And then I also got this message, headed "from a mother/ sister/ teacher/ aunty/ neighbour/ citizen":
Dear Kerry McCarthy
I can't thank you enough for bringing up the Bill in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 25 November 2008: Children (Protection of Privacy).
This is only one of many emails I've received on the subject.
I haven't done much to follow up on the Bill since then, partly because Parliament was prorogued. But that's what I want to be doing with my time, rather than engaging with futile arguments on here. Here's the link if you actually want to comment on what I said in Parliament. Interesting to note that Shannon Matthews' mother's favourite television programme was - you've guessed it, Jeremy Kyle. Not surprising that her idea of what was acceptable behaviour was so blurred... although I bet JK will say he merely reflects society.
As for commenting on the Karen Matthews' case - I'm going to be speaking in the Chamber about it very soon. I may already have told you that. Contrary to what some of you might think, I can entirely understand why people object to paying taxes so that people like her can stay at home, watch TV and have numerous children who are supported by the welfare state. But... it's not as simple as that, is it? Will post the speech on here and then we can have a full debate if you like.
6 comments:
"Interesting to note that Shannon Matthews' mother's favourite television programme was - you've guessed it, Jeremy Kyle."
Yes, interesting indeed. Of course, I know you would not be suggesting that Jeremy Kyle creates this kind of person. I spent several months in 1996/97 with a young lady who loved Jerry Springer. It was amazing the number of times she was nodding her head and voicing agreement with Jerry's little epilogues about the subject matter of that particular programme, like jealousy or preventing someone seeing their kids for example. Amazing because she did the very same thing.
I notice that Jeremy Kyle has started doing programmes to counteract just getting the underclass, the lowlife for entertainment purposes. I believe he is helping young men and women to find a lost parent for example.
Having said all that, I like Jeremy Kyle. I rarely watch his programme, but on the odd occasion that I have, it is certainly nice to hear him say to some of these brainless pondlife some of the things which we all would love to have the opportunity to say to them.
I don't think he creates such people - how could he? - but I think there's a real issue about sending out the message that such behaviour is somehow acceptable, in that it's something which is suitable material for daytime TV rather than the sort of behaviour people ought to be ashamed of and not expose in public. Or the actions of a mentally ill or otherwise vulnerable (or perhaps very stupid or criminal) person which shouldn't be treated as entertainment. I know he tells them off, but I'm not convinced that's enough. Ditto media coverage of Amy Winehouse, Kerry Katona, etc, etc. It's voyeurism, isn't it?
I can entirely understand why people object to paying taxes so that people like her can stay at home, watch TV and have numerous children who are supported by the welfare state. But... it's not as simple as that, is it?
Sadly, in many, many cases - it really is as simple as that. People really do see their children as mealtickets. It's desperately sad but it blatantly does happen on a large scale, and as a nation we cannot ignore it as we often do, believing that it's wrong or "offensive" to bring it up in the MSM. This is why the levels of resentment exist.
The Welfare State was introduced as a safety net, to stop people hitting absolute rock bottom (and I agree with its existence in this form) - NOT as a lifestyle choice for the lazy and the feckless who can't be bothered to work.
I would agree with your comment about Jeremy Kyle thoguh - telling them off is not enough. They'll just ignore it and carry on!
It seems sad that this hugely popular daytime programme concentrates mainly on confrontation and disfunction. We have this at one end of the TV reality show and, (not quite so endless nowadays), shows about property, fashion, personal appearance and spending loads of money.
There are millions of people leading ordinary lives, on not much money, who work hard, build real communities and bring their children up with values and a sense of responsibility. What a shame we can't see some of these on daytime TV.
The JK show is uncomfortable because it is a window into a world that most of us never see. And it is terrifying because it says that, just down the road in that sink estate, generations of people are wasting their lives in depression, tedium and self abuse. The show leads you to the conclusion that the participants show no sign of economic or intellectual aspiration. Perhaps this is simply because they are stupid people but I don't accept this.
I came from a working class background and I remember my relatives and neighbours living relatively decent and fulfilled lives as they struggled and strove to make their world a better place.
By catering for their every need and asking nothing in return we have taken that opportunity from this underclass. We have signaled to them that we approve of their lifestyles (why else would we fund them?)and in doing so we have inadvertently stultified their lives.
Contrary to what some of you might think, I can entirely understand why people object to paying taxes so that people like her can stay at home, watch TV and have numerous children who are supported by the welfare state. But... it's not as simple as that, is it? Will post the speech on here and then we can have a full debate if you like.
That would be welcome Kerry. I'll look forward to it.
Fair play to you for being willing to have an open debate.
Post a Comment