Of course evidence is part of the discussion: this was a court case!
It was the judge commented that Philpott treated his women like "chattels".
The additional money brought in by Lisa's cleaning job may have been a factor given that he filched all of it; but child benefit is only £13.40 per week per child, so they would cost more in outgoings than they would bring in.
Either way he was previously convicted of trying to murder a woman for leaving him & attacking her mother. According to the victim he was violent to her throughout their relationship. At that point he was in the army & the girl was 17, so the issue then does not seem to have been about money.
And if we were discussing causation or "blame" then I'd be right with you but, as it is, this thread is merely speculating on what factors contributed to this incident and I think his pursuit of benefits and/or a new house IS one such factor.
As she did speculate on the motives she did comment on, it's more likely that if she thought benefits a factor she would have mentioned it...
Exactly. To leap from that to assuming that it WAS a factor but that she deliberately didn't mention it because she was being diplomatic is kind of... odd.
As she did speculate on the motives she did comment on, it's more likely that if she thought benefits a factor she would have mentioned it...
Is it? Why?
Going back to where we were a couple of pages ago, the judge here can comment on the motives for this incident without speculating on Philpott's reasons for having those motives.
And if we were discussing causation or "blame" then I'd be right with you but, as it is, this thread is merely speculating on what factors contributed to this incident and I think his pursuit of benefits and/or a new house IS one such factor.
Speculating on factors for which the major source of information is a court case...
If you argue a case in a debate you have to provide evidence for it, rather than just say 'I think x'.
You've provided no evidence whatsoever for your belief that Philpott was:
a) in pursuit of benefits or
b) in pursuit of a new house.
When it's pointed out that:
a) Lisa left with her children so there would be no justification for a new house as they now had more room.
b) the benefits income from the children at £13.40 would be less then would be the outgoings.
Exactly. To leap from that to assuming that it WAS a factor but that she deliberately didn't mention it because she was being diplomatic is kind of... odd.
If I want you to agree with me I might have to provide evidence to change your mind but I'm not interested in doing that.
I'm just stating an opinion.
If you don't like it, feel free to think something different.
I don't know how you get everything so about face:
If I want to agree with you then you have to provide evidence to change my mind?
No, if you want me to agree with you.
If you want me to agree with you then you have to provide evidence for your argument, if you can't then you have to accept the fact that I may reject it as having no basis in fact.
I don't know how you get everything so about face:
If I want to agree with you then you have to provide evidence to change my mind?
No, if you want me to agree with you.
If you want me to agree with you then you have to provide evidence for your argument, if you can't then you have to accept the fact that I may reject it as having no basis in fact.
The Daily Mail are running a poll with the same question, but are warning they the 'left' may 'hijack' the result.
I've a feeling the mail may hijack the poll itself, which already had a 75% vote of 'yes'. So lets ask this corner of the Internet the same question.
No & for the likes of David Cameron & Gideon Osborne to use the death of six children perpetuated by an evil father as some sort of vindication for the welfare reforms is scandalous.
Well, it does all start to get a bit "motives for motives", doesn't it?
The fact remains, however, that if we accept that he wanted them back it must have been for some reason, right?
It seems likely, to me, that part of that reason was for the income they provided.
That might seem likely to you, and it's not like any of us can disprove it. But other reasons are possible and have been quoted on here already - anger over loss of control and sheer spite.
That might seem likely to you, and it's not like any of us can disprove it. But other reasons are possible and have been quoted on here already - anger over loss of control and sheer spite.
That's fair enough. If somebody genuinely believes that is the case then so be it.
There seem to be quite a few people who've responded to this thread on the basis of whether the weflare state should be blamed, though, and that's faulty thinking.
I guess it's always risky to consider the actions of an unbalanced person from a sane (:o) POV but I can't help thinking that I, as a home-owner, would never consider burning down my house because I'd be worried that I might end up living in a cardboard box whereas a nutcase living in a council house might be more inclined to do so on the assumption that the council would be forced to provide alternative accomodation.
*EDIT*
Anybody know whether there's anything been published about how Philpott convinced his wife and Mosley to participate in this?
I mean, telling them he planned to do it to obtain a new council house might have been more convincing than telling them he planned to do it to get revenge on a woman.
Either way he was previously convicted of trying to murder a woman for leaving him & attacking her mother. According to the victim he was violent to her throughout their relationship. At that point he was in the army & the girl was 17, so the issue then does not seem to have been about money.
That's fair enough. If somebody genuinely believes that is the case then so be it.
There seem to be quite a few people who've responded to this thread on the basis of whether the weflare state should be blamed, though, and that's faulty thinking.
I guess it's always risky to consider the actions of an unbalanced person from a sane (:o) POV but I can't help thinking that I, as a home-owner, would never consider burning down my house because I'd be worried that I might end up living in a cardboard box whereas a nutcase living in a council house might be more inclined to do so on the assumption that the council would be forced to provide alternative accomodation.
*EDIT*
Anybody know whether there's anything been published about how Philpott convinced his wife and Mosley to participate in this?
I mean, telling them he planned to do it to obtain a new council house might have been more convincing than telling them he planned to do it to get revenge on a woman.
So many crimes don't take place from rational motives, if you mean material gain.
As for Mairead, I think she was so under Philpott's thumb she'd have gone along with pretty much anything he proposed. She had a pretty dreadful childhood, and I think it left her with very little confidence. Mosley I don't know enough about to guess: maybe Philpott offered him money? But I'm sure both of them would have found revenge a perfectly convincing motive.
So many crimes don't take place from rational motives, if you mean material gain.
That was my point.
If an irrational person thinks that certain things will happen as a result of their actions, I think it's fair to consider those things as factors that contributed to those actions.
If an irrational person thinks that certain things will happen as a result of their actions, I think it's fair to consider those things as factors that contributed to those actions.
Yes, but we still don't know if Philpott thought material gain would happen as a result of his actions or if that motivated him in any way.
It's the motive the tabloids are inferring. As well as Osborne and now Cameron. It really doesn't help having people in important places further assinuating that Philpott did this as a result of him being on benefits, but most sane people realise that that the argument is a strawman, and that the attempt by the right-wing to pose a "post-hoc ergo propter hoc" position is massively idiotic.
If you want to confront anyone pushing that ludicrous argument, the best thing to do is say "Shall we have a debate about the validity of the TV licensing system given that it led to the lifestyle and crimes of Jimmy Saville?" then don't let them off the hook until they answer.
Of course they'll say "We don't comment on specific cases" in which case you can reply with "Unless you think you can gain political capital over it, like with Jimmy Carr".
The simple answer is that Philpott is pure evil, and the fact that he was claiming benefits was neither here nor there. Plenty of evil people have committed evil acts whilst earning millions of pounds (Tony Blair [allegedly] for example)...it is dirty for any politician to try to gain political capital from a terrible act. But I don't expect any politician from any party to act any differently if they think they can score one over their opposition.
That's a very good analogy.
The poll question is loaded towards furnishing The Mail with the conclusion it wants, as part of its ongoing agenda. It backs every pollster into a corner.
Hypothetically speaking the Daily Mirror could, if it so wished, turn the question around, and ask:
"However tragic the deaths of the children, and however heinous the parents' crime, did the benefits system provide for those children during their lives, preventing them from starving or becoming homeless".
Everyone would be compelled to answer yes, and then the agenda conclusion would be "the benefits system is good".
I don't think this crime was anything to do with getting another house or more benefits. Philpotts, the two women and the kids lived together for ten years and, although he had been bleating about another house he didn't come up with this plan until his girlfriend left. I just don't think he could stand the fact that she had actually left him and taken his "possessions" (the kids) with her. I truly believe he came up with this plan as a way of punishing her and making sure he got the kids back at the same time. Yes, he milked the system but I think he kept getting his wife and girlfriend pregnant as another way of controlling them, the money was just an added extra and the kids just something else he owned and proof of how much of a "man" he was. With or without benefits, philpott would have been exactly the same disgusting, evil man.
Comments
And if we were discussing causation or "blame" then I'd be right with you but, as it is, this thread is merely speculating on what factors contributed to this incident and I think his pursuit of benefits and/or a new house IS one such factor.
Exactly. To leap from that to assuming that it WAS a factor but that she deliberately didn't mention it because she was being diplomatic is kind of... odd.
Is it? Why?
Going back to where we were a couple of pages ago, the judge here can comment on the motives for this incident without speculating on Philpott's reasons for having those motives.
Speculating on factors for which the major source of information is a court case...
If you argue a case in a debate you have to provide evidence for it, rather than just say 'I think x'.
You've provided no evidence whatsoever for your belief that Philpott was:
a) in pursuit of benefits or
b) in pursuit of a new house.
When it's pointed out that:
a) Lisa left with her children so there would be no justification for a new house as they now had more room.
b) the benefits income from the children at £13.40 would be less then would be the outgoings.
you simply ignore it.
Odd & nonsensical...
Well, no. I don't.
If I want you to agree with me I might have to provide evidence to change your mind but I'm not interested in doing that.
I'm just stating an opinion.
If you don't like it, feel free to think something different.
I don't know how you get everything so about face:
If I want to agree with you then you have to provide evidence to change my mind?
No, if you want me to agree with you.
If you want me to agree with you then you have to provide evidence for your argument, if you can't then you have to accept the fact that I may reject it as having no basis in fact.
Night!
I thought that's what I said?
Sleep well.
No & for the likes of David Cameron & Gideon Osborne to use the death of six children perpetuated by an evil father as some sort of vindication for the welfare reforms is scandalous.
That might seem likely to you, and it's not like any of us can disprove it. But other reasons are possible and have been quoted on here already - anger over loss of control and sheer spite.
That's fair enough. If somebody genuinely believes that is the case then so be it.
There seem to be quite a few people who've responded to this thread on the basis of whether the weflare state should be blamed, though, and that's faulty thinking.
I guess it's always risky to consider the actions of an unbalanced person from a sane (:o) POV but I can't help thinking that I, as a home-owner, would never consider burning down my house because I'd be worried that I might end up living in a cardboard box whereas a nutcase living in a council house might be more inclined to do so on the assumption that the council would be forced to provide alternative accomodation.
*EDIT*
Anybody know whether there's anything been published about how Philpott convinced his wife and Mosley to participate in this?
I mean, telling them he planned to do it to obtain a new council house might have been more convincing than telling them he planned to do it to get revenge on a woman.
It's pathetic to clam otherwise.
Fred West was a builder, Shipman a doctor etc etc
Indeed.
If Shipman had been a bricklayer, do you suppose he'd have had the same access to drugs and old people?
On that basis, his position as a Doctor clearly DID contribute to his actions.
Again, you just need to separate contributory factors from actual "blame".
This is the wisdom, right here. Brilliant.
So many crimes don't take place from rational motives, if you mean material gain.
As for Mairead, I think she was so under Philpott's thumb she'd have gone along with pretty much anything he proposed. She had a pretty dreadful childhood, and I think it left her with very little confidence. Mosley I don't know enough about to guess: maybe Philpott offered him money? But I'm sure both of them would have found revenge a perfectly convincing motive.
That was my point.
If an irrational person thinks that certain things will happen as a result of their actions, I think it's fair to consider those things as factors that contributed to those actions.
Yes, but we still don't know if Philpott thought material gain would happen as a result of his actions or if that motivated him in any way.
It seems likely that a person who burns down his own house will expect alternative accommodation to be forthcoming from somewhere.
Yes, but he might not expect it to be any better than what he had before.
That's a very good analogy.
The poll question is loaded towards furnishing The Mail with the conclusion it wants, as part of its ongoing agenda. It backs every pollster into a corner.
Hypothetically speaking the Daily Mirror could, if it so wished, turn the question around, and ask:
"However tragic the deaths of the children, and however heinous the parents' crime, did the benefits system provide for those children during their lives, preventing them from starving or becoming homeless".
Everyone would be compelled to answer yes, and then the agenda conclusion would be "the benefits system is good".