Ok. So I hate this paper, but due to the outrageous and crap articles it publishes, it often ends up on my Facebook news feed. This one I just couldn't ignore and am writing an open letter to the editor.
Here goes....
Dear Mr Dacre,
Can I just ask what was going through your mind when you approved this article?
"Michael Philpott is a perfect parable for our age: His story shows the pervasiveness of evil born out of welfare dependency" by A. N. Wilson.
I am aware of the Daily Mail's viewpoint on the welfare system (and it's idea of 'journalism'), but this story is most certainly not a "perfect parable for our age" - it is the sad story of a seriously messed-up couple who killed six children whilst trying to frame someone for attempted murder. A. N. Wilson is using those deaths to push a political agenda by painting all those on welfare with the same brush as those parents. Words fail me.
To steal a brilliant quote from another letter to you, posted on the thread in which I first saw this article:
"At the time of the Shipman murders, did you suggest that he was representative of the dangers of General Practice? Of course not."
So why do you say the Philpotts are the "prefect parable"? Kids I grew up with grew up on the benefits system (and in the few council flats Thatcher didn't manage to sell-off) and now they're all hard-working members of the public, paying taxes. Yeah, you read that correctly - working and PAYING TAXES. Something some of the more wealthy members of our society don't seem to do very well...
But anyway, you say that his dependency on the welfare system made him do this? Well what did the judge think about that?
"Jurors were also told that Philpott may have hoped to obtain a bigger council house, but Mrs Justice Thirlwall said welfare dependency had not caused him to kill." BBC News
Well I think that answers my question. Then again, what does a judge with years of experience of dealing with criminals have compared with a sensationalist journalist with an agenda? Hmm...
In my humble opinion, this was a man who liked sex and being in control. He lived with 2 women and controlled them, their bodies and all their finances. He had kids with both. In fact, this was over a custody battle with his mistress who moved out, taking her kids with her. And before you all go "it was because of the money!", no. It wasn't over the benefit money she was taking from him - he didn't like that she had stood up to him and told him where to stick it, taking his kids and her body with her. He lost control over her and access to his kids and didn't like it. It damaged his pride.
He was angry at what she had done so wanted to do something about it. They wanted to get those kids back and get back at her at the same time. They wanted to frame her and blame her for the fire so they could get their kids back, but they screwed it up and ended up killing 6 of their kids in the process. Now they've been found guilty and will likely be locked away for a long time to prevent them from doing anything else stupid and harming more innocent people.
This guy wasn't evil, he was selfish, stupid and controlling. He was willing to put his kids' lives at risk to frame someone for arson & attempted murder because that person said no to him. He didn't think for one second that he might not be able to rescue the kids inside and neither did his wife or the guy that helped them.
To blame this mess of a man on the welfare system is bloody stupid. There are plenty of controlling men & women higher up in the world who hate it when anyone says no to them. There are plenty of murders over affairs and people leaving one another in all walks of life - it's not just restricted to those on benefits.
This pilot supposedly murdered his ex-wife because she wouldn't give him any of her money thanks to a prenup - should all people married to pilots be worried? Oh, but wait, that must have been a one-off - only those living off of benefits are greedy to the point of killing, aren't they?
Seriously, stop using the tragic deaths of six kids to push forward your own agenda with some thin link and a thin veil of "yes it was a good idea, but look what happens when you just give them money..."
You know why we give them money? So they don't die. So they don't go hungry. So they don't freeze to death in the freakishly cold weather we've been having recently. Yes there are cases where people are just trying to get cash, but benefit fraud accounts for only 0.7% of the money spent on welfare. Most people genuinely need the help. A house with central heating is better than dealing with famine, yes - but what's the point if you can't afford to turn it on? In fact, your own site said that the death toll from the recent cold weather could reach 2500, mostly the elderly on pensions, which makes up the biggest chunk of benefits spending, but we don't see you having a go at the elderly do you? No, because even your readers would turn on you then.
The benefits system is not perfect (especially now thanks to all the cuts), and not everyone on benefits is an upstanding citizen, but neither are all middle class or rich people; there are people who do bad and stupid things no matter what class they are in or how much money they have. Stop vilifying everyone on benefits when most people are just using them to get by and make sure they have a roof over their heads.
Stick to what you're best at: putting up lots of paparazzi-snapped pictures of scantily clad females with creepy captions (even the young ones), and endless pointless celebrity stories.
Regards,
Ellen Rose
----
(ok.... the last bit was a bit snappy, but, come on, it's the Daily Mail...)
----
Edit: Was thinking this over a lot and I just wanted to add an extra important piece of information: you know all the poor people who aren't the most reputable members of society? The anti-social? The drug dealers? The threatening? You know who has to deal with them more than any other part of society? Other poor people - the poor who are just trying to get by and are stuck in a situation. Everyone likes to have a go at those on welfare when they're the ones who are most likely to live next to the extreme cases that end up on Jeremy Kyle.
----
Edit: Was thinking this over a lot and I just wanted to add an extra important piece of information: you know all the poor people who aren't the most reputable members of society? The anti-social? The drug dealers? The threatening? You know who has to deal with them more than any other part of society? Other poor people - the poor who are just trying to get by and are stuck in a situation. Everyone likes to have a go at those on welfare when they're the ones who are most likely to live next to the extreme cases that end up on Jeremy Kyle.
No comments:
Post a Comment