Another middle-class mix-up at the Guardian - and what is 'carers allowance'?

I wrote a commentary on my media website recently, about the Guardian's absurd defence of a middle-class young woman who had broken US Visa rules, (and, apparently tried to do the same in Canada), by working on a tourist visa. Apparently, it was all just a "mix-up". This is so middle-class. The working classes break the laws and are rightly punished for it. We just have little "mix -ups".

Here is another mix-up. A family broke the rules about receiving "Carers Allowance" and now have to pay back the money they claimed unlawfully. The Guardian claims this is a "fine". That is absurd. It is not a "fine"; it is paying back money which they claimed to which they were not entitled. No one is being "punished"; they have just been asked to pay back what they over-claimed, (plus, according to the article, a token £50.00 penalty). They could be punished - for welfare fraud. Where is the sense of propriety and expression of gratitude that they have not been taken to court for welfare fraud? The family can hardly claim that they didn't know what the rules of this benefit are. When I claimed benefits many years ago, all the forms had "you must tell us if your circumstances change” printed in huge letters all over them. I assume they still do. And, this particular story, about overpayments of this particular benefit has received widespread coverage in the media. How hard can it be to check your pay slip(s) and if you go over the limit, inform the DWP?

Gary says, "In any sort of ethical world, this would not happen". What does he mean? Obviously there have to be limits on the benefits; which means rules. And since when was a rule which needs to be followed unethical? The journalists have done some calculation and averaged out the lady’s earnings and found that in some years, on average, she earned less than the limit. But; that’s completely irrelevant. The rules of this benefit are per week, not an average over time. This is like saying: you can’t prosecute me for doing 38 near the school in the village because, overall, my speed through the village was 29! It is laughable.

It isn't just about the middle-classes being shocked that the rules actually apply to them too. There is a tendency here, a drift. Hedonism is exploding so much, that even the law is now being subjugated to the key tenet of modern Western culture; "if it feels good it is good". First, power and hedonism overturned authority. * Now, it seems, they are beginning to reject the law. The journalist seems blithely unaware of how he sounds when he simply rewrites the law as if the benefit were based on an annual average, and then complains that the family is being “fined” because based on this purely invented version of the rules they did nothing wrong!

And; we have not even discussed the provision of this extremely generous benefit; £64.60 a week for .. looking after their son. This is the welfare state gone mad. I can see that it would be socially beneficial if the welfare state, for example, provided a sum of money for specialist equipment for a family with an autistic child, if that was needed, or a special diet. But there is no particular sign of that in this case. So, £64.60 a week? What for? The boy goes to a special school. If he needs special transport to get there, that comes out of a different, and local authority budget. What is the £64.60 a week for? Surely; parents look after their children as part of nature? What is this family doing that any other family does not have to do? Why does the state, and ultimately other taxpayers, have to hand out £64.60 a week to pay someone to look after their own child? Did the journalist even ask what they used the money for?

* The key analyst of this phenomenon is Josie Appleton. https://thenewobserver.co.uk/officious-josie-appleton-review/