The Daily Mail's reaction today to the tragedy of Michael Philpott's multiple manslaughter of his six children is not only quite disgusting, but it also shows the paper's double standards:
In his 1946 essay ‘How the Poor Die’ George Orwell documented the dreadful conditions in which the poor suffered in 19th century hospitals. Not only did the poor live in a worse state than their wealthier counterparts, but they also very often died in loneliness and squalor.
Fortunately times have changed – thanks in no small part to the welfare state.
Some, however – usually those who have never accepted the welfare state – still dish out wholly different treatment to the dead as well as the living, especially when wrongdoing is involved and when political arguments can be advanced using a tragedy to damn an entire class of people.
The Daily Mail’s reaction to the tragedy of Michael Philpott’s multiple manslaughter of his six children is not only disturbing in its attempt to capitalise on the deaths of six young children for political gain, but it also shows the paper’s complete double standards. Today it reports:
“Michael Philpott is a perfect parable for our age: His story shows the pervasiveness of evil born of welfare dependency. The trial spoke volumes about the sheer nastiness of the individuals involved. But it also lifted the lid on the bleak and often grotesque world of the welfare benefit scroungers — of whom there are not dozens, not hundreds, but tens of thousands in our country.“
A cursory look at the paper’s treatment of another tragedy, however – this time involving a Shropshire millionaire rather than a family on benefits – shows that, in the eyes of the Mail the poor go about dying, or in this case killing, rather differently to the rich:
“The businessman who took his own life yesterday after murdering his wife and teenage daughter was heavily in debt, it emerged today…Detectives believe the mild-mannered family man snapped as he struggled to cope with spiralling debts…Last night his sister Claire Rheade said: ‘It’s unbelievable – he doted on his family, he would never harm them. ‘He was a gentle man who wouldn’t hurt a fly.'”
I’ve looked back through the DM archives but have so far been unable to find a front page damning Hugh McFall as a “vile product of millionaire Britain”. And rightly so, for that would be absurd. According to the Mail, the poor die differently though.
98 Responses to “The Daily Mail: How the poor die and how the rich die”
SadButMadLad
So you are standing up for Michael Philpott then? A bloke who was jailed for 7 years for attempted murder of an ex-girlfriend. A bloke who was on bail for road rage at the time of the fire. A bloke who abused women. A bloke who didn’t work. Well done James Bloodworth, you have just dismissed all the things that progressives work hard for.
Philpott is an evil person benefits or no benefits. McFall was not an evil person. Yes they are both murderers but for different reasons. Suicide/Murders are situations we look at with pity when they happen as we try and imagine the strains and stresses the murderer went through before they took their own life. Murders of children for money, because that is what it boils down to, is pure evil. The money was from benefits, so he is a product of the benefits culture where he would do anything to get that extra £1,000/month from having all the children with him.
Just remember, the level of benefits Philpott was getting was the equivalent to £92,000 for a family that worked full time.
SadButMadLad
So you are standing up for Michael Philpott then? A bloke who was jailed for 7 years for attempted murder of an ex-girlfriend. A bloke who was on bail for road rage at the time of the fire. A bloke who abused women. A bloke who didn’t work. Well done James Bloodworth, you have just dismissed all the things that progressives work hard for.
Philpott is an evil person benefits or no benefits. McFall was not an evil person. Yes they are both murderers but for different reasons. Suicide/Murders are situations we look at with pity when they happen as we try and imagine the strains and stresses the murderer went through before they took their own life. Murders of children for money, because that is what it boils down to, is pure evil. The money was from benefits, so he is a product of the benefits culture where he would do anything to get that extra £1,000/month from having all the children with him.
Just remember, the level of benefits Philpott was getting was the equivalent to £92,000 for a family that worked full time.
Alec
From the AtL piece.
My emphasis. Tie your shoelaces up. I wouldn’t want you to trip over them again.
Speak for yourself. Tell me, what is the minimum income required before blasting a woman and teenage girl to death attracts mitigation? There is nothing sympathetic about that… you’re making exactly the same excuses as that judge did when he let a burglar off ‘cos it took “bravery” to burgle.
~alec
Alec
From the AtL piece.
My emphasis. Tie your shoelaces up. I wouldn’t want you to trip over them again.
Speak for yourself. Tell me, what is the minimum income required before blasting a woman and teenage girl to death attracts mitigation? There is nothing sympathetic about that… you’re making exactly the same excuses as that judge did when he let a burglar off ‘cos it took “bravery” to burgle.
~alec
SadButMadLad
The left are using the case for their political gain. That’s what James’s article is all about. Trying to say that welfare has no bearing Philpott’s decisions as an attempt to back up the excessive benefits that get handed out to the few who abuse it.
There is no mitigation for blasting a woman and girl to death, no matter what income levels. If you note, I called both types murderers. But it’s like the female murderers of abusive husbands. They are still murderers, but we have a bit of sympathy for them. We have a bit less for suicide/murders. And we have none at all for Philpott. That’s how real life works – no black and white, just gray.