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”
Democritus
All children can get free state education. The NHS is free at the point of delivery. So everyone who has kids or goes into hospital is a scrounger?
State pension comes from taxes and NI which this odd family had two bread winners paying tax and NI. So if one parent goes to work and the other remains a house wife or house husband they are scroungers?
Housing benefit was paid for one home and two families IDS rents a one bedroom flat courtesy of the tax payer that costs more than £150 per week on top of all his dodgy expenses which he got drawn over the coals for.
All my pensions are safe..
50% of the welfare bill is indeed pensions and already our Chancellor is nibbling away at that by freezing the tax free element. State pensions are and always have been set nationally by government and are not means tested.
The rich can look after themselves, they don’t need anyone to fight their corner. The middle classes get exactly the same from the state as everyone else does including pensions, schools, healthcare, uniformed security on call 24 hours a day, like wise with fire and ambulance and lots and lots of other things, not to mention that all those over 30 had free university education (except in Scotland where they still get it). Most importantly of all we all can sleep safely in our beds knowing that if North Korea decides to nuke us there’s an arsenal of nukes to fire back paid for by the tax payer.
nobby clarke
war years, lav paper was on the sh- – house wall (newspaper))were the disgusting
right wing tory rag belongs, also do the establishment, really think the bitches funeral is going to go without incident, in your dreams bulingdon scum
Edward James
Still doesn’t justify the welfare state. Take from person A to give to person B based on a set of criteria – that idea can only promote a class system. It is also a violation of freedom … but I digress. And, based on simple evolutionary principles, welfare does create welfare dependency – those kids only existed (and therefore died) because of welfare. The other guy worked hard then snapped. Both are EQUALLY as bad, but the different emotional responses for the cases are justified by the circumstances. Papers don’t sell without emotion because sheep like you don’t buy them if they aren’t inflammatory. The paper is entirely justified in playing on the differing emotional circumstances.