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”
judyk113
There is as far as I know no implication that the Shropshire murderer murdered his wife and children with insurance or other gains in mind–plus he killed himself and his horses. Philpott planned a faked arson in order not only to gain revenge on his departed partner but more importantly to get her five children back living with him, from which he stood to gain £12000 which he had lost in benefits paid direct into his bank account when she left him. Utlimately cynically, he thought that by staging a fake rescue of his own children and framing his ex partner for the arson he had the perfect way of achieving this. Of course Philpott did not mean to kill off his children, let alone himself– the source of the rest of his £60K income. But burning his house down would also have got him the new council house he’d been campaigning for on TV. In fact, people rushed to collect money for his housing expenses and for the children’s funerals because they were taken in by this cynical fraudster and risk taker. He was ultimately as stupid as he was arrogant, callous and calculating. I agree that far too much sympathy was shown to the Shropshire murderer, but I don’t think that it was because he was a millionaire, but because the news media– not just the Mail–are typically sympathetic towards macho men who feel that losing their power makes life not worth living, as with the Tony Micklin case.
Alec
Why the distinction between appalling and tragic?
As an aside, maybe tragic should be reclaimed for its original sense. The children’s deaths could be described as tragic in that their father was directed by pride, wrath, lust, greed and sloth when he took their lives down to a appalling dénouement.
Similar for McFall’s victims.
~alec
thejollyroger
All those who died were tragic victims. Philpott is irredeemable and will cost the state thousands, even after some social miracle worker declares him no longer a threat to society. I would say he is an animal, but that’s not fair on animals.
There has been far too much focus in the last 40 or so years on Rights, to the detriment of the balancing Responsibility. The pendulum needs to swing back towards the latter until the oscillations towards either are less extreme.
Alec
Factually true, yes. In danger of setting a false distinction, though. That McFall was a family annihilator who wanted to obliterate everyone and everything around him should be enough.
I have to say, I would not be without sympathy for such an individual. Less so when they thought others’ lives were no longer worth living.
I can’t remember which red-top – quite possibly the DM – it was, but there was at least one whose immediate response to the fire (when it was assumed that an outsider had set it, and Philpott was a victim) was to dwell on his fecundity and receipt of State benefits. So, yes, I do think the contrast between it and the response to McFall’s actions is ugly.
tony blair
philpott was created by the welfare state. he is the classic core new labour vote.