Its freedom of speech, they haven't libelled anyone or invaded their privacy.
No but they are implying that everyone claiming some sort of benefit has the potential to be a child killer, thats what people will read into, its stigmatising and hateful at the very least and of course inciting hatred, this is abuse of the right to a free press and what Leveson wants to take away not to mention they used a photo of the dead children, its not clear or precise either.
The DM editor can't have a very high opinion of the readers if this is what they think they want to see. Should we also have this opinion of them?
The guests on the Sky News press preview have just made the astonishing observation that the Daily Mail, by making this "connection" are tapping into the mindset of their readers.
So it is not just the vile and disgusting attitude of a few journalists that we need to worry about.....
No but they are implying that everyone claiming some sort of benefit has the potential to be a child killer, thats what people will read into, its stigmatising and hateful at the very least and of course inciting hatred, this is abuse of the right to a free press and what Leveson wants to take away not to mention they used a photo of the dead children, its not clear or precise either.
To be fair it says he fathered 17 kids and his seems to be a self promoting model for all that is wrong with the welfare state. No one is going to compare him with some one with a wife and two kids who is on JSA and been out of work for a short while due to the recession etc.
To be fair it says he fathered 17 kids and his seems to be a self promoting model for all that is wrong with the welfare state. No one is going to compare him with some one with a wife and two kids who is on JSA and been out of work for a short while due to the recession etc.
The past few years have been a constant vilification of anyone not working or on low wages.
To be fair it says he fathered 17 kids and his seems to be a self promoting model for all that is wrong with the welfare state. No one is going to compare him with some one with a wife and two kids who is on JSA and been out of work for a short while due to the recession etc.
They don't need to. The daily mail has created the connection for them in letters six inches tall.
They are even using the deaths of innocent children now.
What's wrong with that? As we have learnt from Gove-rment reforms, the only important people in the education system are parents. If the parents decide not to help their children then the Gove-rment washes it's hands of them and blames the child for choosing the wrong parents.
Does anyone really think he'd have sired 17 kids if he wasn't well paid to?
He's stabbed, allegedly raped, and now slaughtered six children- and we supported him finacially all the way. His sense of entitlement to whatever he can get is well evidenced by the ASDA vouchers story - where did he get that feeling that anything he wants is up for grabs? Why. from living off the rest of us for all these years, no matter how vile he was.
It would be wrong to infer that all on benefits are like him - but there is a point to be made about the lifestyle the state allowed him.
Funnily enough, evil people tend to think that whatever they want is up for grabs and don't consider others who get in their way. It has little to do with whether or not they are on benefits. Child killer Beverly Allitt was a nurse. Does that mean all nurses are capable of her crimes? How about Fred West? He was a builder. Does that mean all builders kidnap and murder women?
The past few years have been a constant vilification of anyone not working or on low wages.
The difference is, in my example that person will have paid tax's and made contributions. I haven't followed this story, but I assume he has never worked, paid any tax or contributions.
He is also had a huge family that he could never afford without the welfare state. It is sensible to cap benefits and bring it in to line with workers, because it means more to go round and will make the public feel the system is more fair, which will reduce the animosity that you are concerned about.
To be fair it says he fathered 17 kids and his seems to be a self promoting model for all that is wrong with the welfare state. No one is going to compare him with some one with a wife and two kids who is on JSA and been out of work for a short while due to the recession etc.
They don't need to. The daily mail has created the connection for them in letters six inches tall.
Even for the mail this is scraping the barrel.
I just don't think that's what people will think. I think they are smart enough to differentiate. The state should pay for the first two children and no more. That's what's going to happen so we may as well get used to it. This guy should have had to pay the rest himself or be forced to work to pay his costs. When he has no money left for beer or cigarettes, maybe then he would have understood that he has to be more socially responsible.
Doesn't matter - the vilification has been of everyone, even people IN work who receive benefits based on their income (or lack thereof)
He is an extreme example of what's wrong with the welfare system. If the system is changed so people like him can not do what they do, then that should benefit everybody.
Comments
Yes, but Paul Dacre keeps getting away with it.
I think the front page is fair enough as well. Each paper will tell the story in a way their readers will relate to it.
Its freedom of speech, they haven't libelled anyone or invaded their privacy.
The DM editor can't have a very high opinion of the readers if this is what they think they want to see. Should we also have this opinion of them?
No but they are implying that everyone claiming some sort of benefit has the potential to be a child killer, thats what people will read into, its stigmatising and hateful at the very least and of course inciting hatred, this is abuse of the right to a free press and what Leveson wants to take away not to mention they used a photo of the dead children, its not clear or precise either.
Its a free country, you can think and say what you like about Daily Mail readers.
According to that bloke on Sky papers review, Philpot was on Jeremy Kyle and a documentary on welfare, so there is a link.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mick-philpott-profile-evil-dad-1798391
The guests on the Sky News press preview have just made the astonishing observation that the Daily Mail, by making this "connection" are tapping into the mindset of their readers.
So it is not just the vile and disgusting attitude of a few journalists that we need to worry about.....
To be fair it says he fathered 17 kids and his seems to be a self promoting model for all that is wrong with the welfare state. No one is going to compare him with some one with a wife and two kids who is on JSA and been out of work for a short while due to the recession etc.
They are even using the deaths of innocent children now.
They don't need to. The daily mail has created the connection for them in letters six inches tall.
Even for the mail this is scraping the barrel.
Funnily enough, evil people tend to think that whatever they want is up for grabs and don't consider others who get in their way. It has little to do with whether or not they are on benefits. Child killer Beverly Allitt was a nurse. Does that mean all nurses are capable of her crimes? How about Fred West? He was a builder. Does that mean all builders kidnap and murder women?
The difference is, in my example that person will have paid tax's and made contributions. I haven't followed this story, but I assume he has never worked, paid any tax or contributions.
He is also had a huge family that he could never afford without the welfare state. It is sensible to cap benefits and bring it in to line with workers, because it means more to go round and will make the public feel the system is more fair, which will reduce the animosity that you are concerned about.
Never underestimate the power of stupidity.
I just don't think that's what people will think. I think they are smart enough to differentiate. The state should pay for the first two children and no more. That's what's going to happen so we may as well get used to it. This guy should have had to pay the rest himself or be forced to work to pay his costs. When he has no money left for beer or cigarettes, maybe then he would have understood that he has to be more socially responsible.
He is an extreme example of what's wrong with the welfare system. If the system is changed so people like him can not do what they do, then that should benefit everybody.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-416624/Father-15-moaned-council-house-dad--u-twice-u.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-416907/This-isnt-just-tax--simply-whos-boss.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-417167/Never-mind-Shameless-Mick-women.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-479985/Widdecombe-wages-war-liberal-tyranny-ruining-Britain.html