Does the Daily Mail pander to prejudice? Yes. Do readers like having their prejudices pandered to? Yes.
What's the problem?
Does the Guardian pander to prejudice? Does Polly use words like "ethnic cleansing" to describe HB changes? Yes and Yes. Do the Guardian readers generally approve? Yes.
What's the problem?
Does the BBC pander to prejudice? If you're a metropolitan Liberal ... Yes. Do they approve? Yes.
I was going to ask what's the problem, but someone might point out that the BBC is paid for by the taxpayers. Still if it wasn't that sort of prejudice, it would be another sort.
Parents throughout history, and in all cultures, have seen their children as a source of income and the future security of their family. This is not something that can be attributed to the welfare state.
In developed countries, children turned from assets (extra hands for the fields, work in the factory) to liabilities (20 years of feeding and educating with no return) - hence the collapse in family size.
Except where there are perverse incentives (which the overwhelming majority of welfare recipients do not abuse) - but which this monster clearly did - and the fact that he is a monster still leave the incentives perverse.
A disconcertingly high proportion of the commenters on here appear to be 'Elites' by the BBC definition (including me, to my surprise). This means either:
a) This is the highest-powered group of blog commenters this side of the Bilderberg blog (invitation only). b) My understanding of the word 'Elite' is very flawed. c) The BBC quiz is a load of bollocks.
Answers on a postcard to the usual address.
A mix, I'd say. I am clearly part of the elite, so the BBC has called that correctly. But I am not sure about the rest of the riff-raff on here who seem to have been similarly identified.
Parents throughout history, and in all cultures, have seen their children as a source of income and the future security of their family. This is not something that can be attributed to the welfare state.
Correct. Philpott was a domineering violent bully and manipulator and none of that would have been changed by how he accrued his income. He was self-evidently not averse to breaking the law so any rules and systems for income would always have been attempted to be broken or exploited by him. No matter where he was or what they were.
Although that is generally true, it is also demonstrably true that measures can increase or lessen the impact. So, (relatively) many impoverished Victorian mothers used to assure and then kill their own children, something which the government intervened to put a stop too. Money had a clear impact in this case. Anyway, I didn't say it was necessarily correct, merely plausible, that it encouraged an unhealthy attitude towards his children that he would put their lives in danger.
Why, just last night I had a detailed debate with the Bishop of Winchester vis-a-vis his geese.
I'm sure that's one of the messages the Allies used on June 5th 1944 to let the Maquis know the invasion was imminent.
I don't think so. I am sure it is a reference to the fact that in the middle ages the Bishop of Winchester owned numerous brothels in Southwark and the girls working there were accordingly known as Winchester Geese.
Why, just last night I had a detailed debate with the Bishop of Winchester vis-a-vis his geese.
I'm sure that's one of the messages the Allies used on June 5th 1944 to let the Maquis know the invasion was imminent.
I don't think so. I am sure it is a reference to the fact that in the middle ages the Bishop of Winchester owned numerous brothels in Southwark and the girls working there were accordingly known as Winchester Geese.
I'm an "emergent service worker", even when I put in my projected earnings when I start work. I forecast on a bit and I'll probably go onto "technical middle class" in (I'm hoping) about four years' time.
I've always though 'class' (because we have other categories for other things) was best defined through your attitude towards money, not necessarily how much you had.
As did his obsession to control others and get his own way, no matter what the cost. There are criminal sanctions in place for those who commit benefit fraud as there are for those who commit manslaughter.
To extrapolate that the millions who are in receipt of benefits should be tainted or smeared by this one depraved individuals actions is what is most vapid and ignorant though I accept the point you are making is not that but a more reasonable one that contributory factors always play a part. Of which there were many in this case, not just the money.
That is indeed sad news. I have heard him speak on many occasions and he was always a man who enjoyed life to the full, well demonstrated by his excellent book on whisky and the humour in his books.
Excession was a brilliant book as was Player of Games and Use of Weapons.
Why, just last night I had a detailed debate with the Bishop of Winchester vis-a-vis his geese.
I'm sure that's one of the messages the Allies used on June 5th 1944 to let the Maquis know the invasion was imminent.
I don't think so. I am sure it is a reference to the fact that in the middle ages the Bishop of Winchester owned numerous brothels in Southwark and the girls working there were accordingly known as Winchester Geese.
I thought that was the Bishop of Bath and Wells?
If I remember my Blackadder correctly.
Alas, Mr. Eagles, I fear you are in error. The baby-eating Bishop of Bath and Wells was a self confessed, "Colossal Pervert" who would do anything to anybody but whose congregation suspected was guilty of nothing more than a tipple before evensong. There is no evidence that he was a ponce or a brothel owner.
The see of Winchester, and hence successive Bishops, was, however, in truth the owner of numerous brothels and guilty of what would now be the offence of living off immoral earnings. Historical fact.
Why, just last night I had a detailed debate with the Bishop of Winchester vis-a-vis his geese.
I'm sure that's one of the messages the Allies used on June 5th 1944 to let the Maquis know the invasion was imminent.
I don't think so. I am sure it is a reference to the fact that in the middle ages the Bishop of Winchester owned numerous brothels in Southwark and the girls working there were accordingly known as Winchester Geese.
Quite right. Indeed, any Londoner went down with a dose of clap, in the Middle Ages, was said to have "been bitten by a Winchester goose".
Bit unfair on real feathered geese who do actually live in Winchester, but there you go.
Why, just last night I had a detailed debate with the Bishop of Winchester vis-a-vis his geese.
I'm sure that's one of the messages the Allies used on June 5th 1944 to let the Maquis know the invasion was imminent.
I don't think so. I am sure it is a reference to the fact that in the middle ages the Bishop of Winchester owned numerous brothels in Southwark and the girls working there were accordingly known as Winchester Geese.
Quite right. Indeed, any Londoner went down with a dose of clap, in the Middle Ages, was said to have "been bitten by a Winchester goose".
Bit unfair on real feathered geese who do actually live in Winchester, but there you go.
Public baths, "the Stews" in Southwark, were popular in the Fifteenth and early Sixteenth centuries. The Flemish women who ran them offered other services apart from bathing. When syphillis became a problem, later in the century, a lot of people attributed the disease to taking baths, rather than the other activities.
Absolutely gutted about Iain Banks. He is one of Mrs J's favourite authors.
I was flukily lucky enough to be on a whisky tasting panel with him a few years ago, and he was a thoroughly amusing and entertaining bloke. Mrs J prefers his sci-fi series whilst I prefer the non sci-fi books. What a difference an 'M' makes.
I can only hope he has a comfortable last few months, and does not suffer too much.
I don't get why the rich guy didn't just kill himself rather than his family first though.
You don't get why the Mail or yourself are looking so hard for far more sympathetic justifications for child murder in one case and quite the opposite in another case where children were also killed? That's unfortunate. I doubt you will be the only one somehow.
I am not looking particularly hard for more sympathetic justifications, I just tried to think why they had written differently about the two men, and maybe that one killed himself was part of it. I haven't even read the first case, but it maybe that one was seemingly a normal guy that had a breakdown and the other was a lifelong wrongun.
Another point, why do people get such lenient sentences for attempted murder compared to murder? The intention was the same, the content of their character is the same.
I just tried to think why they had written differently about the two men
Because one fits into the proprietor bias and the other is more anomalous to that narrative. They are not direct one to one comparisons (there are likely even closer parallels out there to use) but they are very instructive as to the way stories are routinely 'moulded' using insinuatory language or softer less accusatory tones. This is hardly limited to one case alone and may explain why the public has so little trust in the most obviously biased sources like the tabloids. A bias to sensationalism yes, but not always if it doesn't suit whatever flavour of policy hobby horse the proprietor is banging away on at any given time.
"Public baths, "the Stews" in Southwark, were popular in the Fifteenth and early Sixteenth centuries"
And before that, surely. Somewhere on my shelves is book containing a reproduction of a picture of a Southwark bath house from the early 14th, maybe even the 13th century (it is a history book, Mr. Eagles not medieval pron - though that might have been the picture's original intent, that or a tourist brochure). I am fairly sure that the brothels in Southwark were well established as London's "red-light district" pre-dating Cock Lane, near Smithfield, to which there are references as early as 1241.
A defence minister and former special forces soldier could be in line for a five-figure payout after “toxic” hip implants left him with a tumour, unable to walk distances and in need of complex surgery.
Minister of state Andrew Robathan had his hips “resurfaced” in 2006 using the ASR system manufactured by DePuy, a subsidiary company of healthcare giant Johnson & Johnson.
But by 2011 a non-cancerous tumour had developed at the top of his leg. His GP told him it was linked to his metal hip implants, which had been subject to a recall in 2010.
Morally this is an interesting question, and one I would say the Daily Mail has read wrong even in terms of their own readers.
Mail readers believe above all in individual responsibility for one's actions. This blame of the welfare state would, as OGH notes, take away some of Philpott's responsibility and place it elsewhere.
For Guardian readers like myself, of course, blaming the social safety net designed to prevent children growing up without adequate food or shelter for the violent, vengeful and criminally stupid act of a sociopath like Philpott is itself criminally stupid.
Comments
Does the Daily Mail pander to prejudice? Yes.
Do readers like having their prejudices pandered to? Yes.
What's the problem?
Does the Guardian pander to prejudice? Does Polly use words like "ethnic cleansing" to describe HB changes? Yes and Yes.
Do the Guardian readers generally approve? Yes.
What's the problem?
Does the BBC pander to prejudice? If you're a metropolitan Liberal ... Yes.
Do they approve? Yes.
I was going to ask what's the problem, but someone might point out that the BBC is paid for by the taxpayers. Still if it wasn't that sort of prejudice, it would be another sort.
[EDIT] Ah, you mean the film so not the Paul Gadd Bangkok joke, Just as well really. Very near the knuckle that one.
Except where there are perverse incentives (which the overwhelming majority of welfare recipients do not abuse) - but which this monster clearly did - and the fact that he is a monster still leave the incentives perverse.
Rob Wilson, MP for Reading East, meant to post a link to a blog about a complaint against the BBC.
Instead, Mr Wilson sent internet users to "Sexydigg.com", which is promoting "hardcore sex", "adult videos" and "free porn".
The aide to Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, quickly removed the posting from the internet, but not before people had noticed his mistake.
Sources said Mr Wilson had been sent the link by Conservative Party headquarters and simply copied and pasted it on to his Twitter feed.
He is understood to be very annoyed and embarrased by the episode, which appears to not have been his fault.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9968711/MP-accidentally-sends-Twitter-followers-to-porn-website.html
If I remember my Blackadder correctly.
I've always though 'class' (because we have other categories for other things) was best defined through your attitude towards money, not necessarily how much you had.
One of my mother's friends is a lot like Lady Whiteadder.
She has on occasions called me a wicked child.
There are criminal sanctions in place for those who commit benefit fraud as there are for those who commit manslaughter.
To extrapolate that the millions who are in receipt of benefits should be tainted or smeared by this one depraved individuals actions is what is most vapid and ignorant though I accept the point you are making is not that but a more reasonable one that contributory factors always play a part. Of which there were many in this case, not just the money.
That is indeed sad news. I have heard him speak on many occasions and he was always a man who enjoyed life to the full, well demonstrated by his excellent book on whisky and the humour in his books.
Excession was a brilliant book as was Player of Games and Use of Weapons.
Very, very sad.
According to the BBC, only 24% of the Elite were educated privately, which perhaps suggests there's more social mobility than we think.
WRT the Bishop of Winchester, the best brothel in Southwark was called "the Cardinal's Cap."
Bath and Wells had rather more exotic tastes. By his own account "I've had everything, and done everything. Animal, vegetable, and mineral."
The see of Winchester, and hence successive Bishops, was, however, in truth the owner of numerous brothels and guilty of what would now be the offence of living off immoral earnings. Historical fact.
http://thetemplarknight.com/2012/09/09/the-winchester-geese-medieval-prostitution/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9966692/France-says-75-per-cent-tax-will-apply-to-footballers.html
I was flukily lucky enough to be on a whisky tasting panel with him a few years ago, and he was a thoroughly amusing and entertaining bloke. Mrs J prefers his sci-fi series whilst I prefer the non sci-fi books. What a difference an 'M' makes.
I can only hope he has a comfortable last few months, and does not suffer too much.
Another point, why do people get such lenient sentences for attempted murder compared to murder? The intention was the same, the content of their character is the same.
They are not direct one to one comparisons (there are likely even closer parallels out there to use) but they are very instructive as to the way stories are routinely 'moulded' using insinuatory language or softer less accusatory tones. This is hardly limited to one case alone and may explain why the public has so little trust in the most obviously biased sources like the tabloids. A bias to sensationalism yes, but not always if it doesn't suit whatever flavour of policy hobby horse the proprietor is banging away on at any given time.
And before that, surely. Somewhere on my shelves is book containing a reproduction of a picture of a Southwark bath house from the early 14th, maybe even the 13th century (it is a history book, Mr. Eagles not medieval pron - though that might have been the picture's original intent, that or a tourist brochure). I am fairly sure that the brothels in Southwark were well established as London's "red-light district" pre-dating Cock Lane, near Smithfield, to which there are references as early as 1241.
A defence minister and former special forces soldier could be in line for a five-figure payout after “toxic” hip implants left him with a tumour, unable to walk distances and in need of complex surgery.
Minister of state Andrew Robathan had his hips “resurfaced” in 2006 using the ASR system manufactured by DePuy, a subsidiary company of healthcare giant Johnson & Johnson.
But by 2011 a non-cancerous tumour had developed at the top of his leg. His GP told him it was linked to his metal hip implants, which had been subject to a recall in 2010.
As long as they are Coalition ones!
Mail readers believe above all in individual responsibility for one's actions. This blame of the welfare state would, as OGH notes, take away some of Philpott's responsibility and place it elsewhere.
For Guardian readers like myself, of course, blaming the social safety net designed to prevent children growing up without adequate food or shelter for the violent, vengeful and criminally stupid act of a sociopath like Philpott is itself criminally stupid.