumes that things will always turn out OK, because they usually do - other people ensure that for him. I am not saying these people live well - they don't, far from it. I am not saying they are in any way representative of people in this country who claim benefits. but the left too often seems determined to deny they exist. Given they cause a lot of misery, cheifly to the people the left says it wants to protect, i wonder why this is so.

Well observed Sherlockflaming, I did indeed.

flaming - some wealthy are taxed at 50% - the more you earn over 100k, the more of your allowance you lose. plus NI on top.

karlos may I thank you for a clever and insightful post with which I wholeheartedly agree.

And there you ago again...doing exactly the thing you pulled someone else up for and pointing out that you're better than that, jennywren.

Good post Karlos.

Karlos, I don't doubt your experiences, but I feel you are missing a vital point: there are lots of people out there who display the same distasteful attitudes of those whom you have come into contact with, but not all of them are on benefts or have even ever claimed benefits. Enron? The recent banking scandal? The CEO's during the Exon-Valdise accident? Nixon? HSBC laundering millions and millions through South American drugs cartels? Entitlement, lack of empathy, corruption, greed, doing as little as you can for as much in return as is possible and not caring whom you hurt in the process is not derived from being in receipt of benefits - surely not since the small handful of corrupt individuals I've illustrated above have likely not been unfortunate enough to be on benefits?

Good post flamin