I would hazard a guess, so obviously a life on benefits with as many kids as you can breed is more financially beneficial than working for a living.
Is anyone on here seriously suggesting that he would have killed 6 children if the financial gain from benefits didn't exist?
Is anyone here a trained psychologist with insight into the man? By all accounts he was a violent, domineering control freak with a history of physical attacks on people. Who knows what he'd have done. He'd hardly be the first person to kill with or without a financial incentive. The kids stood no chance with him as a father, and that's nothing to do with benefits. There are plenty of people in receipt of benefits (or who grow up with non-working parents) who go on to do very well. Then again, there are people with working parents who become violent criminals.
I would hazard a guess, so obviously a life on benefits with as many kids as you can breed is more financially beneficial than working for a living.
Is anyone on here seriously suggesting that he would have killed 6 children if the financial gain from benefits didn't exist?
In fairness no one has suggested that he intended to kill the children, hence the manslaughter charge, however I think it is perfectly clear that he has no feelings towards them other than as a means of generating income.
No one who has any feelings of love towards their children could possibly set fire to a home where they are sleeping.
That's not a reason, try again....................Why did he start the fire?
2 reasons.
1. he wanted to get the kids back from his ex lover so he could again control the benefits (they were all paid into his bank account). for the 5 kids to be no longer in his house meant he took a hit financially.
2. he wanted a bigger council house. by starting the fire, he could have rescued the kids, become a hero, then show the council the burnt out house was no longer fit to live in, and then hope the council house him in a bigger house.
he was after all, on to the council for years trying to get a bigger house, and they would not provide one. in his own words he said "i always get what i want".
evil nasty git who now has the deaths of 6 kids on his conscience for ever. i hope he suffers a living hell in prison.
Is anyone here a trained psychologist with insight into the man? By all accounts he was a violent, domineering control freak with a history of physical attacks on people. Who knows what he'd have done. He'd hardly be the first person to kill with or without a financial incentive. The kids stood no chance with him as a father, and that's nothing to do with benefits. There are plenty of people in receipt of benefits (or who grow up with non-working parents) who go on to do very well. Then again, there are people with working parents who become violent criminals.
The benefits system and him were to blame in equal measure, a system that lets and helps monsters/vermin like him view children as commodities or access to £££'s and not a personal financial and moral responsability
They are both to blame in equal measure, but he wouldn't have had a reason if it hadn't have been for the runaway train that is the present day benefits culture.
The benefits system and him were to blame in equal measure, a system that lets and helps monsters/vermin like him view children as commodities or access to £££'s and not a personal financial and moral responsability
They are both to blame in equal measure, but he wouldn't have had a reason if it hadn't have been for the runaway train that is the present day benefits culture.
Perhaps you're right - all children and families on benefits ought to be punished for his abuse of the system.
If you wish to argue that this man is lazy/workshy - and that is a product of the welfare state - That would be worthy of discusussion.
If you wish to argue that this man has had several children just to fund his lifestyle - and that the welfare state is to blame - That would be worthy of discussion.
But if you wish to argue that there is a clear link between the Welfare State, and an "evil" decision to set fire to a building containing his own children - please be ready for all the ridicule coming your way.
And that has nothing to do with Philpott not being a product of the benefit culture. He was a sick twisted individual a long time before he was on benefits.
We are in total agreement. Then this 'sick twisted individual' found that he could make everybody else fund his lifestyle through producing seventeen kids.
Apparently, it was the day of the custody hearing re. his kids from his mistress who had left and taken them with her. He seemed to feel that if he could pin the fire on her, she would be arrested, leaving him with the kids. Nice bloke, ain't he?
I can't believe anyone believes this vicious story or indeed blames the benefits system. You could argue that the peerage was to blame for Lord Lucan or indeed use the same principe to argue that any system or institution is to blame for the actions of an individual. The point is escaping me for some reason probably because it makes no sense. In any case the Fail are always printing things like this where they have jumped to stupid conclusions and it is not helpful at all.
Perhaps you're right - all children and families on benefits ought to be punished for his abuse of the system.
Who said ALL? there you go again.
ANY suggestion of changes to the benefits system is met by a barage of wailing and wild accusations of punishing 'the majority' unfairly.
Do you take a similar line with gun culture?
That line of thinking literally says what happened was a price worth paying in order to preserve the status quo.
For those trying to make out that the headline is simply about how he abused the system for financial gain, why is it being run today? If they aren't trying to link the manslaughter of his children to being on the welfare state, then they didn't need to wait for a guilty verdict.
As others have noted, he was being denied a bigger house by the council. If you are going to make a link between welfare state and manslaughter, it would surely be that denying people big houses is the problem?
The reality is that people from all parts of the social spectrum commit hideous, "evil" and vile crimes against children, old people and the vulnerable for their own personal gain. It's not restricted to the poor, or those on benefits. Attempting to force a connection between being on benefits and risking your children's lives is vile. Doing so deliberately for financial gain, is as low as a newspaper can get.
Who said ALL? there you go again.
ANY suggestion of changes to the benefits system is met by a barage of wailing and wild accusations of punishing 'the majority' unfairly.
Do you take a similar line with gun culture?
That line of thinking literally says what happened was a price worth paying in order to preserve the status quo.
Responding to a troll just encourages them to post even more outrageous comments.
The benefits system and him were to blame in equal measure, a system that lets and helps monsters/vermin like him view children as commodities or access to £££'s and not a personal financial and moral responsability
They are both to blame in equal measure, but he wouldn't have had a reason if it hadn't have been for the runaway train that is the present day benefits culture.
Apart from the total nonsense that the benefits system is as much to blame as the actual perpetrators of this crime, there is no "runaway train that is the present day benefits culture".
Some facts to educate you:
The real terms increases in social security spending over the 6 x 5 year periods from 1956/7-61/2 to 1981/2-86/87 averaged approx 6% pa.
The real terms increases in social security spending over the latest 5 x 5 year periods from 1986/7-91/2 to 2006/7-11/12 averaged approx 3% pa.
Over the last 10 year period to 2010/11 the real terms increase (of 1.75% pa) was the lowest, by some distance, of any decade since the formation of the welfare state.
The majority of that is down to the ageing population. The amount spent on working age benefits is the same, compared to GDP, as 30 years ago. .
There are around 1 million less people claiming out of work benefits than there were in 1995.
There is still around £17bn pa in unclaimed benefits and tax credits.
Apart from the total nonsense that the benefits system is as much to blame as the actual perpetrators of this crime, there is no "runaway train that is the present day benefits culture".
Some facts to educate you:
The real terms increases in social security spending over the 6 x 5 year periods from 1956/7-61/2 to 1981/2-86/87 averaged approx 6% pa.
The real terms increases in social security spending over the latest 5 x 5 year periods from 1986/7-91/2 to 2006/7-11/12 averaged approx 3% pa.
Over the last 10 year period to 2010/11 the real terms increase (of 1.75% pa) was the lowest, by some distance, of any decade since the formation of the welfare state.
The majority of that is down to the ageing population. The amount spent on working age benefits is the same, compared to GDP, as 30 years ago. .
There are around 1 million less people claiming out of work benefits than there were in 1995.
There is still around £17bn pa in unclaimed benefits and tax credits.
For those trying to make out that the headline is simply about how he abused the system for financial gain, why is it being run today? If they aren't trying to link the manslaughter of his children to being on the welfare state, then they didn't need to wait for a guilty verdict.
As others have noted, he was being denied a bigger house by the council. If you are going to make a link between welfare state and manslaughter, it would surely be that denying people big houses is the problem?
The reality is that people from all parts of the social spectrum commit hideous, "evil" and vile crimes against children, old people and the vulnerable for their own personal gain. It's not restricted to the poor, or those on benefits. Attempting to force a connection between being on benefits and risking your children's lives is vile. Doing so deliberately for financial gain, is as low as a newspaper can get.
Did you not watch the channel 4 documentary last night, people with 10,11...16 kids?
People have children simply to get the associated benefits, that can't be right !
Comments
WHERE DID i MAKE THAT COMMENT/SUGGESTION/INFERENCE THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO DRAW THAT CONCLUSION?
Is anyone here a trained psychologist with insight into the man? By all accounts he was a violent, domineering control freak with a history of physical attacks on people. Who knows what he'd have done. He'd hardly be the first person to kill with or without a financial incentive. The kids stood no chance with him as a father, and that's nothing to do with benefits. There are plenty of people in receipt of benefits (or who grow up with non-working parents) who go on to do very well. Then again, there are people with working parents who become violent criminals.
Well who on earth else are you claiming is getting 'pity' from (*sigh*) the 'left wing'?
In fairness no one has suggested that he intended to kill the children, hence the manslaughter charge, however I think it is perfectly clear that he has no feelings towards them other than as a means of generating income.
No one who has any feelings of love towards their children could possibly set fire to a home where they are sleeping.
https://vine.co/v/bI050uXW5h6
2 reasons.
1. he wanted to get the kids back from his ex lover so he could again control the benefits (they were all paid into his bank account). for the 5 kids to be no longer in his house meant he took a hit financially.
2. he wanted a bigger council house. by starting the fire, he could have rescued the kids, become a hero, then show the council the burnt out house was no longer fit to live in, and then hope the council house him in a bigger house.
he was after all, on to the council for years trying to get a bigger house, and they would not provide one. in his own words he said "i always get what i want".
evil nasty git who now has the deaths of 6 kids on his conscience for ever. i hope he suffers a living hell in prison.
The benefits system and him were to blame in equal measure, a system that lets and helps monsters/vermin like him view children as commodities or access to £££'s and not a personal financial and moral responsability
They are both to blame in equal measure, but he wouldn't have had a reason if it hadn't have been for the runaway train that is the present day benefits culture.
Perhaps you're right - all children and families on benefits ought to be punished for his abuse of the system.
sick and disgusting, so everyone who is on benefits are murderers now are they :rolleyes:
Mature comments always work well
So there's absolutely no connection to what I originally posted and your response?
Never did. Never have. Read posts carefully.
Don't understand the question and the response - well, ....
We are in total agreement. Then this 'sick twisted individual' found that he could make everybody else fund his lifestyle through producing seventeen kids.
Apparently, it was the day of the custody hearing re. his kids from his mistress who had left and taken them with her. He seemed to feel that if he could pin the fire on her, she would be arrested, leaving him with the kids. Nice bloke, ain't he?
Yes, I am sure he was an avid reader. Regular at the library our Mick!
No thanks.
Interesting response, though. Should the welfare system be funding any 'lifestyles?'
I had always believed it was there as a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.
ANY suggestion of changes to the benefits system is met by a barage of wailing and wild accusations of punishing 'the majority' unfairly.
Do you take a similar line with gun culture?
That line of thinking literally says what happened was a price worth paying in order to preserve the status quo.
As others have noted, he was being denied a bigger house by the council. If you are going to make a link between welfare state and manslaughter, it would surely be that denying people big houses is the problem?
The reality is that people from all parts of the social spectrum commit hideous, "evil" and vile crimes against children, old people and the vulnerable for their own personal gain. It's not restricted to the poor, or those on benefits. Attempting to force a connection between being on benefits and risking your children's lives is vile. Doing so deliberately for financial gain, is as low as a newspaper can get.
Responding to a troll just encourages them to post even more outrageous comments.
Apart from the total nonsense that the benefits system is as much to blame as the actual perpetrators of this crime, there is no "runaway train that is the present day benefits culture".
Some facts to educate you:
The real terms increases in social security spending over the 6 x 5 year periods from 1956/7-61/2 to 1981/2-86/87 averaged approx 6% pa.
The real terms increases in social security spending over the latest 5 x 5 year periods from 1986/7-91/2 to 2006/7-11/12 averaged approx 3% pa.
Over the last 10 year period to 2010/11 the real terms increase (of 1.75% pa) was the lowest, by some distance, of any decade since the formation of the welfare state.
The majority of that is down to the ageing population. The amount spent on working age benefits is the same, compared to GDP, as 30 years ago. .
There are around 1 million less people claiming out of work benefits than there were in 1995.
There is still around £17bn pa in unclaimed benefits and tax credits.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf
http://www.turn2us.org.uk/pdf/Mythbusting.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9423277/7.3bn-means-tested-tax-credits-go-unclaimed.html
http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=irb
http://fullfact.org/factchecks/welfare_spending_economy_Lib_dem_conference-28294
Always helpful and informative Richie.
Did you not watch the channel 4 documentary last night, people with 10,11...16 kids?
People have children simply to get the associated benefits, that can't be right !
Then it's a shame you have to resort to childish name calling.