Abernathy wrote:Do you know what I find to be the worst aspect of this?
I don't actually mind at all that that cunt Philpott knocked out kids like smarties so that he could claim child benefit for them . It was only what was legitimately due, after all, as far as I can see - you have a child, you can claim benefit. If he really thought that was a smart thing to do or a reasonable way to sustain yourself and your family then he really was a special kind of stupid fucker. But in all conscience, you can't legislate for stupid, malignant fuckwits like Philpott. Particularly when you take account of all the good that universal benefits like CB have done for countless numbers of decent, hard-pressed folk, the likes of Philpott are pretty damned insignificant. I just can't get angry about it in the way that so many hard-of-thinking simpletons - the Tories' target constituency - do.
Okay, you can accuse me of having a relaxed attitude to feckless benefit claimants if you like, but I'm not saying that where there is abuse of the system, those individual cases should not be cracked down on - they should. But to call the entire benefits system into question because of one, egregious, once-in-a-blue-moon exception - and use it to further a shrinking state ideological agenda, which is what the Tories are doing, is not only despicable, it's fucking offensive.
Not a shred of disagreement there. Even in the small scheme of things, the number of kids born to one household is a statistical and financial irrelevance even in their own postcode, let alone on a UK wide scale.
It is just simply nowhere near far enough up the agenda to be worth the debate that Gideon is now calling for. That very debate about which he remained strangely silent during the CSR of 2010 when Child Benefit was very much under the spotlight and by which time Philpott had already established a some-time media career.
Of course, it's all a pile of opportunistic bollocks but I refuse to believe that so many people are so dim as to fall for it. Wilful, petty, hate-fuelled ignorance is a far more plausible reason.
Jack believed in the inherent goodness of humanity, and felt a deep social responsibility to protect that. Through us all, Jack marches on.