Was the Daily Mail right to call Mick Philpott a vile product of the Welfare System?

(352 Posts)
Notsoyummymummy1 Thu 04-Apr-13 12:57:24

Can we say that benefits create this kind of man? I don't think so!

No they weren't. He's one person.

He should never have had children but since the only way to prevent that makes us all nazi scum as a society we have to instead put up with the odd aberration.

willyoulistentome Thu 04-Apr-13 13:03:10

The Benefits system didn't make him selfish, controlling and abusive. It didn't make him move two women into his place and treat them like (sex) slaves. It didn't make him set fire to the house, but I think it is to blame for enabling him to not work, but keep having kids when he should have stopped probaby 10 kids before he did.

NiceTabard Thu 04-Apr-13 13:09:57

Of course it was an outrageous thing to say.
On so many fronts.
But what do you expect from the DM they are bastard scum.

ParsingFancy Thu 04-Apr-13 13:14:01

If receiving child-related benefits and tax breaks turned people into mass murderers, the whole of MN should be detained for public safety.

janey68 Thu 04-Apr-13 13:16:54

No, of course it didn't create him. He's an evil man. It is his responsibility and his alone that he was a killer

I also think its entirely compatible with that view to say that the system facilitated a lot of his actions, specifically fathering 17 children, and being able to have access to money which put him in the equivalent of the top percentage of earners. I suspect that the fact the system is (or certainly was- things are changing) so blatantly open to abuse also contributed to his sense of being able to get away with whatever he liked. He is an abuser- so a system that let him abuse it was bound to make him feel more indestructible. But no, obviously the welfare system itself did not make him evil

chicaguapa Thu 04-Apr-13 13:17:04

He is evidence of how the welfare system could be exploited to the extent that he did.

But the welfare system didn't make him a vile person.

janey68 Thu 04-Apr-13 13:17:05

No, of course it didn't create him. He's an evil man. It is his responsibility and his alone that he was a killer

I also think its entirely compatible with that view to say that the system facilitated a lot of his actions, specifically fathering 17 children, and being able to have access to money which put him in the equivalent of the top percentage of earners. I suspect that the fact the system is (or certainly was- things are changing) so blatantly open to abuse also contributed to his sense of being able to get away with whatever he liked. He is an abuser- so a system that let him abuse it was bound to make him feel more indestructible. But no, obviously the welfare system itself did not make him evil

midoriway Thu 04-Apr-13 13:18:27

Definitely, because appalling abusive men didn't exist before the development of the welfare safety net.

Sheila Thu 04-Apr-13 13:24:39

Please just stop reading the Daily Mail. If we ignore them they might go away.

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 13:32:17

Well put Janey, I agree.

He is a vile creature regardless of the welfare state BUT the benefits system actively encouraged him financially to have so many children and, if it is to be believed, the fire was started so they could have custody of five more children thus bolstering his bank account further.

The welfare state did not create him but it did allow him to flourish.

ParsingFancy Thu 04-Apr-13 13:37:51

I don't even agree that the welfare state facilitated him in being evil.

That suggests that he would have behaved differently without it. I've lived in developing countries with no safety net whatsoever, but plenty of abusers. Sadly among my friends' families.

The welfare state actually facilitates partners and children getting away from abusers.

Not everyone does get out. But very many, here on MN, who have escaped used the welfare state to help them.

FasterStronger Thu 04-Apr-13 13:39:41

throughout his life he appears to have been a dreadful person but the welfare system enabled him to have 2 partners and 17 children, which he could not support himself. it also enabled him to not even try to support his family.

it enabled him to use such a large number of people, living under the same roof as him (making them more vulnerable), to feed his ego.

he is the type of person who would exploit any person or opportunity when he could. he shows our current system is flawed but would not be stopped by any change to any system. if there was no welfare, he would find someone different to exploit.

the TV character, Shameless Mick, the workshy father of 17, was a reality tv zeitgeist and was a product of the current welfare system but without it the real Phillpot would still have been a dangerous man.

ParsingFancy Thu 04-Apr-13 13:43:28

But jenny, the claim he was trying to get the children for the money doesn't make sense.

Even in his warped mind, if they were his cash cows, he needed them alive or it was all for nothing.

His lack of enthusiasm for rescuing them or grief at their death (which is what made the police suspicious), fits absolutely perfectly with the age-old of scenario of man destroying children to punish mother, or so that if he couldn't have them, no one could.

It doesn't fit at all with them being financially valuable property.

janey68 Thu 04-Apr-13 13:46:44

Parsing- what you say is entirely compatible with what others are saying. The thing is: it's not black and white is it? The system may in some cases HELP people extricate themselves from awful situations. And the system undeniably supports many in genuine need. However it's equally true that the same system facilitated philpott to not work, father endless children and have access to very large sums of money, quite a bit of which was used on drugs and alcohol according to the trial reports. So while
He alone is responsible for killing- not the welfare state-'It enabled him to make those life choices

FasterStronger Thu 04-Apr-13 13:48:59

parsing - he was not trying to kill the DCs. he wanted to fit up his ex and move the DCs back with him.

janey68 Thu 04-Apr-13 13:49:11

And the whole point about Needing the children alive- well, the murder charges were quickly dropped because clearly the evidence was that he did not intend to kill the children. He wanted to 'rescue' them in some sick attempt to gain hero status

FasterStronger Thu 04-Apr-13 13:49:58

parsing - His lack of enthusiasm for rescuing them

he used too much petrol and the fire was much larger than he expected.

ParsingFancy Thu 04-Apr-13 13:54:35

Actually, now I'm thinking beyond mere revulsion at the DM's behaviour, I find this more and more chilling.

It smacks more and more of the sort of anti-abortion activist who rubs their hands with glee at the (very rare) death of a mother due to termination complications, and says, "Look, look, you awful pro-choice murderers have killed this woman. We're trying to prevent terminations because we actually really care for women and you lot don't."

The same people keep very quiet on the rather higher maternal mortality figures in full-term childbirth. Just as the DM keeps very quiet on lives saved by the welfare state, of people escaping DV.

FasterStronger Thu 04-Apr-13 13:59:28

except no one is saying we should not have a welfare state or not having one would have prevented Mick abusing people differently.

so I really cannot see how you analogy holds in any way.

ParsingFancy Thu 04-Apr-13 13:59:48

The amount of petrol didn't stop the neighbours having a damn good go at getting the children out. Much more so than Philpott.

ParsingFancy Thu 04-Apr-13 14:02:48

"no one is saying we should not have a welfare state or not having one would have prevented Mick abusing people differently"

Then having a welfare state was not facilitating him, was it? If he was going to behave that way anyway?

lemonmuffin Thu 04-Apr-13 14:04:17

He is only one person, yes, but quite likely the tip of a similar iceberg.

The benefit system enabled him to sit at home, breeding lots and lots of children with different women, and living in a house with plenty of mod cons, drink, drugs whenever he fancied etc.

Without ever doing a stroke of work.
Because it was all paid for. By the benefit system.
Time to reconsider, I would say.

janey68 Thu 04-Apr-13 14:04:24

I don;t think people on here are defending the DM's stance. Just pointing out that in this particular case, the system facilitated Philpott to make these choices. It enabled him to father countless children and to have access to large sums of money. It provided an incentive for someone who had a warped mind, to keep having children.

It's entirely possible to hold that view while simultaneously thinking the DM and everything it stands for is scum

The vast vast vast vast majority of humans aren't like Philpott. He is evil. But the system allowed him life choices which built on his narcissistic and abusive character. I've no doubt the very fact that he could see he was abusing the welfare system, and that it was comparatively easy to do so because he would continue to get more money the more kids he had, would have boosted his ego even more. A bully likes the feeling of power, and he must have been laughing at a system which enabled this. Remember at one point he was having a child a year with two women

ParsingFancy Thu 04-Apr-13 14:06:56

People like Philpott have the 17 children anyway, welfare state or no welfare state.

Sadly, I know the children of some. In a developing country. Where there is perfectly good contraception but men try to stop women using it.

It's nonsense to say the welfare state "enabled" him to have children. Men like this have them anyway.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now