|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Using high-profile news stories to get things done
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
The Philpott conviction being used to highlight the welfare system , and in particular the amount of money being handed to parents for having kids, has come up on another thread .
Is it moral to use a story like this to get public support over unpopular, (for some), legislation ? After-all it seemed OK to use 9/11 to justify sending troops into global hot-spots, and bring in new laws reducing our freedoms.
Isn't it just a case of striking while the iron's hot in order to get things sorted out that need sorting out ?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
Mick Philpott, his wife and their co-conspirator have got the sentences they deserved. That's moral.
There is nothing moral about George Osborne shamefully making cheap political capital out of the horrific deaths of those six children. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
The welfare state does not magically create people who commit manslaughter. There are callous criminals and child abusers/neglecters in every social class. I detest the cynical lengths to which this government will go in order to paint everybody claiming benefit with exactly the same brush. So now it's all about that nebulous crowd of scroungers and NOT about the children who were killed by their father's heinous immorality. Ugh.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
You might as well ask "Is the Press moral?"
My answer would be "No, not very"
Its the Editors who decide which stories to run - you or I might want a high-profile story in all the newspapers to get things put right, but unless it has popular appeal (put in your own definition) it won't be run.
And a story of a man and woman who can plan to frame another woman for a house fire, which always ran the risk of burning their children (especially considering the idiotic and very traceable way they set about it) is hardly the right way to consider the new welfare benefit payments.
Most people have between 1 and 4 children, not 11 or 12. To argue from the Philpott case to the general is wrong, and could be called immoral.
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
The welfare state does not magically create people who commit manslaughter. There are callous criminals and child abusers/neglecters in every social class. I detest the cynical lengths to which this government will go in order to paint everybody claiming benefit with exactly the same brush.
I don't want to get into a slanging match with you, but could you back these claims up with a few quotations, please? I've not noticed Osborne making any of the implications you ascribe to him.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think this and this come very close to the mark. They are clearly drawing a link between the two, albeit not actually saying explicitly that benefits=>manslaughter of children.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think this and this come very close to the mark. They are clearly drawing a link between the two, albeit not actually saying explicitly that benefits=>manslaughter of children.
He also could hardly be unaware of the fact that he was saying something very similar to what the Daily Heil had said, and there the link was made quite explicitly.
I wouldn't even wipe my arse on the Heil now.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Anne Widdicome (sp?) has a connection to this story...and she was on Radio 4 on Wed saying (amongst other stuff which left-ish me found generally sensible) what a bad idea it would be to generalise from this case to Social Security policy in general. Shame Osborne does not appear to have been listening.
quote:
Isn't it just a case of striking while the iron's hot in order to get things sorted out that need sorting out ?
In other news, the PM was recently filmed chatting to Navy types on board a Trident submarine.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
When Ann Widdicombe is telling you you've jumped the shark you really are in the land that sanity forgot. It's like being taken to task by Melanie Philips over your Islamophobia and extreme Zionism.
I only commented yesterday that the North Korean leadership must be back on Mr Cameron's Christmas Card list, having given him the opportunity to convince us all again that we need the facility to poison the earth and turn children to dust (with thanks to Leon Rosselson for that description)
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Although I think the arguments going on about this case are also in code. There is a hidden argument here to do with the next election. The Tories are very cleverly suggesting implicitly that Labour support feckless men lying on the sofa, surrounded by many kids, who bring home the benefits.
Yes, it's sleazy, but if it wins the election in 15, you won't see many Tories crying over it.
Labour now have a delicate task ahead of them, simultaneously defending the right of people to get benefits, but also not supporting the 'scroungers'. These latter are mostly myth, but again, this does not really count in the political code.
'Labour supports scroungers' is a very powerful message.
All is fair in love, war, and general elections.
Of course, it could rebound on the Tories, but politics involves many gambles - they also have to distract attention from the collapsed economy.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Is it moral to use a story like this to get public support over unpopular, (for some), legislation ?
Moral??? We are talking about politicians here.
Is it moral for an MP to claim for her husband's porno films on her expenses?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
I may not vote for Ann Widdecombe's party, but I have quite a lot of time for her. She has her head screwed on and often talks sense.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think this and this come very close to the mark. They are clearly drawing a link between the two, albeit not actually saying explicitly that benefits=>manslaughter of children.
Just so. I am not backing down on this one. My post reflected my own anger and cynicism at Osborne's MO here. This horrific case should not have been linked to the welfare issue, and I am horrified that it was.
Philpott was a feckless loser and an abuser of women, a man who killed his own children because of his criminal stupidity and greed. I repeat: there are criminals to be found in every social class.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sandemaniac
Shipmate
# 12829
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
When Ann Widdicombe is telling you you've jumped the shark you really are in the land that sanity forgot. It's like being taken to task by Melanie Philips over your Islamophobia and extreme Zionism.
Doris Karloff does occasionally come out with surprisingly sensible comments, given that she was the Home Secretary who advocated handcuffing pregnant female prisoners in the delivery room to stop them absconding - I think this is the third time she's startled me by doing so. It's a most peculiar feeling when someone whose politics I wouldn't go near with an extra-long bargepole does that...
AG
--------------------
"It becomes soon pleasantly apparent that change-ringing is by no means merely an excuse for beer" Charles Dickens gets it wrong, 1869
Posts: 3574 | From: The wardrobe of my soul | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, but Osborne is gambling on the next election. I think this is because the traditional Tory platform - a healthy economy - is not going to work, so other methods are needed. Here is a clever plan to tar Labour with the brush of 'supports scroungers'.
It will be interesting to see if the Labour high command have the nous and delicacy to disentangle this stuff, not an impossible task, but requiring some intellectual panache and real conviction. How are you feeling, Ed?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
If there is one thing I've gotten mighty cynical about over the years, it's the combination of the 24 hr. news cycle and extremists & politicians of every type exploiting sensational stories. As Spurgeon once said of those trifling over points in a sermon, "Every mouse becomes and elephant ... and you quickly learn how to pick a good man to pieces if you never did before." This happens in the USA as well on a regular basis. Remember Rahm Emmanuel's famous "Never let a serious crisis go to waste" statement? NO matter what context that comes out of, it just smacks of exploitation and manipulative use of circumstances to advance an agenda based on sensationalism instead of reasoned debate.
I fear that is what is happening too much. Feverish hanky-wringing, self-righteous indignation, constant demands for drastic action now - the cacophony is just ridiculous, drowning out moderate voices of reason (such as mine... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) )
my 2 cents...
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Politicians use the media to support their angle. No news there. This extreme case is an opportunity for them to push theirs home.
Does their angle incorporate a moral viewpoint? They think so, just as the opposition think that they hold the higher moral ground. Each may therefore find moral justification in using this opportunity to promote their case.
What still surprises me is how easily we can be sucked into it, given that we're aware of all of this.
Does unbiased reporting exist? Did it ever? Would it sell?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
Depends on what side of the issue you are on. Around here, the legislature just used momentum from the news to pass some pretty sweeping gun control measures. Some people consider it a tribute to the victims. Opponents consider it cynical. Then there are those of us who are wondering why they chose to highlight guns to such an extent that mental health access has barely been mentioned in the state house.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
When Ann Widdicombe is telling you you've jumped the shark you really are in the land that sanity forgot. It's like being taken to task by Melanie Philips over your Islamophobia and extreme Zionism.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Can I quote you on those gems?
One preposterous flaw with the latest pronouncements that nobody seems to have pointed out, is that if you are No 6 in a family of 7, is it fair on you if your parents fall on hard times, that only your two eldest siblings get fed?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
When Ann Widdicombe is telling you you've jumped the shark you really are in the land that sanity forgot. It's like being taken to task by Melanie Philips over your Islamophobia and extreme Zionism.
Doris Karloff does occasionally come out with surprisingly sensible comments, given that she was the Home Secretary who advocated handcuffing pregnant female prisoners in the delivery room to stop them absconding - I think this is the third time she's startled me by doing so. It's a most peculiar feeling when someone whose politics I wouldn't go near with an extra-long bargepole does that...
AG
The difference is probably that Ann Widdicombe had actually met the murderers. That usually makes a difference.
George Osborne's idea of the meaning of poverty seems to be an Old Etonian whose Daddy only has two houses. He's on another planet.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
When Ann Widdicombe is telling you you've jumped the shark you really are in the land that sanity forgot. It's like being taken to task by Melanie Philips over your Islamophobia and extreme Zionism.
Can I quote you on those gems?
Feel free. I've given up trying to charge for them ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Is it moral to use a story like this to get public support over unpopular, (for some), legislation ? After-all it seemed OK to use 9/11 to justify sending troops into global hot-spots, and bring in new laws reducing our freedoms.
A problem is that headline cases like this are rarely representative of the wider population, as mark_in_manchester points out. I will note that Philpott appeared on Ann Widdicombe's welfare reform program on TV a few years ago, so she is familiar both with him and with the wider context.
"Hard cases make bad law" may be an old saw, but that doesn't make it any less true.
There are, in my mind, two quite different issues. One is whether the conclusions drawn from headline cases are reasonable and logical, and the second is that of whether it is moral to use some tragedy for political gain.
Almost whenever there is a horrific crime with children as victims, there is an immediate response demanding legislation to prevent it from happening again. Quite often, this knee-jerk legislation is poorly-thought out, doesn't achieve the aim it intends, and sometimes makes things worse, but nobody thinks it's immoral to call for something to be done.
The moral outrage over the comments in the Mail is rather specific to this particular incident.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I think quetzalcoatl has the right of it, all posturing for next election.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I wouldn't even wipe my arse on the Heil now.
Like putting out a fire with petrol.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think this and this come very close to the mark. They are clearly drawing a link between the two, albeit not actually saying explicitly that benefits=>manslaughter of children.
My post way upthread in defence of George Osborne turned into a bit of a post-and-run, sorry about that! I've not actually seen what Osborne said in full but here's a quotation from this Telegraph article (which gives a bit more than the BBC article mdijon mentioned):
quote:
Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation. The courts are responsible for sentencing him. But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state – and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state – subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had.
This seems fair enough to me. Certainly, he's drawing in the Philpott case for his own political ends, but politicians do that all the time and I think this link is reasonable. The benefits system as it currently operates did help Philpott support his lifestyle, and I agree with Osborne that this is worth talking about.
I suppose with something like this, we'll all interpret it through the lens of our prior view of Osborne and the Government as a whole. I'm broadly in favour of the Government's programme (not that I like it all, but I think it's necessary) so I'll give Osborne the benefit of the doubt. Those with a negative view of the Government will probably not be so lenient...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
The welfare state does not magically create people who commit manslaughter. There are callous criminals and child abusers/neglecters in every social class. I detest the cynical lengths to which this government will go in order to paint everybody claiming benefit with exactly the same brush.
I don't want to get into a slanging match with you, but could you back these claims up with a few quotations, please? I've not noticed Osborne making any of the implications you ascribe to him.
Agreed. I was listening to Five Live last night (about 00.20 I think) and the lack of reasonable, rational consideration of what had been said was infuriating!
The words of the Judge, quoted in the PM programme on thursday, seemed, to me anyway, to show that Philpott's reason for having the children was to obtain the financial benefit payments, so I do not think a link with the benefit systems can be ignored.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
"Hard cases make bad law" may be an old saw, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Quite so.
There may be a debate to be had about welfare reform, but it has precious little to do with this case. Osborne is a twit, whose only qualification for being Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to be that he is Dave's mate (at least, judging by the level of incompetence shown in that post).
Meanwhile, the left of the political spectrum and a bunch of rather suspect 'celebrities' and others with deep pockets, are explicitly using another set of tragic events, via Leveson, to restrict a free press in Britain, even though any offences that took place are already illegal and could be dealt with through the courts. Immoral twittery and use of headlines to push one's own agenda is not, unfortunately, limited to the political right.
[ 06. April 2013, 06:56: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
@SusanDoris
I've read the judge's remarks (on the Guardian website - sorry, I'm writing this on a tablet which makes doing links hard!) and can only find one reference to benefits; when she notes how Mick Phillpot forced the 2 women to pay their "wages and benefits" into his account so that he could control how the money was spent. So it seems her point wasn't that benefits made his lifestyle possibe, but that the way he used the wages and benefits were part of his overall controlling behaviour.
If that's true, then benefits and welfare have less to do with this case then is being made out by Osbourne and Cameron. And if that's then it seems pretty cynical, to say the least, to use it to suggest the whole benefits system is in urgent need of reform, especially when many people are going to suffer as a result of those reforms. It's a pretty low stunt, IMHO.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post, just to say the last para was referring to Osbourne, Cameron etc, not to SusanDoris!
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Sorry for the double post, just to say the last para was referring to Osbourne, Cameron etc, not to SusanDoris!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Interesting re Judge's words, thank you. And now of course the state will be paying more than before for the living costs of all three while they're in prison and the upkeep of the other 11 children.
This is not a grumble - it is right that we do so, but there we are, it's a very imperfect world!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
@SusanDoris
I've read the judge's remarks (on the Guardian website - sorry, I'm writing this on a tablet which makes doing links hard!) and can only find one reference to benefits; when she notes how Mick Phillpot forced the 2 women to pay their "wages and benefits" into his account so that he could control how the money was spent. So it seems her point wasn't that benefits made his lifestyle possibe, but that the way he used the wages and benefits were part of his overall controlling behaviour.
If that's true, then benefits and welfare have less to do with this case then is being made out by Osbourne and Cameron. And if that's then it seems pretty cynical, to say the least, to use it to suggest the whole benefits system is in urgent need of reform, especially when many people are going to suffer as a result of those reforms. It's a pretty low stunt, IMHO.
Spot on. Some of the tabloids seem to be suggesting that Phillpot simply drew all the money himself, when in fact, he made the two women pay their money to him. This in fact is about domestic violence, and it's striking how few people have commented on this aspect of the case. You would think politicians might draw attention to the fact of a man bullying and abusing women, a fairly common experience for women, but they are more concerned with their demonizing of the poor.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Just for info, here are the judge's remarks (I'm at a proper computer now!).
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Two other aspects of benefits which are not discussed in the tabloids - housing benefit goes straight into the pockets of landlords; and income support makes up for low wages. So in effect, the tax payer is subsidizing landlords and low pay employers!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Stejjie, thank you for posting that link. I have listened all the way through. Thank goodness there are judges like that.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
The only thing being 'done' by Osborne's remarks is an attempt to strengthen the perception of a link between benefit receipt and criminality.
It's not so long since 'Civil Service Pension' was altered from the factual description of a modest return on decades of work on a sub-optimal wage, into an accusation of grabbing disproportionate amounts of public money to fund early and luxurious retirement.
Look carefully to your profession, race, age, religion, having children/not having children, pleasures - or any other facet of your life and consider that if there is seen to be economic or political capital to be made out denigrating or discouraging it, then it will be done.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
I wonder if George Osborne bothered to check the facts before he opened his mouth. quote:
They went out to work. Their wages and their benefits went into your account, you controlled how money was spent.
The benefits were those applicable to working parents, in this case the mothers. Housing and Council Tax benefit would have been paid direct to the Council. It seems Philpott didn't receive any benefit payments for himself. He commandeered the money intended for the children and their mothers and perhaps a worthwhile discussion could be had around ways of ensuring that such money remains under the control of the claimant.
I haven't seen the documentary with Anne Widdicombe, or the appearances on Jeremy Kyle but I understand the focus of publicity has been the fact that he has fathered 17 children and done nothing to support any of them.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think this and this come very close to the mark. They are clearly drawing a link between the two, albeit not actually saying explicitly that benefits=>manslaughter of children.
My post way upthread in defence of George Osborne turned into a bit of a post-and-run, sorry about that! I've not actually seen what Osborne said in full but here's a quotation from this Telegraph article (which gives a bit more than the BBC article mdijon mentioned):
quote:
Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation. The courts are responsible for sentencing him. But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state – and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state – subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had.
This seems fair enough to me. Certainly, he's drawing in the Philpott case for his own political ends, but politicians do that all the time and I think this link is reasonable. The benefits system as it currently operates did help Philpott support his lifestyle, and I agree with Osborne that this is worth talking about.
I suppose with something like this, we'll all interpret it through the lens of our prior view of Osborne and the Government as a whole. I'm broadly in favour of the Government's programme (not that I like it all, but I think it's necessary) so I'll give Osborne the benefit of the doubt. Those with a negative view of the Government will probably not be so lenient...
But if he wanted to critique the welfare-system, there are probably other examples he could have used of people supposedly abusing it. But he chose to use as his example a man convicted of an awful crime, which even he(Osborne) admits is unrelated to the welfare-system.
It's a little like criticizing the exorbitant salaries paid to professional athletes, and then just "randomly" pulling out O.J. Simpson as your case in point.
And yes, I realize that it was the welfare-system that was providing Philpott with the benefits that he hoped to enhance with his harebrained scheme. But this makes it the basic of killing your wife to get life insurance: Doesn't prove that insurance in and of itself is a bad thing.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Last paragraph didn't work out. Again...
quote:
And yes, I realize that it was the welfare-system that was providing Philpott with the benefits that he hoped to enhance with his harebrained scheme. But this makes it the equivalent of killing your wife to get life insurance: Doesn't prove that insurance in and of itself is a bad thing.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
It appears that many of the shipmates are, in effect, saying we should kill the messenger (the media) because we don't like the message. Too late. The messenger is now out of the bag (sorry about mixed metaphors). Social media is now taking over the news business.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
This seems fair enough to me. Certainly, he's drawing in the Philpott case for his own political ends, but politicians do that all the time and I think this link is reasonable. The benefits system as it currently operates did help Philpott support his lifestyle, and I agree with Osborne that this is worth talking about.
You understand that correlation isn't causation, presumably.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I have been the victim of a sensational press story. The paper got the story completely wrong and ignored obvious facts in doing so.
So, should high profile news stories be the be the basis of shit all? No.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
