ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
To ask someone to explain how Philpott could claim 60k?(99 Posts)
I should start by saying that I usually ignore the headlines in the Daily Fail about people who are able to claim mind-boggling amounts of benefits as I believe such cases are few and far between. However, I can't help but question the numbers being widely quoted in the press today.
I have seen figures of between £1,000 and £2,000 a month quoted as being the loss in child benefit Philpott anticipated if his ex got custody of their 5 kids. This suggests child benefit is between £40 and £80 per child per week, which it obviously isn't.
I thought unemployed people could claim £53 per week, so even if he was able to also get child benefit for 11 kids, this doesn't add up to 60k. Both the women were working as cleaners, so not sure what other benefits they would get (and be forced to hand over to him).
I know he was getting housing benefit, but they were living in a 3 bed house in Derby, so surely the rent couldn't have been that much.
I know he is a dreadful individual and he clearly had made a decision to live off the state and the women he manipulated, but is there actually any truth behind the figure of 60k or has this been plucked out of thin air?
Trying but failing to find link for that story listing all the benefits.
But ffs, people need prescriptions & glasses if they need them. It's not like you can swap spectacles for Sky & widescreen tellies in every room is it? (Is it?)
If the Telegraph is right about Mick losing £1k income when Lisa went, that £1k would probably include the school uniform (that's paltry anyway) & healthy start vouchers, too, so in the numbers I was coming up with.
The cold weather payments depend on actually having cold weather and are per property (I think). only had 2 qualifying weeks in this last (very cold) winter in DE24 (Philpott's postcode area, I think). So woohoo, another £50 a year. That really boosts the numbers (not).
I interpret the figures they quote as 'if they were not claiming benefits they would have to earn the equivalent of £60k before tax to have the their current level of income' not' they received £60k in benefits'
To be honest though, this whole story of how much is detracting from what should be focused on...they actually killed their children and for THAT reason alone should be despised.
Why are people so obsessed with picking apart the minutiae of his lifestyle. He makes my skin crawl..the less I think about him the better, yet there are loads of threads poring over him and his income. Just don't get it.
...yet there are loads of threads poring over him and his income. Just don't get it.
Pressumably because the financial implications of the children's mother leaving him was the motive for his horrendous crime?
I dont get the poring over his motives either.
Was honestly not judging people for doing so, I just don't get it.
Was just musing.
100k is the equivalency he would have had to earn to get the net sum of 63k (I think it was 63, might have been 65)
So in all, with all the CB, housing, income support, FSM, tax credits and so forth, factoring in the money the women earned cleaning, he had 60k+ coming in
Lisa leaving with the children meant an approx. 2k drop in his income per month, which is round about a 38% drop in his household income per month
People are " bothered" about his income because many of us are really,really fed up of working hard to subsidise feckless,feral scum like this. And don't say that these people are a tiny minority of benefits claimants. A minority, certainly. I could throw a stone from my front door and hit the front doors of at least four families screwing the system. This is the reality.
I can understand why it's part of the story but I think the outrage should focus on what he did, not what he took. It's not like they were living the high life anyway, and you'd have to be a bit mad to keep having children to get more in benefits.
what is really sad, is that THIS is the question you ask. This.
of all the questions you could ask about domestic abuse, the previous stabbing of a girlfriend and the murder of 6 children.
The daily mail nation has won
I am disgusted
Heard a bloke being interviewed on radio who had built his conservatory. His benefits must have been good if he was able to afford a conservatory.
thingsthatmakeyougohmm sorry, but people like this are a tiny minority. Read Jon Snow's blog on C4 site. He has the facts - there are only 30 families in the country with 11 or more children claiming benefits as the Philpotts did. 30. The vast majority (almost 1m) have one or two children.
Put that in your
effing pipe and smoke it.
Jeremy Vine Show around 1pm today for reference and the bloke was commenting on the crime. He said he knew him because he had done his conservatory.
"you'd have to be a bit mad to keep having children to get more in benefits."
As opposed to getting up every morning and working?
Much nicer to stay at home.
But isn't the original question regarding his benefits the underlying motivation for the crime he committed. Pure greed.
Oh, one commentator says more than 11,tiny minority. One says more than 13, even tinier.
How about more than 3. Not quite so tiny, I suspect.
Put that in your effin pipe and smoke it.
Thing is all Children get free prescriptions and help for glasses. At the time cb was a universal benefit - so to count up what you get just for being a child is ludicrous. Maybe I should march down the primary school and shout scrounger at all the infants.
The Freedom of Information Act disclosed there are only 180 families in the UK, claiming benefit (non working parents), with 10 or more children - and 40,000 in the same boat with 5 or more children.
And also fucking obscene to be totting up the cost of some deceased childrens meals. Equating each child to a sum of money and little more , just as mick may have done.
If you get working tax credits they act as a barrier to claiming free school meals and healthy start vouchers this means you cannot obtain fsm and the vouchers if you get wtc
So there is one chunk of it gone already.
A LA 3 bed council house in that area will be between £92 pw and £105 pw.
if the figures quoted are correct, that equates to 4.5K per annum, per head. I wouldn't like to try and juggle a family on that.
But in all fairness its very unlikely money had anything to do with ether him having lots of kids or him attempting to get custody of the children that left with mum.
Its power and control.
If you are that type of man it is in your interests to have as many kids as possible as each child makes the mother more dependant more vulnerable mostly easier to emotionally manipulate and due to the outlook most victims of DV usually have ( right up until they snap and leave) is a long term thing about wanting to keep the families together and a strange loyalty towards the father of her children so harder to leave.
When she finally does get the courage to leave because she has finally snapped again the children get used to exert power and control,
The most common and effective form of none physically violent domestic abuse used after the mum has got the strength to leave is to go down the whole child residency process. Because it is a legally sanctioned way to attack the mother and use the target she is usually most protective about to intimidate her further.
And you rarely look like a abuser when doing it your just a dad fighting for his kids.
A woman is most at risk of serious assault or murder at the time of leaving the violent relationship and then within the first year. Add that to trying to leave when you have that many children it makes every thing feel much harder.
( from personal experience I know its hard to find refuge places for mothers with lots of children and mums with boys over 12 years old)
To a abusive man placing the woman your abuseing in that situation makes your abuse easier its almost like a prime DV tool for a lack of a better way to word it.
Just for the record, the reason I asked the question is that I was outraged by both the Daily Mail and George Osborne's comments and the suggestion that this case was in some way caused by the welfare system as this is an appalling conclusion to reach.
There seemed to be a lot of conflicting and misleading figures being quoted in the press, which made me wonder if the numbers were either totally made up or at least being manipulated to serve a purpose, so I wanted to understand whether there was any truth behind the headlines.
There are many other questions I could have asked, such as why a mother and father would endanger their children's lives, how a father could show no real remorse after killing his six children, why their "friend" would boast about being charged with murder etc., but I fear that the mumsnet jury would not be able to adequately answer any of these questions.
Presumably they wouldn't need to be earning 60K as child benefit would be paid to any parents whatever they earned so doesn't count. But 60 k sounds so much worse so let's just quite that...
Op I thought it was quite obvious why you asked so don't think it was vile you doing so.
No I didnt think you were being vile - I think the papers are. Both on the way they are 'totting up' these kids. And in the way they seem to think this was all 'caused' by benefits. As someone said above it completely misses the point. What's interesting is how he got such control over the women, his pattern with woman after woman, the lack of remorse, the sheer stupidity, how willing or non willing his wife was, how and if this maps on to a wider scale of DV and domestic tyranny in the uk.
I apologise if I offended you op. I'm just so saddened that those poor kids as forgotten and there is no real attempt at analysis, just simplistic knee jerk crap.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.