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?

flam - there is a parallel though between the two groups:

whether you are very rich or poor, you are insulated from the limits that many of us face: most of us have to get up, go to work, do 100 things we rather wouldn't.

as karlos showed, someone on a low income, can be insulated from the normal responsibilities that keep most of us grounded. so it is not only the rich and powerful who don't have to deal with everyday responsibilities.

excellent points flamin which I totally agree with. But only in a society where private property rights and class, where social and economic inequality exist does this happen.

so it is not only the rich and powerful who don't have to deal with everyday responsibilities but it is the rich and the powerful that benefit from the fact that you get up everyday and have to do a million things you rather wouldn't.

Faster - I was thinking about these parallels too..and thinking also that you see this in all walks of life (the boss who let's his staff do all the grafting but takes home the decent pay check?)

And while I do in part agree with Karlos - that environment shapes us - there's a lot of basic psyche in there that's already programmed in too.

Phillpott was in the military - not all military people have such a sense of entitlement and self-absorption: many have a great sense of duty, pride, empathy - what was different with this man?

While thinking about what happened here and the factors involved in it are interesting (horrifically so, please don't get the impression that I am some sort of person who finds tragedy merely interesting) from a sociological POV I still fail to see (and find it extremely offensive, actually) that there are some out there with influence that are using this incident as a driving factor in debating benefits.

What percentage of people claiming benefits are like this man? Are ungrateful, and scheming, and narcissistic? I'd wager very few.

I was extremely grateful for benefits when I needed them (I felt like the scum of the earth too, but that's to do with how benefit's claimants are often treated) I'm nothing like that man - I also come from a pretty privileged background where the word "No." was rarely said to me...in fact I was spoilt. But I'm nothing like that man. I'm just one person, but I'm certain there are many more out there like me.

But the rich and powerful don't generally have to deal with the chaos they cause us faster. And the people flamin has mentioned have caused a lot of people in the world a lot of misery without being punished and the system they worked under appears to continue untrammelled.

I'm not sure how many of us are going to have to deal with the chaos Mick Philpott has caused. The dead children, obviously, their mother and then I'd guess his relations, neighbours, friends etc.

But not many people in the scheme of things, unless you subscribe to the view that what Mick Philpott did is the fault of welfare or benefits 'culture'. Which I don't.

So without defending Mick Philpott, I look at my life and wonder who's caused me the greatest harm.

MiniTheMinxFri 05-Apr-13 16:05:16

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

The best and most intelligent post on this thread.

limitedperiodonly But the rich and powerful don't generally have to deal with the chaos they cause us faster. yes in a similar way to MP, they create chaos for others.

"Welfare did not kill those children, their father did"

Yes of course he did. No one in their right mind would disagree with that.

But their father wanted more benefits. And a bigger house. And he wanted the five children back in his house to provide him with more benefits that he craved so much.

Why is that so hard for people to accept?

As a society we all impact on each other. 'The poor ' don't mysteriously vanish, never to be heard of again if you stop paying them benefits. None of us are immune to the ups and downs of life that can leave us relying on others.

Let's assume for one moment that philpott really was so motivated by the erroneous idea that his actions would net him a bigger house that he decided to put his children at risk, and his psychopathic tendencies were only a minor consideration. Lets assume that Cameron , the mail and Osborne have a valid point about benefit claimants.

Once they have finished wittering on about debate and made their cuts, what next? Speaking purely selfishly and assuming I would always be a have rather than a have not, I do not want to live next to a shanty town, I do not want to live on an estate with private security and I do not want my children to go to school with children who don't have food or a roof over their heads.

Please explain how the children who are surplus to requirements are supposed to be cared for, because saying "they're not my fault" isn't good enough.

The thing is even if he had wanted to Philpott was unable to work because of his previous serious criminal record and because of his mental instability, there are reports of him having a pop at people in the workplace and walking out. He couldn't claim for unemployment because he walked out willingly so was ineligible. His partners both worked for minimum wage apparently and no it is clear that without the benefit system they would have had nothing. SO what is the answer here?

I agree with all those who say families like this are a very tiny minority and I cannot agree with vouchers etc. If people are crap parents, they are crap parents. To lump in all people on benefits with a few feckless fuckers is beyond wrong. It is limiting in the worst way for people.

And Jenny it is funny that you resorted to doing the very thing you pulled me up on.

I may diminish my point but Osborne and his lot are a bunch of immoral fuckers. They too have no moral compass. They will say and do anything to make their points.

And to back up my point that you can't just abandon the children of the likes of philpott, however distasteful you may find them, please remember summer 2011.

Lemonmuffin - Phillpott's greed was not based on the fact that he lived on benefits though...greed exists everywhere, as does entitlement and all the other trappings of a dysfunctional mind. Can I accept that part of his abysmal scheme was based on getting more? Of course I can. Can I accept that benefits did this? No, because its a ridiculously sweeping statement.

Osborne and co' are a bunch of immoral fuckers because they are a class of people who have social and economic power, they shape society and culture to their will.

There actions impact upon all of us and they act as a class in their own interests. Their interests are at odds with creating equality of opportunity and a culture of cooperation and collectivism in favour of exploiting all of us. They perpetuate class differences and welfarism by making us dependand upon them to create work, pay wages or pay welfare.

They chose to pay peanuts, cut welfare and create fear because vulnerable people are disempowered people who are easy to exploit for even greater gains. Welcome to the neo-liberal social and economic system that picks the pockets of the many for the greed of the few.

Do they even care that innocent children burned in a fire, do they hell.

their actions*

I don't think many of us would like Phillpot to have more benefits. But would we rather his children were even poorer to avoid him benefitting? We simply cannot escape the fact that it is children like these who will suffer. Do we want to be sit back while they live even sadder, more deprived lives? We can't ignore their existence or prevent them from being born. We might reduce the numbers of children born with no means to support them by capping benefits. But we will not stop them being brought into the world. And once they are here, the choices are to support them or let them suffer. Surely no-one would choose the latter and have these children begging/stealing/starving? If we do support them, where is the disincentive to having lots of children you can't support? We are back where we started really. Capping benefits will do nothing but make innocent children suffer.

Let's assume for one moment that philpott really was so motivated by the erroneous idea that his actions would net him a bigger house that he decided to put his children at risk, and his psychopathic tendencies were only a minor consideration. Lets assume that Cameron , the mail and Osborne have a valid point about benefit claimants.

Merrymouse, I would say at last in part that his motivation was to get more. He was going to frame Lisa for the fire as a means to push the argument of residency for her children to be with him - and he would claim money for them. But to then use his basic need for power and control and money at all costs as a tipping point for pointing the finger at the benefits system, as the DM did and as Osbourne has done so, is to tar benefits claimants with the same brush. None of these people who are fuelling this attack on claimants are dumb enough to believe that public opinion isn't swayed heavily by a barrage of headlines, and none of these people are dumb enough to think that human beings like to put people into nice neat little boxes with labels on.

It's all just a nice little circus show using children's deaths to fan the flames of who's to blame for our hardships these past few years....deflecting public scrutiny from the real issues.

The real culprits can be traces back to the USA 2008 sub-prime mortgage scandal and the bankers who scandalously and irresponsibly encouraged lending and spending that simply couldn't be sustained - it's had such a knock on effect across the globe, and more and more is coming to light at just how much the wool as been pulled over our eyes.

This government needs a scapegoat - the Phillpotts are a happy coincidence to them and the press. As someone said in a different post: government and press, who wags which tail?

It's all spin.

Pansy's earlier point was a good one too. What would you do with larger families who started off well off but fell on hard times? Would we let their children suffer too? If not, on what basis would we differentiate?

It's a good point, Chompie - I originally wanted several (I won't say exactly how many) and the household income could support that number. But then my life completely changed - while I'm on the fence with putting a lid on how many children are eligible for benefits in one family - I shudder to think what would have happened if circumstances had been different and I'd been left with the amount of children that had originally been planned.

faster Thanks for reminding me of that. Yes, MPs do that, although they are working on a mandate so either I cheer them or shrug my shoulders unless they're guilty of egregious abuse.

But thanks for reminding me of another group of privileged people with a lot of direct power over my life who generally don't get punished for the bad things they do.

lemon it wasn't in the judge's sentencing remarks that Mick Philpott started the fire that killed his children to get more benefits. She said it was in revenge against Lisa Willis. Do you know better than the judge does?

Other people on this thread have said this to you; I apologise to them for repeating this, but it seems necessary.

Here are the remarks. Please read them. Or don't, it's up to you

culprits can be traces back to the USA 2008 sub-prime mortgage scandal

The bank that first created the securities and sold them on in the sub prime pass the parcel game, weren't holding any of these toxic debts when the music stopped. Strange that. Not only that but there is a revolving door btw this bank and the Whitehouse.

Yes flamin, exactly and you have said it far more eloquently than I ever could due to my fucking sweariness

Chompie that is the thing, who decides? The assumption as tax payers we know better than those on benefits is laughable. They could set a time limit of getting oneself back on feet but what if it long term illness or death of a parent? Would that be a worthy large family? More worthy than one created by multiple relationships? Who the hell decides that one?

The main thing is that all of those children, no matter how or why they are created deserve as equal an opportunity as we can offer them, starving out poor children because of poor parental choice or life events is a dreadful and unworkable ideas.

Housing Benefit caps in London for instance have done a good job of clearing undesirable 'types' and it will go on like that - clearing the poor from desirable areas, it is a sort of ethnic cleansing in my opinion.

The amounts of money involved in large families as those I have mentioned above are actually a drop in the ocean and very very extreme cases but it was all about the spin. Even if that spin involves using six dead children to make your point.

The point here really is these poor kids died horribly after difficult half lives, seeing their Mother sexually and domestically abused, drug taking, six to a room and being the last on the list of their parents' priorities. The saddest thing for me was that only one child had PJs on and one was on full school uniform. Their Mother was downstairs involved in three way sex on a pool table rather than helping them get to bed and making them comfy... This is not about benefits, it is about neglect on a very fundamental level by the people who should have loved them the most. If we as a society abandon these children too then God help them and us as it makes us all poorer people.

"Can I accept that part of his abysmal scheme was based on getting more? Of course I can. Can I accept that benefits did this? No, because its a ridiculously sweeping statement"

You're contradicting yourself.

I'm not asking you accept that benefits did this.
I'm asking you to consider that perhaps benefits contributed towards this. Yes or no?

But flamin, they are all apparently dumb enough to believe that you can cut benefits with no consequence to the wider population.

None of them seem to be able to form a thought beyond "It's not my fault, I don't want to pay for it".

(Also see other government policies this that hadn't really been thought through...)

I think that is a very valid point Chompie.

I have always thought that if all women had access to a good education, better opportunities for a fulfilling career that they tended to have fewer children. I would extend this also and say that people who have few financial worries and access to social and cultural opportunities are less likely to start young and have big families. What if, instead of just subsisting on wages or welfare, we could swim, play tennis, travel, go to the ballet, paint, learn sculpture, write poetry and learn new skills or return to study completely free.......would women choose to have children and wipe bums for a life time?

Philpott also conspired to divert profits made from hospital cleaning to his own bank account.