I was on benefits once and I coped quite well with not producing loads of kids for an extra £13 a week and I didn't set any on fire either. I guess money effects us all differently or something?
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.
I am so glad you've started this poll. When I viewed the DM results I thought surely not that many people would be so dam stupid to actually be drawn into the propaganda of hate towards the poor which is being projected by our current government.
When they bang on about the welfare state they fail to remind people that at least 50% of the welfare budget is actually spent on pensioners. Pensioners cost this country far more than children and the workless but do the government attack them? No because they can vote. They could have had an immediate raise of the pension age to 70 for thosewho are yet to retire and stop cold weather payments to everyone who didn't claim pension credit. It would save millions.
I am far from a fan of Labour but the ConDem party is by far the more frightening combination that I have had the displeasure to witness.
What is actually the worst thing is that Philpot family were also a working family!
Yes. I think Philpott was using children as a source of income, and ultimately when some of his income was taken from him, he went to extraordinary lengths to "fix" it.
Not that that should affect the benefits system - anything can be abused.
Early days, but its interesting that the DS result is the exact opposite of the DM result, and I'd say DS has a decent selection of folk from all sides of life and political views.
Early days, but its interesting that the DS result is the exact opposite of the DM result, and I'd say DS has a decent selection of folk from all sides of life and political views.
Maybe people should be looking at did our safeguarding system failings contribute towards the death of these children. He has stabbed his ex girlfriend multiple times and nearly killed her, the TV appearances that he made clearly displayed a man who wasn't right, so why was the violent man allowed to have children with not even any kind of monitoring from social services?
I am so glad you've started this poll. When I viewed the DM results I thought surely not that many people would be so dam stupid to actually be drawn into the propaganda of hate towards the poor which is being projected by our current government.
Must say, I suspect that a lot of people are voting purely on the basis that they disagree with the implication that people on benefits are, somehow, scumbags or something.
If the poll question here had been "Do you think George Osbourne and the DM are acting like pricks in this case?" then I've certainly have voted "yes".
As it is, however, if we're honest I can't see how anybody can genuinely say that they don't believe the thought of extra benefits and/or a new house didn't motivate Philpott.
Course, that's not to say there's anything fundamentally wrong with the system.
It simply means that a nutcase did something nutty on the basis of what he might have got out of the system.
Thing is, though, you'd think that if the benefits system was in some way contributory, the judge would probably have mentioned that somewhere. As far as I know she used the word "benefits" exactly once, and that was in context of material about Philpott's control over the women in his life.
But who needs a judge when you've got a headline writer, eh?
No, it's a stupid question and a stupid poll. Typical of the Daily Mail. I also notice their headline says "But, beware, the Left WILL try to hijack the result". So it doesn't matter what the result is as they'll just say it was hijacked if it doesn't go their way.
I agree; it's a typical Tory upper-class twit attitude.
Thing is, though, you'd think that if the benefits system was in some way contributory, the judge would probably have mentioned that somewhere. As far as I know he used the word "benefits" exactly once, and that was in context of material about Philpott's control over the women in his life.
But who needs a judge when you've got a headline writer, eh?
Was there no mention of the reasons for setting the fire?
No, it's a stupid question and a stupid poll. Typical of the Daily Mail. I also notice their headline says "But, beware, the Left WILL try to hijack the result". So it doesn't matter what the result is as they'll just say it was hijacked if it doesn't go their way.
Essentially that headline translates as "spend 50p of YOUR money on bumping up a number which we're telling you right now will mean absolutely nothing". It's like someone monetised the "Count To A Million" thread.
Must say, I suspect that a lot of people are voting purely on the basis that they disagree with the implication that people on benefits are, somehow, scumbags or something.
If the poll question here had been "Do you think George Osbourne and the DM are acting like pricks in this case?" then I've certainly have voted "yes".
As it is, however, if we're honest I can't see how anybody can genuinely say that they don't believe the thought of extra benefits and/or a new house didn't motivate Philpott.
Course, that's not to say there's anything fundamentally wrong with the system.
It simply means that a nutcase did something nutty on the basis of what he might have got out of the system.
What people don't realise is that Philpott actually could have moved at any time he wanted, surely people have seen In the media where people rent multimillion pound houses at the cost of the tax payer. He could have chose to private rent a seven bedroomed house and made the council foot the bill.
What people don't realise is that Philpott actually could have moved at any time he wanted, surely people have seen In the media where people rent multimillion pound houses at the cost of the tax payer. He could have chose to private rent a seven bedroomed house and made the council foot the bill.
Did you find anything about the motive for setting the fire?
Yes, to frame Lisa Willis. "You could not stand the fact that she had crossed you. You were determined to make sure she came back and you began to put together your plan". Prosecutors claimed it was for another house; the judge said nothing of the sort.
Ha ha probably because most are actually on benefits!
most are working but get in work benefits, like DWP staff, goverment workers, teachers, social workers nurses, hospital staff, council workers, retail staff, health workers, and thousands of other workers
I thought the news said he'd requested a bigger house and been refused?
He had, but that was a council house, a house with the LA, he could have chose to private rent and there is nothing they could have done to stop him.
A lady in the same street as I live in has four children, her husband doesn't work but she works part time, they private rent and she pays so much and the council pay the rest with housing benefit. The rent is £1000 per month, she chose to private rent because the council had no houses big enough for her family.
It feels as if we're making excuses for this scumbag. The DM already campaign against the welfare state so they don't need to use this terrible tragedy. Most of his children are still alive. They're not caring what all this is doing to them?
I honestly cannot believe some people have actually answered yes to this...
Philpott was an f-ing sick person. He carried it out because of this, the fact that they were in receipt of benefits has nothing to do with it.
But as usual Tories and their sheep use this to deflect away from the truth and to further attack those who are truly in need of benefits.
S'funny, I see your reply as a bit of a red herring.
There's no reason why people can't have different reasons for doing things and it simply seem that in this case, the potential to take further advantage of the benefit system DID motivate this particular person to take action.
But I made precisely that concession elsewhere in the same post, since it's been reported he wanted a further 5 kids back, those belonging to his mistress, so that he could get all the child benefit (again).
The reason the issue, the Mail's poll, is a red herring is that money motivates all manner of people to commit crimes like this, so blaming benefit cuture and focusing exclusively on this case carries no weight, not unless you have a class agenda like the Daily Mail.
After all the same newspaper did not run a poll to ask of the middle class businessman who murdered his entire family and then set fire to their home:
Did being highly ambitious for money, wishing to be upwardly mobile and living an unnecessaily luxurious lifestyle which was beyond your means lead to the pointless and brutal murder of a family?
No, not at all. Mick Philpott is an evil man. By saying it is is the welfare system that's at fault, it's like saying everyone that claims any form of benefit (in or out of work benefit, sickness and disability benefits, tax credits, child benefits, even pensions are included) is as evil as this man, has 17 kids and is prepared to put 6 of them in grave danger just for benefits.
He is a case all on his own and apart from that, does anyone even know his motives?
But I made precisely that concession elsewhere in the same post, since it's been reported he wanted a further 5 kids back, those belonging to his mistress, so that he could get all the child benefit (again).
The reason the issue, the Mail's poll, is a red herring is that money motivates all manner of people to commit crimes like this, so blaming benefit cuture and focusing exclusively on this case carries no weight, not unless you have a class agenda like the Daily Mail.
After all the same newspaper did not run a poll to ask of the middle class businessman who murdered his entire family and then set fire to their home:
Did being highly ambitious for money, wishing to be upwardly mobile and living an unnecessaily luxurious lifestyle which was beyond your means lead to the pointless and brutal murder of a family?
But that's not what THIS poll is asking.
This poll is asking whether benefits contributed to Philpott's actions.
Comments
I am so glad you've started this poll. When I viewed the DM results I thought surely not that many people would be so dam stupid to actually be drawn into the propaganda of hate towards the poor which is being projected by our current government.
When they bang on about the welfare state they fail to remind people that at least 50% of the welfare budget is actually spent on pensioners. Pensioners cost this country far more than children and the workless but do the government attack them? No because they can vote. They could have had an immediate raise of the pension age to 70 for thosewho are yet to retire and stop cold weather payments to everyone who didn't claim pension credit. It would save millions.
I am far from a fan of Labour but the ConDem party is by far the more frightening combination that I have had the displeasure to witness.
What is actually the worst thing is that Philpot family were also a working family!
George is tarring people that work and are poor.
Not that that should affect the benefits system - anything can be abused.
It doesn't, you know.
Priceless!:D:D:D
Must say, I suspect that a lot of people are voting purely on the basis that they disagree with the implication that people on benefits are, somehow, scumbags or something.
If the poll question here had been "Do you think George Osbourne and the DM are acting like pricks in this case?" then I've certainly have voted "yes".
As it is, however, if we're honest I can't see how anybody can genuinely say that they don't believe the thought of extra benefits and/or a new house didn't motivate Philpott.
Course, that's not to say there's anything fundamentally wrong with the system.
It simply means that a nutcase did something nutty on the basis of what he might have got out of the system.
But who needs a judge when you've got a headline writer, eh?
I agree; it's a typical Tory upper-class twit attitude.
Was there no mention of the reasons for setting the fire?
Essentially that headline translates as "spend 50p of YOUR money on bumping up a number which we're telling you right now will mean absolutely nothing". It's like someone monetised the "Count To A Million" thread.
I can't find anything about "benefits" other than "their wages and their benefits went into your account, you controlled how money was spent."
What people don't realise is that Philpott actually could have moved at any time he wanted, surely people have seen In the media where people rent multimillion pound houses at the cost of the tax payer. He could have chose to private rent a seven bedroomed house and made the council foot the bill.
http://www.people.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2011/08/14/family-given-2-million-pound-house-paid-by-the-taxpayer-102039-23342833/
There was no benefit cap at the time of his crimes.
His violent tendency made him commit his crimes.
Terrific.
Did you find anything about the motive for setting the fire?
I thought the news said he'd requested a bigger house and been refused?
Yes, to frame Lisa Willis. "You could not stand the fact that she had crossed you. You were determined to make sure she came back and you began to put together your plan". Prosecutors claimed it was for another house; the judge said nothing of the sort.
most are working but get in work benefits, like DWP staff, goverment workers, teachers, social workers nurses, hospital staff, council workers, retail staff, health workers, and thousands of other workers
He had, but that was a council house, a house with the LA, he could have chose to private rent and there is nothing they could have done to stop him.
A lady in the same street as I live in has four children, her husband doesn't work but she works part time, they private rent and she pays so much and the council pay the rest with housing benefit. The rent is £1000 per month, she chose to private rent because the council had no houses big enough for her family.
Philpott was an f-ing sick person. He carried it out because of this, the fact that they were in receipt of benefits has nothing to do with it.
But as usual Tories and their sheep use this to deflect away from the truth and to further attack those who are truly in need of benefits.
But I made precisely that concession elsewhere in the same post, since it's been reported he wanted a further 5 kids back, those belonging to his mistress, so that he could get all the child benefit (again).
The reason the issue, the Mail's poll, is a red herring is that money motivates all manner of people to commit crimes like this, so blaming benefit cuture and focusing exclusively on this case carries no weight, not unless you have a class agenda like the Daily Mail.
After all the same newspaper did not run a poll to ask of the middle class businessman who murdered his entire family and then set fire to their home:
Did being highly ambitious for money, wishing to be upwardly mobile and living an unnecessaily luxurious lifestyle which was beyond your means lead to the pointless and brutal murder of a family?
Shame other people who genuinely depend on benefits have to suffer due to one guy.
The DM are going out of their way to make sure other people suffer.
He is a case all on his own and apart from that, does anyone even know his motives?
But that's not what THIS poll is asking.
This poll is asking whether benefits contributed to Philpott's actions.
The answer is almost certainly "yes".