Did the benefits system contribute to the Philpott fire killings?

Uk Ltd · 05/04/13 - 14:52

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.

annette kurten · 05/04/13 - 14:53

No

no.
...

mackara · 05/04/13 - 14:55

No

No.... are you a daily wail reporter?

Auntie Climax · 05/04/13 - 14:57

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.

annette kurten · 05/04/13 - 14:58

No

pointless poll is pointless.

dee123 · 05/04/13 - 14:58

No

No. Typical Daily Fail.

stoatie · 05/04/13 - 14:59

It was a stupid question when the Mail asked it; nothing has changed.

Jane Doh! · 05/04/13 - 15:00

No

No. What a load of crap, even by the Mail's standards.

James Frederick · 05/04/13 - 15:01

No

Of course not only a complete idiot would think it did

dearmrman · 05/04/13 - 15:02

No

No! lets blame someone else culture again. He was entirely responsible.

[Deleted User] · 05/04/13 - 15:02

No

Of course not.

DaisyBumbleroot · 05/04/13 - 15:03

No

No, no and no

fink · 05/04/13 - 15:04

At least the thread title has been changed to accurately reflect what the poll asks, instead of that original blatant lie by the OP.

Bill Clinton · 05/04/13 - 15:05

No

There are nasty people around benefits or not, he'd already had a history of violence and even got sent down for it, before he had benefits for all those children. There were similar crimes to Philpotts' in victorian times before "benefits" existed. A businessman in Oswestry who was losing money set fire to his mansion after killing his wife and daughter, equally barbaric but as already pointed out by various people we did not get a headline from the Daily Mail reading "Vile product of business UK"

It would be more accurate to say that money itself was culpable leading people into desperate situations and actions, if only money was a lot LESS important in our society!

Uk Ltd · 05/04/13 - 15:06

No

mackara wrote: »

No.... are you a daily wail reporter?

Read the OP :rolleyes:;)

ribtickle · 05/04/13 - 15:10

I see the question as a complete red herring. After all, the middle and upper classes are not averse to starting fires, or bumping each other off for life insurance or soon after Wills have been changed.

There was the case a few years ago of a middle class businessman who set fire to his large detached house, set in its own grounds, after murdering his family, although he then killed himself, and all because he couldn't face the shame of a social climbdown following imminent bankruptcy.

As the Philpott case has been reported, I'd have to concede that perhaps this fire was at least partly motivated by Philpott wanting custody of another of his 5 children so he could start receiving their child benefit all over again. Though I think the primary motive for him wanting them back was control.

But countless other cases could be made to show that being greedy and overambitious, or imagining you have an inalienable right to inherit Daddy's pile, can also lead to equally grisly deeds. And even though ambition for money and the selfishness that imbues is the common theme, it's class which is the Daily Mail's permanent agenda.

Si_Crewe · 05/04/13 - 15:10

Yes

I voted yes, purely on the basis that the system we have probably motivated a nutcase to do something nutty.

I mean, if we didn't have this system, he'd probably not have bothered having children at all, let alone burning down his house in the hope of getting a better one.

The system isn't responsible for his actions though, any more than Subaru is responsible for making a driver break a speed limit or Smith & Wesson is responsible for a mass shooting.
Nutcases take advantage of whatever facilities are available to them in order to do nutty things.

[Deleted User] · 05/04/13 - 15:11

No

James Frederick wrote: »

Of course not only a complete idiot would think it did

Currently 74% of mail readers are idiots (I know only 74%)

Over the last few days there have been right wing defenders on this forum saying that 'no one is claiming that this Phillpot animal killed his children because of the welfare state'
Well now they are coming right out and saying it.
To use the tragic deaths of six children as a stick to beat the poor with is sick beyond any words.

Bill Clinton · 05/04/13 - 15:14

No

ribtickle wrote: »

I see the question as a complete red herring. After all, the middle and upper classes are not averse to starting fires, or bumping each other off for life insurance or soon after Wills have been changed.

There was the case a few years ago of a middle class businessman who set fire to his large detached house, set in its own grounds, after murdering his family, although he then killed himself, and all because he couldn't face the shame of a social climbdown following imminent bankruptcy.

As the Philpott case has been reported, I'd have to concede that perhaps this fire was at least partly motivated by Philpott wanting custody of another of his 5 children so he could start receiving their child benefit all over again. Though I think the primary motive for him wanting them back was control.

But countless other cases could be made to show that being greedy and overambitious, or imagining you have an inalienable right to inherit Daddy's pile, can also lead to equally grisly deeds. And even though ambition for money and the selfishness that imbues is the common theme, it's class which is the Daily Mail's permanent agenda.

So we have a society where somebody rich cannot bear to lose it to the extent that he will murder his family and himself, that is the true "evil" a society which places money at the heart of anyone self worth and right to exist. Benefits mitigate the effect of that, by providing you with an income without having to sustain it yourself therefore reducing anxiety and pressure, giving you a right to exist without resorting to desperate measures, I'm willing to bet that quite the converse, had the welfare state not been created we'd actually have seen a lot more crime, money-related in particular, but we'll never directly see the results of it, as these were crimes never committed as they didn't need to be.

fink · 05/04/13 - 15:15

I think it is a fair question to ask anyway. Mick Philpott epitomised welfare abuse, it's who he is and the culture of dependency permeated his shambolic and chaotic existence. It was likely the reason he churned out so many kids in the first place. He is a competely irresponsible, reckless, expectant individual who revelled in his status, even appearing on TV several times to exploit it. So were benefits and their abuse of a contributor to the man Mick Philpott eventually became? Yes. Thus benefits were a contributor, but only tenuously.

James Frederick · 05/04/13 - 15:17

No

Si_Crewe wrote: »

I voted yes, purely on the basis that the system we have probably motivated a nutcase to do something nutty.

I mean, if we didn't have this system, he'd probably not have bothered having children at all, let alone burning down his house in the hope of getting a better one.

The system isn't responsible for his actions though, any more than Subaru is responsible for making a driver break a speed limit or Smith & Wesson is responsible for a mass shooting.
Nutcases take advantage of whatever facilities are available to them in order to do nutty things.

I disagree I think he would have had as many children with or without benefits.

It's more about control to him and given his obsession with sex the only difference would have been the kids would have starved and he may have done something like this sooner to get insurance money

SJ_Mental · 05/04/13 - 15:20

No

A manipulative selfish **** can be someone of any income.

Si_Crewe · 05/04/13 - 15:31

Yes

ribtickle wrote: »

I see the question as a complete red herring. After all, the middle and upper classes are not averse to starting fires, or bumping each other off for life insurance or soon after Wills have been changed.

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.

James Frederick wrote: »

I disagree I think he would have had as many children with or without benefits.

It's more about control to him and given his obsession with sex the only difference would have been the kids would have starved and he may have done something like this sooner to get insurance money

Kinda related to the above, we can only judge on the basis of what did happen.

If we were living in a world where there was some other thing for a nutcase to take advantage of then, sure, we'd probably be talking about that instead.

As it is, it seems impossible to deny that here we have a guy who saw his family as assets and who tried to take advantage of the system that we DO have for his own gain.

Uk Ltd · 05/04/13 - 15:36

No

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.

fink · 05/04/13 - 15:37

Uk Ltd wrote: »

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.

Yeah, course it does.

[Deleted User] · 05/04/13 - 15:39

Yes

Uk Ltd wrote: »

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.

Ha ha probably because most are actually on benefits!

Hey there!

Quick Links

Did the benefits system contribute to the Philpott fire killings?

Did the benefits system contribute to the Philpott fire killings? 357 votes

Comments