Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Petition to sack Richard Littlejohn, Daily Mail Columnist

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Pietro_Mercurios View Post

    05 April 2013 2:24pm Recommend: 179

    So much misinformation and missing the point surrounding the Mick Philpott case, even from people on the correct side of the debate. For me, it boils down to these points:

    - He wasn't getting £55k in benefits. He wasn't getting a penny in benefits.

    - The 2 families in that house weren't benefit-scrounging layabouts; the two women were working. Because they were low-paid, they received working tax credits, as does anyone in low-paid work.

    - His wife and girlfriend were paid child benefit, as is anyone with children unless they're rich.

    - Their rent was topped up with housing benefit, which they never saw a penny of because it's paid directly to their landlord.

    - Mick Philpott was extorting money from his wife and girlfriend. The fact that some of their money came from benefits is neither here nor there.

    - He didn't have 17 children for the child benefit, he had 17 children because he was a serial abuser of women and liked to control them by keeping them perpetually pregnant.

    So this isn't actually a story about a benefit sponger at all. He was a wife beater, drug dealer, attempted murderer, and probable tax evader, but anyone who uses this case as evidence that the welfare state is fucked is barking up the wrong tree.
    [/QUOTE]

    I didn't mention it before, but I banged in a complaint to the PCC re the discriminatory attack on poor people of the Mail's editorial following the links on this piece by Zoe williams. I'm not convinced that poor people are covered by the anti-discriminatory part of the code tbh (although I fail to see why not), but I thought it might be worth a try.

    However while I disagree with the Mail, I'm afraid that the Guardian's piece makes little more sense (surprise, surprise). Simply, to distinguish between housing benefit as being in some way separate from a person's total benefit income just because it is paid straight to the landlord seems a seriously flawed piece of thinking imo. Obviously any contribution towards rent is to be included into someone's total benefits regardless of who it is paid to (it is paying their rent after all!!!), thus discounting this from the equation is an embarrassingly inept way of trying to undermine the Mail's case (I'm afraid that the logic of much of the Guardian's editorials is frequently as poor as this, which is why I buy The Independent ).

    I also think a case can be made to say that child benefit encouraged (or at least didn't discourage) him to have the ludicrous number of children he had (otherwise he simply could not have afforded them) and therefore facilitated his abuse of these unfortunately stupid women. The Guardian are no more right to say that he did NOT have children for child benefits as the Mail were to suggest that he DID kill his children because he had child benefit. Both are speculative, absolute and moronic views imo. I have heard several anecdotes connected with Philpot about him saying how proud he was in cheating the system, etc... (does that really sound like someone who didn't have children for the benefits?) Maybe these are all untrue, but if so then why doesn't the Guardian challenge them? They don't because they're true. They simply the see the case through their respective political stance just as the Mail does.

    Also, for the Guardian to say that he wasn't getting a penny in benefits is simply fucking fucktarded! Especially if you believe he was abusing his girlfriends! His household was receiving benefits and those benefits benefited him! To say anything else is just semantics and dull pedantry.

    I think it is also fair enough to say that some people do have children simply to secure social housing and that it is reprehensible for anybody to inflict a life time of poverty upon a new life (a very likely consequence of being born poor in the UK) simply to facilitate some additional welfare etc, hence again I'd say that there is some value in the Mail's extrapolation regarding Philpot's lifestyle (even if he was doing it via the proxy of the abuse of his girlfriends).

    Note: this does not mean that I am anti-housing benefit or hate the poor, but I'm not naive or sentimental about the subject either... (I myself have been very poor at various times in my life and are far from rich now and I'm also very likely going to have to top up my wages with a small amount of housing benefit) However I am opposed to stupid people using their dubious right to breed to create financial units for their own short term benefit, as I believe that this man probably did. Tbh I see this financial abuse of his children as being far worse than the abuse of his two latest girlfriends, who ultimately were partly culpable in the abuse. I work with young people and I see the consequences of a whole class of people lacking the intelligence, education, skills, love and financial security to raise children and I see how those children are primed to make the same mistakes as their parents and to continue the tradition of shitting out endless generations of incapable idiots into the world. I don't believe it is their fault entirely, as I feel they are very much a product of a culture entirely bereft of anything of value... But all we can say is, "there but for the grace of God [or probability] go I..."

    Where I disagree with the Mail is the assumption that the manslaughter of his children was in anyway connected with that lifestyle. I see no evidence of that and I see no evidence that Philpot's crime in anyway connected to other people on benefits. If a black person killed someone and I said, "therefore all black people are murderers," it simply would (rightly) never be considered acceptable. Yet in the UK it is always open season on the poor.

    Just to be clear, I do not think that everyone who is poor is abusing their children. I'm spelling this out now to save me answering the forum lawyers later.

    The lesson of the case is predominantly one of an abusive idiot who decided to use his own children in a custody battle in order to maintain control of his grubby little world. But I concede that the background of the case is not entirely removed from a culture and class that could never have evolved in any other system than the welfare system. I'm not anti-welfare, but I don't see that this can be denied. In my mind the Guardian is no more balanced in their opinions than the Mail. The truth (as always) is more nuanced than either of these political pygmies could ever imagine.

    This will go down like a lead balloon here (but I'll say it anyway, just to spice things up), but I think that the infliction of abject poverty upon a child is a form of child abuse. There is simply no way that anybody other than the richest few percent of the country could give a family as large as this the financial security needed to prosper. I suggest that social services should have long since intervened. Also there is very sound evidence to suggest that children born into very large families suffer neglect and frequently have to cope with the psychological and physiological damage that this causes (neglect cause parts of the brain to remain undeveloped in young children). Therefore, Philpot was a evil man regardless of the abuse to his girlfriends and the manslaughter of his children.
    forum

    1. a meeting or assembly for the open discussion of subjects of public interest
    2. a medium for open discussion, such as a magazine
    3. a public meeting place for open discussion

    Comment


    • #47
      Good luck with getting any help from the PCC, the current Mail editor is the Chairman of their Practice committee.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dacre

      Comment


      • #48
        TEA, the piece quoted from the Guardian by PM was posted as comment by someone called Smogo and is not the official editorial stance of the paper.

        Taking it as such would be akin to saying that opinion posted by you or me on this forum is Mike's view too.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by The English Assassin View Post
          ...

          The lesson of the case is predominantly one of an abusive idiot who decided to use his own children in a custody battle in order to maintain control of his grubby little world. But I concede that the background of the case is not entirely removed from a culture and class that could never have evolved in any other system than the welfare system. I'm not anti-welfare, but I don't see that this can be denied. In my mind the Guardian is no more balanced in their opinions than the Mail. The truth (as always) is more nuanced than either of these political pygmies could ever imagine.

          This will go down like a lead balloon here (but I'll say it anyway, just to spice things up), but I think that the infliction of abject poverty upon a child is a form of child abuse. There is simply no way that anybody other than the richest few percent of the country could give a family as large as this the financial security needed to prosper. I suggest that social services should have long since intervened. Also there is very sound evidence to suggest that children born into very large families suffer neglect and frequently have to cope with the psychological and physiological damage that this causes (neglect cause parts of the brain to remain undeveloped in young children). Therefore, Philpot was a evil man regardless of the abuse to his girlfriends and the manslaughter of his children.
          Apparently, according to the Independent, 'Of 1.35 million families in the UK that claim out-of-work benefit, there are only 190 with more than 10 children.'

          If you want to see families with children in the double figures, then you really have to go to places where there is very little, or no welfare system and large families are many people's only hope of security in their old age, if any of them survive.

          Or, are you saying that the poor should be banned from having children, at all, for their own good?

          Philpott was a rarity, not really someone that should be used to pin a condemnation of the entire welfare system on to. After all, with the right life chances, he had the right credentials and attitude to have become a front bench Tory politician.

          Anyway, if you want to see what British society might look like, without the present welfare safety net, you will now only have to wait a few months. That's the real scandal.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Octo Seven View Post
            Good luck with getting any help from the PCC, the current Mail editor is the Chairman of their Practice committee.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dacre
            Indeed, I realise - but I thought it was worth a go.

            Originally posted by porcus_volans View Post
            TEA, the piece quoted from the Guardian by PM was posted as comment by someone called Smogo and is not the official editorial stance of the paper.

            Taking it as such would be akin to saying that opinion posted by you or me on this forum is Mike's view too.
            My fault for not clicking on the link... but still, I think you will find very similar arguments suggested by the paper itself... Indeed Zoe Williams says similar in the link I made.


            Originally posted by Pietro_Mercurios View Post
            Apparently, according to the Independent, 'Of 1.35 million families in the UK that claim out-of-work benefit, there are only 190 with more than 10 children.'

            If you want to see families with children in the double figures, then you really have to go to places where there is very little, or no welfare system and large families are many people's only hope of security in their old age, if any of them survive.

            Or, are you saying that the poor should be banned from having children, at all, for their own good?

            Philpott was a rarity, not really someone that should be used to pin a condemnation of the entire welfare system on to. After all, with the right life chances, he had the right credentials and attitude to have become a front bench Tory politician.

            Anyway, if you want to see what British society might look like, without the present welfare safety net, you will now only have to wait a few months. That's the real scandal.
            I quite agree, these massive families are not a widespread problem in society (I didn't say it was), but they are a big problem for the children of those large families. And of course, I'm talking about developed countries (actually I'm talking about the UK in particular) - but let's not fool ourselves people in undeveloped countries have large families because the family is an economic unit and the larger that unit, the better chances it has. A lot of hunter/gather societies have significantly less. Just like here the socio-economic environment is an influencing factor upon family size and the welfare system does encourage poor people to have children as a shortterm means of raising income. Of course this is entirely short sighted and I'd suggest that the uneducated poor are shooting themselves in the foot if they think that large families are the answer to their problems.

            No, I'm not saying poor people should have no children, although I am saying that I believe that everybody should think twice before creating a life (I'm a pessimist, I think life is less than okay) and especially so if that life is going to be significantly disadvantaged. Let me say that I put the rights of a potential life before the rights of the living to have children without considering the consequences of that decision.

            Indeed, I am not condemning the entire welfare system because of Philpot - I am merely suggesting that their is some link with the welfare system and his lifestyle. I don't see how that can be denied. In fairness, you kinda admit it yourself: "After all, with the right life chances, he had the right credentials and attitude to have become a front bench Tory politician." All I'm saying is that Philpot is a product of his environment (a welfare culture) which is the logical conclusion to what you are saying here. I'll repeat: "there but for the grace of God go I..." Indeed, no one who is born into privilege has any right to look down upon others. George Osborne is only chancellor because he was born into a tiny class that could be chancellor.

            And I have no desire to see the UK with no welfare system. While I understand the need for reform, I can't agree with the nature of most of the government's reforms.

            However, I see no easy answers. A benefits cap is already in place. There's suggestions of capping child benefit to 3-4 children, but surely that will just condemn the children to even greater poverty. I suggest that social services have to intervene in these cases, but others might disagree for obvious reasons. I think another solution would be to incentivize young women to get a contraceptive implant and positively encourage them not to have children before they're 25. By that I mean give them money to do these things. I think the real problem with generations of welfare poor isn't the fact that they're poor, but that too many poor girls are getting pregnant at too young an age when they are emotionally ill equipped to cope with parenting. Raise this age and; a) they might decide not to have children, b) they are very likely to have less children, and c) they are more likely to have some work experience on their CV before they have children, therefore giving them a better chance of finding employment after the child goes to school.
            forum

            1. a meeting or assembly for the open discussion of subjects of public interest
            2. a medium for open discussion, such as a magazine
            3. a public meeting place for open discussion

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by porcus_volans View Post
              Originally posted by David Mosley View Post
              The swines!
              Looks like the Telegraph have now implemented their paywall as I just clicked on a link and was presented with this notice:


              However, it seems that they're using cookies (or similar) to track your usage because when I pasted the URL into a different browser I got this instead:

              (Gorgeous, isn't she? )

              So, 20 pages per browser; say five different browsers = 100 pages a month. Multiple by the number of computers, mobile devices, etc. you have access to.

              #FAIL (as the young people say these days).
              Last edited by David Mosley; 04-11-2013, 10:20 AM.
              _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
              _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
              _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
              _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Octo Seven View Post
                Good luck with getting any help from the PCC, the current Mail editor is the Chairman of their Practice committee.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dacre
                Well, I got a reply..

                Thank you for your contacting the Press Complaints Commission. I do apologise for the slight delay in responding, which was due to the number of complaints we have received regarding the Daily Mail coverage.



                You have raised concerns over one or both of the following the Daily Mail articles: “Vile product of Welfare UK: Man who bred 17 babies by five women to milk benefits system is guilty of killing six of them” (3 April 2013) and “Michael Philpott is a perfect parable for our age: His story shows the pervasiveness of evil born out of welfare dependency” (2 April 2013).



                The Commission has received a large number of complaints about this coverage, many of which have been framed under Clauses 3 (Privacy), 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock), 6 (Children) and 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. In general, the Commission’s experience has been that it is best able to consider complaints about such issues – including whether an article has intruded into the grief or privacy of a family – with the involvement of the family.



                Given the nature of the story, it appears that it would be difficult for the Commission to investigate or understand this matter fully without the participation of the family involved. In addition, the outcome of a Commission investigation (such as a correction, apology or adjudication, for example) would need their approval.



                We recognise, however, that the concerns you have raised are significant. Therefore, in the first instance, we will attempt to contact members of the family to make them aware of our services and the fact that we have been alerted to this coverage as a possible concern. We will endeavour to keep you updated on the outcome, but I should make clear that these approaches frequently take some time to result in a decision whether or not to take forward a complaint, so it may not be possible in this case to revert to you.



                In regard to complaints about matters of general fact under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code, the Commission can investigate complaints from any concerned reader. As such, we are currently investigating the accuracy of these articles following earlier complaints.



                You are most welcome to contact us if you would like to follow up on these cases.



                Best wishes





                Simon Yip

                Complaints Coordinator
                In other words: we're kicking it into the long grass...
                forum

                1. a meeting or assembly for the open discussion of subjects of public interest
                2. a medium for open discussion, such as a magazine
                3. a public meeting place for open discussion

                Comment


                • #53
                  Just seen Littlejohn's latest column. Hilarious.

                  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...-readers-.html
                  Papa was a Rolling Stone......

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X