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”
Alec
Yadda yadda yadda. It’s about the DM’s use of the children’s deaths for their own political point. Even if it were reasonable and not fist-swingingly offensive, that is what he was responding to.
Not a dicky-bird of approval for or defence of Philpott.
I have no problem with “making a political point” about an editorial position which tempers it’s loathing of violent men who treated women and children as playthings depending on their income levels.
No-one said here that. Stop question begging.
You’re not half as clever as you think you are. Yes you did, and went on to say that family annihilators like McFall deserve [at least some of] our sympathy. They don’t any more than scum like Philpott does.
~alec
Alec
What would Sue and Francesca McFall have said?
~alec
Alec
Meanwhile, back in the real world, “the Right” actually does it.
~alec
Steven Berry
Just to correct you: There are indeed thousands of people who will claim the
maximum benefit entitlement, which very often means they have a large
family without providing adequate means to support them themselves. The
taxpayer then has to support these
huge, economically inactive families, and that tax is lifted from many
more working families who struggle by without benefits. The Daily Mail
is not incorrect in pointing out that some people will ‘earn’ quite a
lot of money on welfare – in the Philpotts case several thousand pounds.
Hugh McFall isn’t described by the paper as ‘vile’, but then he didn’t
have a previous conviction for murder, he wasn’t on bail for assault on
an innocent motorist, he hadn’t concocted a plan to set fire to his home
to obtain more state benefits, he didn’t previously abuse women, he had
a job and supported his family. His criminal actions, while horrible,
were as stated by his family totally out of character whereas for Mr
Philpott they were most certainly not. I am not against the benefits
system – I believe some benefits, such as Jobseekers Allowance, should
be higher. But I am not as blind as you to the fact that the benefits
system can be ‘played’ and can provide a generous income for some. That
must change.
Hollie
I wish there was a paper written like the tabloaids but not full of shit. A lot of people around me cannot easily read the Guardian / Independent etc. I think this has a huge part to play in this. The only papers written for people with less time or reading ability or both are complete scummy shit. All my open-minded friends write for the Guardian or BBC. I wish they wrote for the Mail sometimes