Friday 5 April 2013

Holy Ann and Shameless George

It is telling that the main voice insisting that the wrong was simply that of the perpetrators has been that of Ann Widdecombe. Her improbable foray into light entertainment seems to be coming to an end, and not before time.

We must uphold the full compatibility between, on the one hand, the highest view of human demographic, economic, intellectual and cultural expansion and development, and, on the other hand, the most active concern for the conservation of the natural world and of the treasures bequeathed by such expansion and development in the past. Such an approach might be termed "catholicity".

It is positively hilarious, though also rather sad, to hear people complain in a single breath, both about immigration, and that the lower orders are having too many children. If our society at large, so to speak, had carried on having such sizes of family with the full and proper assistance of the State, then how much immigration do you really think that there would have needed to have been? And do you imagine that there would now have been a demographic imbalance within the traditional population against the middle and the skilled working classes and in favour of something else entirely? A population group which is determined not to reproduce is doomed to be replaced.

As for Shameless George, who was yesterday caught using a disabled parking bay and who recently travelled first class on a second class rail ticket, does he imagine that people like him just exist naturally? Or has he considered that it is their many and various exemptions from the fiscal burdens borne by everyone else that make it possible for them to create the demand for, say, cocaine, or sadomasochistic prostitutes?

Shameless is now well into its final series. Something similar on the overclass, completely cut off from normal society both economically and morally, is long overdue. George Osborne embodies it perfectly.

5 comments:

  1. It's not a complaint about poor people having children-but the fact that they are having them outside of marriage, and therefore depending on the taxpayer to raise them in place of the father, David.

    You should know better than that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What would it be called? Ridiculous? Tasteless? Vacuous? The possibilities are endless ...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous, no one has mentioned that, including Ann Widdecombe. It's not true, you know? You don't get one penny piece more for being unmarried with children, as such, than you do for being married with children, as such. All five of these children who were Mick Philpott's (the eldest was from a previous relationship) were born within and to his marriage to their mother.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually, since my own family has split up, we have been better off through tax credits and housing benefit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. But you are only getting one lot per child of anything child-related. The rest would have applied anyway.

    And both of the women with whom Philpott was breeding were in work.

    ReplyDelete