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?

Limited - I'm not saying I know any more than the rest of us do.

But I think (and rightly so) the judge's comments were measured and designed not to inflame the situation any further.

I'm asking you to consider that perhaps benefits contributed towards this. Yes or no?

No. I think he had a lot of children as part of a control thing. He dumped a wife because she refused to have any more. I think he had a fixation about impregnating women to feel validated as a man - lots of reports talk about him being really over sexualised and inappropriate in that way with people so I think that is what the continual babies were about. Also having so many children made them stand out and be noticed and this was also a thing for him too

Lemon - I really am not contradicting myself. the aim of the DM yesterday and Osbourne's remarks today is simple: blame the weak and the vulnerable for feclkessness, greed and corruption - they are the problem.

Phillpott is a minority - if he had taken a different path in life and was well off he would still have the same basic psyche - get more, have more, don't bother caring about the consequences.

You are missing the point: the aim of the political game is to present the general public with a nice scapegoat - Phillpott has handed them a perfect scenario.

Does the benefits system need an overhaul? Damned straight it does..as does the banking world (when are the culprits in that little debacle going to be held to task for their actions btw? Never.)

Does the benefits system created people who will kill their children for more? No, this man was twisted and awful way way way before he was ever on benefits.

lemon afaik the judge doesn't care about inflaming things or not. She just speaks as she finds. And she didn't find that Philpott was motivated by a desire for more benefits.

I imagine he might have been. I imagine a lot of things and I imagine that you do too.

But that's not proof, is it?

Okay. Forget about 'scapegoats' and 'welfare' then.

He was given directly/indirectly quite a lot of money by the state. And this enabled him to carry on with the lifestyle he enjoyed so much, which involved harming others.

Right or wrong?

Wrong. How did the money enable him to harm people?

Wrong.

His children were given money by the state.

He took it.

And lets assume that the state stop giving money to children because they assume that parents cannot be trusted.

Please explain how you look after the children.

(And please do not suggest that stopping benefits acts as some kind of retroactive contraception and the children cease to exist).

"Please explain how you look after the children." Yes please do, I'd like to know.

I've asked this question a couple of times on this thread, as have others.

I haven't seen a proper answer yet.

^juneau Fri 05-Apr-13 15:58:17

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.^

Indeed - it's difficult to set a limit of what is too much, but the disparity between those who have a great deal and those who can't put food on their tables should surely be of concern to any civilised society. (Many people seem to have no problem deciding how much is 'too much' for benefit claimants, incidentally...)

There is, of course, no easy single solution and I am not trying to suggest that there is. However, as I pointed out in my previous post, those in a position to 'support and sustain the lives of everyone else in the country' are in a privileged position, so why should they not pay something back? And why do you assume that it is only the privileged who contribute in this way? Most people do, even benefit claimants!

Part of the solution should surely be that those who have benefited from a good start in life, and had a good upbringing and education, should recognise their good fortune and stop vilifying those who haven't been so lucky, rather than trotting out smug platitudes that bear no relation to reality.

Cant believe this debate is still ongoing.
Some of you care more for where your taxes should or not go, instead of caring about the six children that have been murdered. Disgusting

FFS he was a financial abuser Men IN work do this too. Take a read of the Relationships board.
Im now beginning to think we ought to be teaching and raising awareness about financial abuse in relationships in workplaces as well as schools because there appear to be some adults who dont understand!

I used to be a criminal barrister and am now a lawyer in the city so I am well placed to comment on the point which has been made above, to the effect that there is a similarity between the attitudes of a Philpott and the attitudes which motivated some of the behaviour which leade to the financial crisis and other corporate misbehaviour.
This is, in my view, and I do not mean to be as rude as I sound, rubbish. It is based on the notion that those who worked in the city were all merrily contributing to the crisis with the view that it did not matter if the economy collapsed, they would profit. This is nonsense. Many of those who worked in the areas involved in our recent difficulties have lost their jobs and suffered personally. They were responding rationally to the structures and incentives in place at the time. What they (and the government, central banks, regulators and voters) failed to see was the big picture that was building and which eventually imploded.
These were people operating in many cases with high intelligence and a sound understanding of the concepts of action and consequence. The Philpotts of this world operate in a world in which all consequences have been removed, by the intervention of the state, and are as a result without significant moral or intellectual capacity.

I would disagree that there are many,many people with the philpott's lack of morals. I accept that you may have worked in a court and not had thanks, but db is a barrister and tells a different story. Funnily enough, he operates the Nottingham/Sheffield/Derby circuit.

^ pumpkinsweetie Fri 05-Apr-13 20:01:15

Cant believe this debate is still ongoing.
Some of you care more for where your taxes should or not go, instead of caring about the six children that have been murdered. Disgusting ^

I don't know if your comment above is meant to include me in the 'some of you', but I sincerely hope not. The issues I raised are part of a wider debate that is bound to spring from a discussion like this. I share the concern expressed in the original post about the Government's hijacking of this tragic incident to make a point about the welfare system, and my points in previous posts are made to challenge those who are buying into the government's appalling propaganda. Just because I have ventured into other related issues does not in any way mean that I don't care about what has happened to those children - quite the opposite, in fact - so please don't tar me with the same brush in case that was your intention.

I too am very familiar with people who work in the City. Many of them are not the finest of minds. Some of them are not the most upright of individuals. Just like everyone else, really.

^KarlosKKrinkelbeim Fri 05-Apr-13 21:07:06

These were people operating in many cases with high intelligence and a sound understanding of the concepts of action and consequence. The Philpotts of this world operate in a world in which all consequences have been removed, by the intervention of the state, and are as a result without significant moral or intellectual capacity.^

Do you not think the fact that those involved in the financial crisis were operating with 'high intelligence and a sound understanding of the concepts of action and consequence' makes their behaviour even more despicable? I fully accept I have no expertise about the financial world. I also don't doubt that many in the financial world were/are acting within the rules responsibly, but the recent rate fixing scandal at Barclays is one example of how at least some of the people you refer to above operate. Are you seriously trying to contrast them with Philpott in that they somehow have 'significant moral capacity'? And talking about the removal of consequences and state intervention, am I wrong in thinking that millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been used to bail out the banks precisely because those involved in major decision-making have taken unacceptable risks despite the possible consequences?

Your defence of the blatant greed, total immorality and selfishness of those individuals is unbelievable. (May I suggest you read Sebastian Faulkes' 'A Week in December'? Fiction, yes, but based on research among his contacts in the City.)

Human nature is what it is - personality traits emerge unbound by intelligence, class, gender or whatever convenient category you choose. Some seem to think that certain sections of society are the receptacles for all the bad traits, while other sections are guardians of the good. Now that, if you will excuse me for saying, is total rubbish.

(Incidentally, I made a point earlier about the fact that those with psychopathic tendencies can be found at all levels of society, including the corporate world. Psychopathic tendencies are not merely 'attitudes', they are psychological traits that unfortunately seem to be incurable, unlike attitudes which have the capacity to be changed.)

Everybody and his dog could see that the financial crisis was looming. Everybody knew the numbers didn't add up, from consumers taking out mortgages and credit they couldn't afford to bankers who knew that there was no underlying substance to their transactions. I am sure you will find threads on mumsnet predicting financial doom and chaos.

Nobody did anything about it because as individuals, everybody found the short term pressures and rewards too great to change their actions.

However, shacking up with 2 women, having 17 children and setting fire to a house containing 6 of your children is not really comparable.

There are apparently 190 households claiming benefits for more than 10 children. I have no idea whether they are trying to get extra benefits, have had serial multiple births or are just very religious. However I wouldn't be basing key government policies around the fear that there is about to be an epidemic of them.

Lemonmuffin - yes, he directly/indirectly got money from the state. This though did not make him a cruel awful man - he already was a cruel awful man. The DM headline was purposely driving the notion that WEFARE made him this way.

Phillpott - just like most awful terrible people that you find in all walks of life, is fortunately a minority.

I really really do have a problem in people taking someone's actions and applying their mind-set to everyone who may have something in common with them eg someone claiming benefits.

That sort of knee-jerk reaction serves no one, and encourages action that hurts everyone instead of targeting the minority.

Actually, as has been said over and over again, when his partner and children left they took their money with them.

the other view
Not a dm link.

Thanks for that Dawndonna :)

Had to fiddle with the link to get it to work though:

The other view

Oh, sorry aufaniae and Thank you for making it work! Usually check but for some reason didn't this time.

It's a great link, worth the extra effort. I know it's meant as parody but it's got more than a grain of truth IMO!