I'm disgusted by Osbourne jumping on the Phillpott bandwagon created by the DM

(374 Posts)
aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 14:18:50

So, yesterday there was outrage after the pictures of dead children were used in the most cynical way by the Daily Mail to sell the idea that welfare "scroungers" are evil, with Phillpott branded a "vile product" of the benefit system by the DM.

What's our government's response today?

George Osborne, when asked about the claims, said a debate was needed about whether the state should "subsidise lifestyles like that". link

To add insult to injury, he was visiting Derby when he said this (which is where the children lived and died).

How fucking insensitive can you get? angry

Latara Thu 04-Apr-13 14:22:15

My first biscuit to George Osborne then.

BumpingFuglies Thu 04-Apr-13 14:22:42

YANBU. Predictable though, comes at a very convenient time.

Hope you are also ready for the predictable agreements from certain posters sad

Speechless at that tbh. It just keeps getting worse.

Latara Thu 04-Apr-13 14:25:11

Seriously, Philpott's anti-social behaviour started when he was working & in the Army - a fact that the DM etc have conveniently ignored.

He went AWOL from the Army to stab his partner (27 times!!) then got a 7 year sentence for the crime (served only half).

Can George Osborne also blame the Army, the knife shop & our crap prison sentencing for Philpott's behaviour?

MaryMotherOfCheeses Thu 04-Apr-13 14:25:40

Well, that's George Osbourne for you.

However much he's tries to come across as one of the lads I'm afraid he's always gonna be an arse.

SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter Thu 04-Apr-13 14:26:30

No, YANBU - but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell you why you are BU, and that is perfectly acceptable for Osborne to say things like that.

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 14:27:15

What does he mean "subsidise lifestyles like that" anyway?

I would say the correct, human response would be to suggest solutions such as providing support for women and DCs stuck in situations like this, to get away from psychpatic people such as Phillpott.

Or to talk about what failed in the authorities' duty protection for these DCs from a violent, dangerous father.

How could anyone with an ounce of humanity use this as an excuse to talk about taking away the funding for these DCs? If they'd been left to starve, would that have gone any way to stop their psychopathic father killing them? Of course not!

Apparently Phillpott wanted the childrens' funeral fund to be paid to him. I see Osbourne as no better than this, or worse even. These poor children are dead, but Osbourne just wants their money. And not only theirs, but all children whose parents live "lifestyles like that" (whatever that means).

Talk about picking on those who have no voice.

Osbourne has sunk to a new low today.

Latara Thu 04-Apr-13 14:27:32

Also getting a job after a sentence for Attempted Murder can't be easy (strange, that).

I doubt any employers would have wanted to give Philpott a job and if they did then he would have been a rubbish employee by all accounts of his type of personality.

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 14:29:38

1) Ann Widdecombe found him three jobs which he declined to take.

2) How much more support for women like Mairaid do you mean? It's well documented that her family tried to help her to leave countless times and she refused.

TheBigJessie Thu 04-Apr-13 14:31:50

I am disgusted. If the existence of the welfare system is remotely relevant to an incident of a known perpetrator of domestic violence trying to revenge himself on the woman who left him, then I say that Francis Maude, of the "store petrol in a jerry can at home" comments, is undeniably responsible for this incident a few years back.

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4230734/Horror-as-fuel-hoarder-Diane-Hill-is-torched.html

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 14:35:03

I do think some of you are missing the point.

That is that none of these children would have been, left to starve by a tighter welfare system but simply that most of them would probably never have been born ( and subsequently killed) under a tighter system.

Latara Thu 04-Apr-13 14:35:31

You mean he was actually offered 3 jobs when i nearly lost mine? (due to MH illness. I literally had to beg my Manager to keep me at work, and that only on part time reduced role for now).

Fucking hell life is so unfair.

Molehillmountain Thu 04-Apr-13 14:36:05

The Daily Mail story has managed to do what countless other experiences have-I've become politicised. I can't change things by voting where I live so I'm going to join the Labour Party. So for that I'm grateful and feel a bit pleased that they've achieved the polar opposite result from me than they'd presumably desire. George Osborne? Odious views.

Molehillmountain Thu 04-Apr-13 14:37:03

Sorry - countless other experiences haven't!

flippinada Thu 04-Apr-13 14:38:17

YANBU at all, but as others have mentioned, people will be along shortly to tell you you're wrong.

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 14:38:24

I think the Philpott story has crystallised lots of people's politics, molehill. Plenty for the Tories, though, judging by what I'm reading/who I'm talking to.

Latara Thu 04-Apr-13 14:39:01

The upsetting thing is that those kids were in bed & only 1 had proper nightwear on - one was in jeans, 2 in underwear, 1 in his school uniform bless him.

Yet Mick Phillpott had luxury goods (TV, Snooker table etc) downstairs.

My best mate has been TTC for 2 years - she'd never treat children that way.

It's not benefits that cause bad parenting - a working parent, WC or MC can be a domestic neglectful bully as we all know!

mercibucket Thu 04-Apr-13 14:39:06

If anyone poor commits a crime, it is due to their working class, chav nature. First rule of nob.

Lovelygoldboots Thu 04-Apr-13 14:42:56

Jennywren, those children were very real. You have not made a point. They died terrible deaths and the DM and Osborne are using that for their own ends. It chills me to the bone.

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 14:45:58

The loss of those children is beyond horrific but they died at their parents hands.

What motivated the murders ( and yes, I stand by that word) is what now concerns us.

Regardless of anything else, a member of our government should NOT be making ridiculous, inflammatory comments on a story that does not concern the government at all. Because it doesn't.
This story should never have had benefits added into the equation. It is a massive red herring that journalists are using to fuel their own agenda, in the most sickening way possible.

Philpott would have had that many children whether he could afford it or not, because he was a psychopath who had more and more children to feed his own ego.
But no. Because there's an agenda to push about the terrible benefit scroungers stealing all the hard-working taxpayers' money, the benefit system is entirely to blame for what happened.
FFS. How can people be so fucking stupid as to believe this tripe?

MarmaladeTwatkins Thu 04-Apr-13 14:46:29

You know, if I was a tinfoil hat-wearing type, I'd say that the Phillpott trial had been scheduled for this week, the week that all of the benefit cuts have been announced....

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 14:47:07

jennywren "I do think some of you are missing the point.

That is that none of these children would have been, left to starve by a tighter welfare system but simply that most of them would probably never have been born ( and subsequently killed) under a tighter system."

Really? You actually believe that?

It is you that's missing the point.

Six children have been killed. You have no way of knowing if they would have existed or not if state help didn't exist. That's pure conjecture. Yet you are using the horrible death of these children to push a political agenda, same as the DM and Osbourne.

And your answer to this horrible tragedy is try to to stop all poor people having kids, and to push those who do exist into poverty? Nice one hmm

This man didn't kill his kids because he was on benefits. He did it because he was a psychopath.

Shame on you.

RafflesWay Thu 04-Apr-13 14:48:17

Pity a white slave trader couldn't have carted him off to some hellhole where he could have made use of his "high sex drive". Vile Piece of human garbage but nothing to do with living on benefits. He was just as vile when he was serving in the army by the sounds of things. Also there are many high earning,hard working but vile creatures when off duty.

Latara Thu 04-Apr-13 14:48:42

Marmalade i'd be tempted to say you have a point re. the trial date. How very politically expedient for the govt.

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 14:48:56

galaxy you don't need to get rude. It was a civilised debate. None of us have said benefits made him but we have said that they enabled him to have children he may well not have had if he had had to raise them himself. The system also made him feel powerful and cocksure.

There is a real but subtle difference.

SherbetVodka Thu 04-Apr-13 14:50:30

I do think some of you are missing the point.

That is that none of these children would have been, left to starve by a tighter welfare system but simply that most of them would probably never have been born ( and subsequently killed) under a tighter system.

I do get that Osbourne's (and the Daily Mail's) point is that the children should never have been born in the first place.

And I think that no matter what you think of the Philpotts' lifestyle, it's absolutely disgusting not to mention extremely insensitive to imply that the main problem was that the children existed at all.

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 14:51:37

"we have said that [benefits] enabled him to have children he may well not have had if he had had to raise them himself."

"The system also made him feel powerful and cocksure."

And your proof of this is .... ?

This is conjecture! You are making dangerous assumptions and running with them.

HappyJoyful Thu 04-Apr-13 14:51:41

I saw this too and wondered what on earth he meant by "subsidise lifestyles like that" aufaniae

So he's going to get the '50"plasma tv and snooker table police' round to monitor what people are and aren't going to spend benefits on?

I know now there is going to be some changes to emergency payments that are made and these are in voucher form rather than cash. Perhaps this is where he is heading, I guess this would be an option in some ways.

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/26/payment-cards-emergency-assistance-food-stamps

LetsFaceTheMusicAndDance Thu 04-Apr-13 14:51:47

YANBU to be disgusted.
YWouldBU to be at all surprised.
Bastard - Osbourne, not you.

Owllady Thu 04-Apr-13 14:52:05

I think it was incredibly disrespectful of Gideon sad

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 14:52:43

Not at all. Or do you think being dragged up by Philpott and then being burnt to death by their parents was worth it because everyone's entitled to take what they want from the system? Are they a worthy sacrifice to the lefts cause?
Poor, poor children.

grovel Thu 04-Apr-13 14:53:29

I saw the interview.

Osborne was asked whether he agreed with the Daily Mail headline. I'd say he distanced himself from it because he said that Philpott, not the benefits culture, was responsible for the awful events.

He also said that the stuff about having a debate about benefits for people with lifestyles like Philpott's. I'm pretty queasy about spending £50,000 a year supporting the lifestyle of a convicted "attempted murderer" who has fathered 17 children by five women. It may be we conclude we've got no alternative (for the sake of the children or because compulsory sterilisation is beyond the pale) but I'm not averse to the idea of a debate.

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 14:53:31

" it's absolutely disgusting not to mention extremely insensitive to imply that the main problem was that the children existed at all."

Absolutely.

jennywren you would do well to pay attention to this.

"It was a civilised debate"

When 6 children have been killed, it's absolutely inhumane and certainly not at all civilised to react by saying they shouldn't have existed in the first place. Can you not see that?

MarmaladeTwatkins Thu 04-Apr-13 14:55:11

It's either been planned or has worked out to be a very happy coincidence for the Tories.

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 14:55:14

I have never said they should not have existed. Don;t put words in to my mouth.

I am saying that Philpott might have thought twice about having 17 if he'd had to pay for them all, like most of us have to.

PeachActiviaMinge Thu 04-Apr-13 14:55:46

It doesn't matter how much money you give someone you can't fix something thats broken. I'm on benefits my children come first every time I don't smoke or drink I have the internet as my luxury but if you gave someone like the Philpotts £500k a year it still wouldn't of been enough to save those children it wasn't money he wanted it was revenge. Some people aren't capable of loving another unconditionally and money won't fix it.

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 14:56:14

I'm not sure even the Tories have control over court dates, marmalade!

But I do agree it's a fortunate coincidence for them.

Latara Thu 04-Apr-13 14:56:20

I too feel that the DM & others are implying that the children 'should not have existed' - that is a disgusting and inhuman way to think.

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 14:56:57

Okaaay.

So how is saying "Philpott might have thought twice about having 17 if he'd had to pay for them all, like most of us have to."

and

"That is that none of these children would have been, left to starve by a tighter welfare system but simply that most of them would probably never have been born ( and subsequently killed) under a tighter system"

not the same thing as saying they shouldn't have existed?

FairyJen Thu 04-Apr-13 14:57:46

Indeed marmalade "coincidence" indeed

<< puts tin hat on >>

SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter Thu 04-Apr-13 14:58:10

jennywren45 he wouldn't have thought twice about having 17 children, he'd just have found a different way to exploit them. Maybe sent them out burgling, or pimped them out.

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 14:58:13

I think we may be reading things differently, then. I don;t think they are sating at all that those children shouldn't have existed but that they may not have existed under a less generous system.

I only have three children because two I would have liked to have had don't exist because I can't afford any more.

MarmaladeTwatkins Thu 04-Apr-13 14:59:06

"I'm not sure even the Tories have control over court dates, marmalade"

It must be nice living in your naive little world jenny but there are strings to be pulled both in the government and in courtrooms.

FairyJen Thu 04-Apr-13 15:00:17

Oh yes court dates are computer generated are they????

BruthasTortoise Thu 04-Apr-13 15:02:31

All conjecture of course but I don't believe that Philpott would've stopped having children had the money not been available for them. The implication behind that is that he cared about his children's welfare and there is no evidence to suggest that he did. As much as the children did bring income into the home, having small children also makes it much harder for women to flee so they are frequently used by abusive men to control their partners. Philpott was, imo, fundamentally a control freak as demonstrated by his first crime. He didn't attempt to murder his ex and her mother for financial gain, he did it because he lost control.

PeachActiviaMinge Thu 04-Apr-13 15:04:02

Philpott might have thought twice about having 17 if he'd had to pay for them all, like most of us have to.

He still would've recieved child tax credits and child benefit for them. More is paid out for in-work benefits than unemployment benefits. You can not change who someone is deep down. He is greedy, selfish and evil benefits or no benefits.

grovel Thu 04-Apr-13 15:05:06

I think we've got a commendably bolshy judiciary at the moment to be fair. Ask Theresa May or Grayling.

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 15:06:17

grovel that's interesting. I've only seen the summary on the BBC site. Who was the interview done by (was it BBC / on iPlayer?) I'd like to see it.

Sounds to me he tried to distance himself on the surface while making as much as he could out of the supposed "connection" between the tragedy and benefits anyway.

BruthasTortoise Thu 04-Apr-13 15:06:24

Oh and YANBU. I'm not sure exactly what "lifestyles" like that is, but if he means larger families one parent working and receiving ChB and CTC then he's talking about an awful lot of decent families that have fallen on hard times during the recession.

FasterStronger Thu 04-Apr-13 15:07:09

He still would've recieved child tax credits and child benefit for them

which is why a cap is needed.

grovel Thu 04-Apr-13 15:08:03

I saw it on Sky.

TheBigJessie Thu 04-Apr-13 15:09:14

He doesn't seem like the kind of man who would have paid attention to contraception without benefits. Very much a "feeding them and clothing them without money is your problem, woman" man.

BruthasTortoise Thu 04-Apr-13 15:09:35

What would the cap be though? So say 2 children but does that apply to people who had 3 children while gainfully employed but have fallen on hard times? What do they do with the third child?

currentbuns Thu 04-Apr-13 15:11:11

Six children have been killed. You have no way of knowing if they would have existed or not if state help didn't exist. That's pure conjecture. Yet you are using the horrible death of these children to push a political agenda, same as the DM and Osbourne.

I think both sides of the political spectrum have been equally guilty of this, tbh.

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 15:11:27

"Philpott might have thought twice about having 17 if he'd had to pay for them all, like most of us have to."

Philpott is not like most of us.

You are applying reasoning that just isn't relevant.

Do you think he would become responsible and have paid for all of them if benefits didn't exist, or left the mothers to deal with the fall out? Hmm, let's see ...

twofingerstoGideon Thu 04-Apr-13 15:12:31

...and would the cap be per father or per mother?

Charlesroi England Thu 04-Apr-13 15:15:39

It is depressingly predictable that politicians would cash in on this act of barbarity.

I really shouldn't get started on the Mail but ... what if he'd blown all that cash on books and board games, instead of tellies and games consoles? Would that be better DM? Would he be less of a psychopath because he earned £200K?

FasterStronger Thu 04-Apr-13 15:15:48

we have a cap and it is per household app. 26k.

mercibucket Thu 04-Apr-13 15:16:22

How about we stop psychopaths from having/keeping their children? And how about attempted murder by stabbing someone 27 times is given a whole life term or at least a minimum of 25 years.

Can't believe this gets turned into a debate on benefits. Wake up people!

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 15:17:11

Actually Saskia's post is spot on, he would have simply exploited them in a different way. We used to have young kids near me (about 10 - 13) washing car windows at traffic lights. I always assumed they were being enterprising (possibly without their parents' knowledge) and earning a bit of pocket money.

However, one day I saw a van pull up at the lights. Two of the window washer kids jumped out, a man (their dad?) shouted gruffly out the window "don't come back till you've got £50" and drove off. I was stunned, and have never forgotten it.

I would say that there is a lot wrong with this family set up, and more the state could do to support children in this kind of abusive situation. Preventing their deaths for a start.

However it's worth remembering that the money being paid to feed, clothe and house children in abusive families might in fact be protecting them from much worse abuse and exploitation. If there's no money to put food on the table, some may well end up being exploited, not just window washing, but like Saskia says being pimped out, or photographed for money.

The sign of a civilised society is looking after our vulnerable, and that especially includes children. The problem with saying that benefits won't be paid to large families, or families on benefits is that it means ultimately the children will suffer. It won't stop people having kids or falling on bad times, much as you might like to think it would.

grovel Thu 04-Apr-13 15:18:45

Ironically the state have swapped a £50,000 pa benefits bill for a £90,000 a year prison bill.

Saski Thu 04-Apr-13 15:19:52

How is Jennywren or others saying they shouldn't have existed? She's saying they might not have existed if the welfare system had been structured differently (you might disagree with that sentiment, but that's a different kettle of fish entirely). It's a strange way of wording it, but bear in mind if you're on birth control, you're ensuring that your future children won't exist. Is this tragic?

This guy should not have been having children. Where we can find useful clues about apathetic parenting, we should.

It's odd that someone can't say that without people jumping down their throat.

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 15:20:40

I think your post is superb there aufaniae.

The problem is that we will never know whether generous benefits encourage Philpotts of this world or protect their offspring. I guess we all just have to draw our own conclusions and thoughts.

jennywren45 Thu 04-Apr-13 15:22:34

Thank you saski you have hit the nail on the head.

I certainly don;t believ that these children should NOT have existed but simply feel that they MAY not have existed.

Just like all the babies most of never have because we are too old or have run out of space/money.

PeneloPeePitstop Thu 04-Apr-13 15:28:22

It's not a fucking benefits issue.

An egotistical, abusive man like Philpott wouldn't have paid for their kids had benefits not been available. He and his like are too selfish. He had his almighty cock would have still produced them, though.

And where will you bashers get off? For says you have been told how your shameless agenda pushing is adversely affecting others round here but oh no, here you are stamping on the graves of these children to grandstand your agenda.

Just like our incompetent chancellor.

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 15:33:39

Thank you jennywren shock smile

I agree we may never know what Philpott would have done had circumstances been different. However much is being made of the fact that he was on benefits, and it's not relevant to the fact he killed his DCs IMO.

The right is using this terrible tragedy to solidify the idea on peoples' minds that benefit claimants in general are evil, potential child-murdering scum.

What is going on with the benefits system right now will leave thousands homeless, destitute, driven further into poverty, at the same time disproportionately affecting disabled people. It's being touted as being to help people, and save money but actually it's not about that, it's about dismantling the welfare state, of course.

The government's supporters are using stories like this as propaganda specifically designed to dehumanise people on welfare in the public eye, so that the majority turn a blind eye to the suffering that ordinary people are about to experience because of their policies. (This is an old trick, but a very well-used and successful one).

Using dead children in this game is beyond the pale, and exposes just how low they will sink IMO.

MsTakenidentity Thu 04-Apr-13 15:34:35

wannabedomesticgoddess / Speechless at that tbh. It just keeps getting worse All that's missing is Cameron telling the critics to 'calm down'..

FasterStronger Thu 04-Apr-13 15:36:37

the evidence in the trial mentions his strong interest in money. e.g. the money from the funeral collections.

it seems wishful to think that limiting the money he got from the state would not change his behaviour. if he had to dominate say 4 women who lived away from him, they would have found escape easier.

PeneloPeePitstop Thu 04-Apr-13 15:39:09

Again, bollocks.
Abusive, manipulative men like him will breed for their ego's sake.

This is not a benefits issue.

Particularly as he was sending the women in his life out to work.

Do you astroturfers ever post about anything else? Or are you just Tory bots?

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 15:39:12

Saski yes it would be a better world if psychopaths didn't go around creating children to abuse.

But can't you see how the media is manipulating the agenda here?
Philpott was in the army - why aren't they leading with that?

The fact of the matter is that benefits claimants are the current bogey man for the right wing and the press. They've been pulling this stunt for years! Don't you remember, it used to be all the fault of single mothers? And then illegal immigrants. Now it's benefit claimants.

The fact that we are even talking about benefits in relation to the deaths of these poor children is because the story has been hijacked for political reasons.

Can't you see how distasteful that it?

And how dangerous too? The right are using this story to gain support for cutting money to some of the most vulnerable in society, can't you see that?

DreamingOfTheMaldives Thu 04-Apr-13 15:41:20

I thought I read somewhere, although cannot remember where, that one of the reasons for the fire was to try to set up the partner/mistress who had left him and taken her benefits with her. He also wanted to make himself look like the hero when he rescued the children. He wanted to have the children (of the mistress) living with him so that he would be in receipt of the benefits which were paid to her.

There does therefore appear to be a benefits element to this tragedy - it seems his children meant nothing more to him than additional benefits.

I do think it is absolutely dreadful that all Osborne could think to say when asked about this tragedy was that there needed to be a debate about the welfare system and whether people should be allowed to live that. Nothing at all about those poor children or their family. Disgusting.

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 15:41:35

When Universal Credit comes in, it will be easier for men like Philpott to control women. At the moment, many benefits / top ups are done per person. That's changing and the will be paid to a household, going to one nominated person.

Where the "head" of the household is a controlling abuser, that means no independent access to money for people being abused.

Nice one hmm

currentbuns Thu 04-Apr-13 15:44:26

Where the "head" of the household is a controlling abuser, that means no independent access to money for people being abused.

That's a very good point.

SelfRighteousPrissyPants Thu 04-Apr-13 15:46:54

YANBU The whole 'debate' thing makes me sick.

crossparsley Thu 04-Apr-13 15:47:07

Sorry jennywren but I don't think his surviving children have the luxury of peeling apart your "may" not have been born rather than "should" not. Especially if arguments like this - however nuanced and AN Wilson certainly was not on R4 this morning - are used to justify policy changes on CB. They are living, grieving and probably very traumatised human beings and parts of the press, and thoroughgoing oafs on radio and TV, are saying that if the benefits system was changed then there wouldn't be so many of them alive.

Think what you like - we all do - but please remember that saying it will may contribute to the ongoing suffering of some people who definitively don't deserve any more.

PeachActiviaMinge Thu 04-Apr-13 15:47:36

The Judge on the case in court stated that the crime was committed for revenge not for money and that the fact that Philpott was getting benefits had no bearing on the case.

Technically every single person claiming tax credits in any form is "benefits scum" after all they're all benefiting from the welfare state.

crossparsley Thu 04-Apr-13 15:50:12

Oops definitely

Molehillmountain Thu 04-Apr-13 15:50:56

I'm so glad our government's benefit reforms will in one fell swoop sort out psychopaths and controlling bullies. Genius! All those years of psychiatrists trying and failing. George Osborne - I salute you. They must clearly have done research to find the section in the Venn diagram showing people who are controlling, criminal bullies and also on huge amounts of benefits. I'm sure it's huge.

SherbetVodka Thu 04-Apr-13 15:54:51

if you gave someone like the Philpotts £500k a year it still wouldn't of been enough to save those children it wasn't money he wanted it was revenge

Exactly. His crime, of killing his children, is the only thing that's relevant.

And it had nothing to do with benefits. Revenge murder of children by their parents is not financially motivated.

Wossname Thu 04-Apr-13 15:58:25

I'm pretty sure, having read the judge's summing up or whatever it's called, that wanting to retain benefits was not the reason he wanted custody of the children. He wanted control of their mother and the only way to regain that was to try and get her children.

Aufaniae, I really think your posts are great. Thank you for continuing to post despite knowing that at some point the same old people will show up and deny what is happening/justify sustained attacks on the poor and vulnerable.

DreamingOfTheMaldives Thu 04-Apr-13 16:00:33

Where the "head" of the household is a controlling abuser, that means no independent access to money for people being abused.

That's very true - one person could well be left holding the purse strings and if that person is an addict/controlling/abusive, the other partner and the children will certainly suffer.

DreamingOfTheMaldives Thu 04-Apr-13 16:04:33

Peach and Wossname - I retract my comment then about Phillpott's motivation being partly benefit related. I wasn't making the point to criticise benefit claimants in any way - hope it didn't come across like that.

Wossname Thu 04-Apr-13 16:07:42

No probs, Dreaming smile

FasterStronger Thu 04-Apr-13 16:08:46

Revenge murder of children by their parents is not financially motivated

revenger murder has nothing to do with this case. you might want to read about it.

Wossname Thu 04-Apr-13 16:09:53

Killing these children (accidentally or not) was not finincially motivated in any, as stated by the judge.

How's that?

merrymouse Thu 04-Apr-13 16:14:15

Going along with the idea for a moment that cutting benefits would be atleast a partially effective contraception, and assuming that the system could be structured so that those who are made redundant or become disabled are still supported, please could somebody explain what is supposed to happen to those children who are born despite benefit cuts?

Smudging Thu 04-Apr-13 16:15:39

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Smudging Thu 04-Apr-13 16:16:37

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MrsVamos Thu 04-Apr-13 16:17:00

YADNBU.

Osbourne disgusts me anyway. The man has no conscience.

merrymouse Thu 04-Apr-13 16:17:07

On another note it is interesting to note that Anne widdacombe is seeming to be able to speak more sensibly about this than the chancellor.

Worrying for the economic outlook though.

PeachActiviaMinge Thu 04-Apr-13 16:18:45

Really FasterStronger? You might want to tell the Judge and all the news websites how you know better then.

"Philpott was convicted of manslaughter along with his wife Mairead and friend Paul Mosley over an arson revenge plot that went wrong." BBC News

The house in Derby was set ablaze in last May as part of a conspiracy in which Mr Philpott hoped to frame a former lover, Lisa Willis, for the arson as revenge for her leaving him and taking five children with her. Orchard said the plot to set the fire had gone "disastrously wrong" because it spread too quickly. - Guardian

"who never meant to hurt the youngsters, who died when set fire to the house in a botched attempt to gain revenge on his former mistress." - Telegraph

"Philpott had been laying the foundation work for what became the central motive in the case: his attempt to frame his former lover whose decision to walk out on him had humiliated him and left him furiously flailing for revenge." - Independant

FasterStronger Thu 04-Apr-13 16:35:07

Peach - the whole case is about manslaughter. there were no murders.

and he did not intend to kill them. he intended to save them and play the hero...

ouryve Thu 04-Apr-13 16:49:29

It's a cheap shot by Osborne, who spectacularly misses the point that these children were failed by a society that did nothing to prevent their exploitation - not helped by the funds being eroded from the services designed to do that.

I'm doubting that Philpott is the type to keep it in his trousers just in case a baby came along that he wouldn't get any extra money for. It's speculation, of course, but he probably regards contraception as an attack on his virility - something that takes power and control away from him.

TheCalvert Thu 04-Apr-13 16:59:25

Is it not a good thing that this will be subjected to a parliamentary debate? I think Osborn has been extremely clumsy with his words, but surely rather than that horrible man benefitting from the benefits that were available for his wife and mistress, that any emotional, financial etc. abuse be highlighted.

I've not been eloquent, but what I'm getting at is that men like Philpott be kicked into touch and not benefit from the state, when their partners have any and all assistance available to them to get to safety.

P.S. please can we ban the Daily Mail. Horrid rag.

Allthingspretty Thu 04-Apr-13 17:06:10

Ynbu i too am disgusted but sadly not surprised by this government. Shame they dont act more on tax dodgers etc

Nancy66 Thu 04-Apr-13 17:07:58

He hasn't jumped on the bandwagon. He was asked a question and he answered it.

Exactly, Nancy. How is he cashing in by answering a question put to him about something that is in the collective consciousness at the moment?

I still don't fully understand the outrage about the way certain newspapers have reported on it. I've never heard anyone on Mumsnet ever say anything to the effect of 'benefits scum' or all the other horrible things that get bandied about when these cases come to light (or perhaps I've not read those threads). We all agree that what has happened with the Philpott children was a terrible tragedy but I don't think a meaningful discussion can be had about how it could have been prevented without mentioning the fact that the adults in the case were grossly abusing your benefits system. And that they were not unique in that.

crossparsley Thu 04-Apr-13 17:29:47

Have emailed my MP links to this and other threads. Sad to say but Pamela Nash did not win on Today this morning. Would be great if we could all do the same, with tailored to ConscientiouLibDem/Labour/PC/SNP/ other cover email

So angry and upset - usually find the DM a bit risible and soiling but this is poisonous

flippinada Thu 04-Apr-13 17:33:30

Do people really think, having read the reports, that this crime has anything whatsoever to do with benefits?

If benefits were so important to him, surely he'd have done his utmost to preserve the revenue source?

limitedperiodonly Thu 04-Apr-13 17:38:03

I heard that cross. Pamela Nash wasn't very good. She got overwhelmed. I didn't catch who she was but the researchers had more than 24 hours to come up with someone who could have argued better and they should have done. I hope they got shouted at.

Humphries was trying to help by guiding her towards a point. He was a bit like a disappointed teacher with a floundering pupil. He doesn't strike me as wildly Lefty. I think he just likes there to be an equal debate. Or maybe he hates that supercilious twat A.N. Wilson as much as I do.

Viviennemary Thu 04-Apr-13 17:38:38

Three people are responsible for the death of these children. And not the Mail, the Welfare State or Osbourne.

grovel Thu 04-Apr-13 17:39:17

It was speculated by the prosecution that Philpott chose his method of revenge on Lisa Willis (burning down the house) because:

it would get her in the frame
it would get him a better house
it would get him custody of the kids and associated income

The judge (sensibly IMO) limited her remarks to the fact that he was hell-bent on revenge.

limitedperiodonly Thu 04-Apr-13 17:40:07

Daily Mail...risible and soiling grin

SherbetVodka Thu 04-Apr-13 17:40:59

I don't think a meaningful discussion can be had about how it could have been prevented without mentioning the fact that the adults in the case were grossly abusing your benefits system

I don't really understand you. This discussion isn't about how Mick Philpott could have been prevented from killing his children. There is probably no way that any authority could have pre-empted and prevented it confused

Molehillmountain Thu 04-Apr-13 17:42:35

Merry mouse-I noticed that too. She was on Jeremy vine yesterday and I thought "here we go, she's about to blame the welfare culture". But actually she spoke eloquently about the whole situation. A pleasant surprise.

YANBU. It's despicable on so many levels. Vile DM, vile George Osborne.

twofingerstoGideon Thu 04-Apr-13 17:47:48

I don't think a meaningful discussion can be had about how it could have been prevented without mentioning the fact that the adults in the case were grossly abusing your benefits system. And that they were not unique in that.
Of course it can, because it is utterly irrelevant. I don't see how that's so difficult to understand.

And what on earth does your last sentence mean - "And that they were not unique in that,"? Even if other people do abuse the benefit system (and you might like to look at this before jumping onto that particular bandwagon) what bearing does would that have on the Philpott case?

twofingerstoGideon Thu 04-Apr-13 17:51:00

Three people are responsible for the death of these children. And not the Mail, the Welfare State or Osbourne

...Isn't the point being made that the Daily Mail is trying to imply that the 'Welfare State' did play a part?' That certainly seems to be what their headline (and some posters on this thread) seem to be suggesting.

hypnotizingchickens Thu 04-Apr-13 17:55:28

The weird thing about this is that all the welfare blood libel discourse has effectively stamped out a legitimate, mainstream discussion about abusive relationships in the family setting, and the gender dimensions of abuse.*

Even the judge in this case highlighted the role abuse, by a man/husband of a woman/wife, played in this crime in her sentencing.

So, here we are, on mumsnet , having a discussion that has been completely sidetracked by a heinous, politically fanatical discourse that masquerades as a rational discourse.

merrymouse Thu 04-Apr-13 17:58:18

To assume that this man represents many benefits claimants you would have to assume that, in general, people can't be trusted to spend money on their children, that they only have children if those children bring in money, that they use contraceptives/are celebate if their children will earn them no money and that there are many people claiming benefits for 10 or more children.

Fine. Having them assumed that these people claim a significant amount of the total benefit sum, please, please, please could somebody explain what is to happen to the children of these households once benefits are cut, because at the moment the plan seems to be top secret.

hypnotizingchickens Thu 04-Apr-13 17:59:20

The asterisk was supposed to link to the fact that legal aid is being withdrawn in divorce cases. Theoretically, it will remain for those who are victims of emotional or physical domestic abuse. But women (and it will be mainly women who are affected, as victims of abuse and as the poorer partners in marriage) will have to identify that they are abuse victims, be able to argue it (prove it), and not be too terrified to publicly announce it.

So there is a real agenda in interpreting this crime as some kind of "welfare crime".

merrymouse Thu 04-Apr-13 17:59:53

Having then

Twentytotwo Thu 04-Apr-13 18:01:47

I'm an atheist but I still want to believe in a special hell for people like Osbourne. Trying to gain political capital from violence and tragedy. As for talking about 'subsidis(ing) a lifestyle' , they were children. That's what the money was paid for. To feed them, house them and clothe them.

As a Tory he would rather children like them go hungry and homeless so as not to encourage their parents to make the decision to have them in the first place. Punishing the children for the decisions of their parents. But it would all be ok because charities would step in to fill the gap, for example food banks, many of which are now receiving local council funding (with the long term aim of being to be funded 100% by charitible donations) to replace the function of crisis loans which they're phasing out. Big Society at it's best. Next will come the clothes donations ...

SherbetVodka Thu 04-Apr-13 18:07:23

please, please, please could somebody explain what is to happen to the children of these households once benefits are cut, because at the moment the plan seems to be top secret

I wouldn't be surprised if a modern version of the workhouse system is implemented within the next 20 years.

Nancy66 Thu 04-Apr-13 18:08:16

what about a special kind of hell for people who burn their kids alive?

George Osbourne was undoubtedly being besieged with questions about benefits given that Philpott was a prolific user of the system.

Regarding the original rag headlines though, quite honestly you'd have to be a complete numpty to think that because the papers point out MPs 'occupation' that that means all benefits users or all people that live below the poverty line or all people that have fallen on hard times are morally dubious. If it had been a doctor, a banker or any type of gainfully employed person there surely would have been similar questions and judgements about how someone could have funded such a lifestyle and whether that lifestyle had any bearing on the crime. 17 children and two 'wives' (?) is very unusual and...bloody expensive! How were those kids taken care of? How did nobody notice or care?

hypnotizingchickens Thu 04-Apr-13 18:13:25

Anyone who'd like to make it clear to the Mail (and via them, Mr Osborne) that this is unacceptable, there's a thread for action here

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 18:15:45

TheCalvert

I agree it would be great if "men like Philpott be kicked into touch and not benefit from the state, when their partners have any and all assistance available to them to get to safety"

This would be a debate if we had a humane, compassionate government.
I seriously doubt that this is the debate which is being proposed however.

IDS previously proposed a two-child cap on benefits, which Osbourne supported. It was quashed by the LibDems. I strongly suspect that it is this which Osbourne wants debated.

In other words, one deeply disturbed psychopath sets light to his house and kills six of his children. The right then want to use this to discuss taking money from every family who has three or more children.

That's also deeply disturbing IMO.

PeneloPeePitstop Thu 04-Apr-13 18:15:59

Sherbet what will happen is that they will starve, which will be ok by the contingent on here who believes these kids are bred to be parasites on the taxpayer.

These same people believe my defectives should be euthanised after all, as they're parasites.

I don't understand how some here can't see defecating on these kids' graves to make a political argument completely irrelevant to their deaths is so awful.

Twentytotwo Thu 04-Apr-13 18:16:44

This article is from last August. It's about local councils moving to set up/support food banks as crisis loans are scrapped. Add to this the impact of the bedroom tax. It's truly shocking.

I think it would be good to have another 'personal experiences of the cuts' thread. Not for debate, just for those who are being hit by this to tell their side of things.

The right wing media and the government are demonising those on benefits and now even trying to twist the case of a violent, abusive killer and the deaths of six children to support their agenda. Let people see the real people who are being hurt by these cuts.

aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 18:17:42

Wossname Thanks! grin

PeneloPeePitstop Thu 04-Apr-13 18:21:18

Personal experiences? I've recounted a few elsewhere.
Since I've been given a reprieve from Bedroom tax under the severely disabled child criteria the 'only' cash loss is £54 a week from tax credits.

Other losses... My self respect, self esteem. My brother, sister and nephew who all believe the rhetoric.

Real life physical and verbal abuse, spitting and criminal damage of a motability vehicle. Pure venom on here.

Because I'm considered somehow sub human because of the special kind of benefit scrounging scum that I am.

Anifrangapani Thu 04-Apr-13 18:24:38

I find the drip drip drip of dehumanising rhetoric in the right wing press, MPs and commentators very worrying. Osbourne may back peddle on these comments, the DM may issue an appology, but it will leave a lingering stench. Say it often enough and lies are believed as truths.

Twentytotwo Thu 04-Apr-13 18:33:35

I'm so sorry PPP. That's exactly what I mean. To deliberately link the actions of someone who did such terrible things to the fact that he was living off benefits and go as far as suggesting that it's a causal link is repulsive. It is blatantly untrue and is part of a deliberate attempt to demonize those in receipt of benefits.

The Conservatives are using the cover of necessary budget cuts to slide through an ideological agenda that seeks to demolish the welfare state.

crossparsley Thu 04-Apr-13 18:34:30

peneloPeePitstop that's so horrible. I think you are doing brilliantly and I don't do hugs but I want to give you a ciuddle and make you tea/lunch/breakfast so where are you? As we get closer we can go PM

OhLori Thu 04-Apr-13 18:34:54

Not really. They are legitimate questions. Why should the state support him (or anyone) fathering 11 kids on benefits. Or his wife or girlfriend having 5 or 6 children each, when they could not hope to support them but only bring up in the worst poverty, with other people basically footing the bill.

Though I think it is a separate question than this monstrous man, nevertheless normal people have been questioning this for years, but they have been silenced because its not right-on to question this. Apparently there are over 40,000 families with 5 or more children on benefits in this country. To my mind they are a kick-in-the-teeth to people who genuinely need and deserve benefits.

Twentytotwo Thu 04-Apr-13 18:39:03

I would imagine there are 'over 40,000 families with 5 or more children on benefits in this country.' Child benefit for starters. If you have two parents who work fulltime they'll still be entitled to child benefit and maybe tax credits. If they live somewhere like London they might also be entitled to some housing benefit. At the same time, they'd be paying income tax, national insurance etc.

Laska42 Thu 04-Apr-13 18:43:33

I was totally sickened... there is only one word for Osborne and IDS and Cameron and the rest of them and it rhymes with twunt..

Phillpott is a psychopath.... but hes going to have a bloody hard time of it in Wakefield.. Good.

Dawndonna Thu 04-Apr-13 18:48:31

Ann Widdecombe stated on Newsnight last night that benefits did not have a bearing on the Philpott case.

A debate is being had. It's making a number of families homeless and many disabled people scared, worried, confused and in some cases suicidal.
Osbourne is an arse of the highest order and is trying to further divide this country.
Philpott was a narcissistic pyschopath who would have been exactly that, benefits or not.

Dawndonna Thu 04-Apr-13 18:49:51
merrymouse Thu 04-Apr-13 18:50:20

And even assuming the 40000 parents are all feckless and work shy, you have to explain how you propose that their children be fed if you want to cut benefits further (which presumably are already cut anyway by the benefits cap).

Welovegrapes Thu 04-Apr-13 18:50:54

DH and I are both horrified. The judgment written by the judge was excellent - clear and very just.

Then this rubbish from Osborne sad

Owllady Thu 04-Apr-13 18:51:09

I think we need to start a campaign Stage 1?

Dozer Thu 04-Apr-13 18:52:00

Shame on Osbourne for those comments.

PeneloPeePitstop Thu 04-Apr-13 18:53:30

Without being too specific I live in Francis Maude's constituency.

Oh, and I want to make the point that the Philpott family were on in work benefits. Mick couldn't claim JSA as his wife and mistress worked to support him. He creamed their money off them, emotionally and sexually abused them. Lets ace it both women and the kids were pawns for him to control.

So let's abolish in work benefits, yeah?

No.

PeneloPeePitstop Thu 04-Apr-13 18:55:14

Plus, Mick Philpott attempted his first murder in 1978 when serving in the Army.

Does that make him a 'product of the Forces'? No?

TheCalvert Thu 04-Apr-13 18:58:20

Aufaniae

Maybe I'm too much of an idealist. I think the man is scum, not because he was claiming benefits, but because he murdered his children whilst trying to gain custody of them. Those poor, poor children.

I don't agree with the circumstances under Osborne's comments appear to have been made, but ideally the tragic events surrounding the children's death could and SHOULD open a debate as to how victims of abuse should be helped by the Government, to assess how benefits are calculated on that basis. I don't think anyone would seriously agree with family benefits being paid to an abusive partner to the detriment of any children within the relationship.

I perhaps live in hope smile

PeneloPeePitstop Thu 04-Apr-13 19:01:18

Fat lot of help women enduring DV will get when Women's Aid and Refuge have had funding cut...

Owllady Thu 04-Apr-13 19:03:05

what do they care penelo when hey have taken away child benefit to those whose partners earn over a certain limit even if they earn nothing, an allowance that was for children and kept in place because of financial abuse against women (and that's who is mainly affects) They couldn't give a shit

tilder Thu 04-Apr-13 19:05:38

The daily mail is a poisonous rag (check), Osborne is a twunt (check) and the seven pits would be insufficient for philpott (check).

Anybody who genuinely believes the welfare state fueled philpotts behaviour probably doesn't understand how someone so controlling operates.

It is deeply disturbing that anyone thinks there is a link between maximising benefits and causing the deaths of children. Do these people generalise this across all benefits recipients or just a select few?

PeneloPeePitstop Thu 04-Apr-13 19:07:51

Try all, tilder.
I shouldn't be paid Carers allowance, apparently, and should be in a gutter with my defectives.

SherbetVodka Thu 04-Apr-13 19:11:42

Some of the press coverage makes you wonder whether they see the Philpotts' lifestyle and receipt of benefits as a bigger scandal than the deaths of the children.

crossparsley Thu 04-Apr-13 19:25:49

PPP, I'm t hree hours away from you so not much use tonight. PM me maybe? In the meantime, read and re-read this thread and please know that no-one worth knowing thinks anything bad of you for receiving benefits

Meglet England Thu 04-Apr-13 19:31:04

I'm with marmalade on this one. I'm not convinced it's coincidence this case finished the same week as the benefit cuts were announced. Funny handshakes and rolled up trousers could be at work.

<<Wonders if philip treacy makes nice tin foil hats>>

Dozer Thu 04-Apr-13 19:42:21

I know tilder.

6 children lived in a household with an abusive father, then killed. social services have questions to answer.

organisations that help women leave abusive relationships have had funding cut and refuges are closing.

More children in poverty. Food banks.

But Osbourne's comment is that "state funding" for "lifestyles" should be considered.

ReturnOfEmeraldGreen Thu 04-Apr-13 19:43:47

I love how the benefits-bashing astroturfers always say stuff like "normal people have been questioning this for years, but they have been silenced because its not right-on"

1) If they have been 'silenced' I haven't noticed. Bollocks about scroungers and strivers, flatscreen TVs and council houses all over the papers, the internet, comedy shows on TV. Silenced? Yeah, right.

2) I am a 'normal person'. I grew up in a council house and attended a state school. I earn about the national average income. I pay tax. I have a mortgage on a house close to national average value. Married, one child. I have been fortunate enough never to have to have needed to claim benefits, other than Child Benefit and the family element of Child Tax Credit, which the current government took away from me. My good fortune could easily change as cuts by said govt could easily cost me my job next year.

I don't think benefits are a problem. I think Osborne is scum and the Daily Mail is a vile, vile paper. I have complained to the PCC about yesterday's cover and I am encouraging everyone I know to do the same. So who the fuck are these normal people I keep hearing about, then? Whoever they are, they don't represent me, any more than the so-called 'Taxpayers' Alliance' (fucking cheek) represent me.

tilder Thu 04-Apr-13 19:45:54

It's pretty unpleasant to use what is for those children and their wider family an absolute tragedy to further a political ideology based on the success of the haves at the expense of the have nots.

Ppp am so sorry if this has upset you. Some people genuinely seem to lack all empathy or realisation that everyones lives and needs are different.

flippinada Thu 04-Apr-13 19:57:20

Yes Return they are very vociferous considering how scared they are of speaking their minds.

Surely they're not scared of liberals, who we all know are a bunch of namby pamby pc gorn mad softies ?

Wannabestepfordwife Thu 04-Apr-13 20:03:03

aufanie totally agree with every think you've said on this post and a lot of others IMO you would be brilliant in politics.

Wannabestepfordwife Thu 04-Apr-13 20:04:36

aufaniae I meant sorry

hypnotizingchickens Thu 04-Apr-13 20:24:50

Sorry, aufaniae, for rambling. To reply to your OP: I think you are not at all unreasonable. I think you are very reasonable, calm and rational.

HappyMummyOfOne Thu 04-Apr-13 20:50:13

He was asked a question and answered. He didnt jump on any badwagon.

Reading the article he quite clearly seperates the awful events from the comments made re benefits.

Whether people like it or not, there are people who agree with the cuts and dislike the subsidising of peoples lifestyles. That doesnt make either side right hence it being a debate.

merrymouse Thu 04-Apr-13 21:25:04

He could have said "Although I would like further debate about welfare changes, I do not think this tragic event had anything to do with the benefits system".

It should be noted that Phillpott wasn't really entitled to benefits anyway. His children and working partners were. (His partners were also entitled to wages, which he took).

Dawndonna Thu 04-Apr-13 21:27:04

Mr Osborne said a debate was needed about whether the state should "subsidise lifestyles like that".
Didn't see anyone questioning Public Service Workers when Nilsen was caught, or Medical Staff when Shipman was caught, oh, and nobody said anything about the Wests and benefits.

What Osborne said was wrong, and just because it doesn't fit your usual political agenda HappyMummy you should have the grace to admit that he was wrong. But you won't, along with all the other benefit bashers the imprisonment of a psychopath gives you free rein, doesn't it.

RowanMumsnet (MNHQ) Thu 04-Apr-13 21:37:08

Hi there

This isn't really an AIBU so we've moved it to In The News

Thanks

merrymouse Thu 04-Apr-13 21:39:48

In fact I think thats the route of the problem.

Single, able bodied unemployed people are actually entitled to very little.

However, if only people would come out and say "I don't think children, the disabled or the working poor should be entitled to government support through benefits and either a) they should be responsible for themselves and live in shanty towns or b) they should be in work houses or c) They should be supported through charity, and I personally will volunteer once a week at a hostel for abused women and give away 10% of my income." then there really could be debate.

All this pussy footing around "I don't want to give benefits to Phillpott" doesn't get anybody anywhere. Nobody wants to support his 'lifestyle'.
However, if you don't want to give benefits to children, you have to explain how you will deal with the consequences.

Molehillmountain Thu 04-Apr-13 21:42:16

Merrymouse-yes! Exactly, precisely what he should have said. So true. In fact, that's a bit like Anne widdecombe said I think. It's possible to be pro benefits changes and anti benefit dependency (misguidedly albeit IMO) without losing all human decency.

Molehillmountain Thu 04-Apr-13 21:43:13

Misguidedly I mean because the scale of this is massively over played.

HappyMummyOfOne Thu 04-Apr-13 21:44:32

Dawndonna, i just dont get what he said was wrong. He didnt connect the two events or blame benefits in the sligtest. I am allowed to disagree without being ungraceful as you put it.

As for commenting that a debate was needed re funding lifestyles - given the amount of benefits is claimed to be as high as £68k then lots of people would want to parliament to debate over such a generous system.

Dawndonna Thu 04-Apr-13 21:54:54

But that's the whole point, he did connect them.

merrymouse Thu 04-Apr-13 22:13:33

The point is he was abusing the system. He was only able to benefit from having a large family because he took the cash from the intended recipients.

However, my impression is that Osborne is more concerned about the quantity of benefits children receive, not whether they receive them. If this is his main concern, he has been quite reticent about expressing it.

diaimchlo Thu 04-Apr-13 22:14:26

Dawndonna I agree with you totally.... Osborne's comments were meant to add to the already misguided opinions of some against people who have to live of benefits.

Darkesteyes Fri 05-Apr-13 00:02:52

And this is what i heard today.

DarkesteyesThu 04-Apr-13 22:44:19 I experienced first hand today the kind of attitudes that are being enforced.
A few years back we had a domestic abuse murder in the town where i live. A woman and her young child.
Today i overheard two people discussing the Philpot case and the conversation then focused on a local case.
the words were "they are just council house scum"
yes those were the words spoken about a dead woman and her dead child. Just because they were claiming benefits.
And these words were spoken by a woman who also has had problems with a controlling ex.
But the woman who spoke these words isnt a claimant so her logic is that she herself is an abuse victim but the woman who was murdered isnt. No she is just council scum just because she claimed benefits.
As i left the coffee shop i felt like screaming. its fucking despairing

SomethingOnce Fri 05-Apr-13 07:39:56

The existence of a welfare state isn't the reason why sociopaths exist.

George Osborne is a despicable man.

jennywren45 Fri 05-Apr-13 08:11:44

That's appalling darkesteyes , utterly vile.

Scum is a foul word. And yet on here I see it used fairly frequently about the Tories, " tory scum" is apparently a perfectly acceptable term according to MN.

But those of us who are tories feel exactly as you did when we see it written about us on here sad.

pansyflimflam Fri 05-Apr-13 08:18:55

Tories are shameless cunts for doing this. My DH used to work in political PR.... straight away he said this is typical Tory stuff. Just remember this anyone who votes for these utter bastards. This is how confident they are in their way that they can do something as blatant as going to the very place on the very day this trial concluded and made a speech about 'hardworking people'. They are jumping on the graves of those children. Please never ever votes for these fucking assholes, they have no humanity and their arrogance is breathtaking.

jennywren45 Fri 05-Apr-13 08:19:33

This is what he actually said :

*‘Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes, that have shocked the nation.
'The courts are responsible for sentencing.
But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state, and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state, subsidising lifestyles like that.
'And I think that debate needs to be had.’*

I'm struggling to get the outrage. He was put on the spot, he made it clear Philpott alone was responsible but added that a discussion needs to be had. Which it does and which is happening, hence caps , UC etc etc. It's hardy a secret that the tories want to tighten up the system!

jennywren45 Fri 05-Apr-13 08:22:32

Tories are shameless cunts for doing this.
Please never ever votes for these fucking assholes, they have no humanity and their arrogance is breathtaking.

Do you have anything intelligent to say?
You do realise it's a coalition, don't you?

pansyflimflam Fri 05-Apr-13 08:28:52

This is a Tory Government in ethos. The libdems have been lost whilst busy selling their souls and have had no influence in the benefits debate whatsoever. Osborne is a Tory. Cameron is a Tory. The Deputy PM does nothing but deliver difficult stuff news when Cam is away. That is how it works

The outrage is about Osborne deliberately allying the concept of benefits debate/change with this case - do you really believe this is a coincidence? the debate on the day in the place? Trust me when I tell you it is all very carefully planned PR wise and if any of you believe anything else you are daft.

jennywren45 Fri 05-Apr-13 08:38:04

I'm happy to debate with anyone but calling people cunts and fucking asses diminshes your argument and suggests you don't have the intelligence to engage.

I loathe the labour party and all it stands for as much as you appear to loathe the tories but I would never, EVER suggest someone is a cunt or a fucking ass or stupid in any way for supporting them.
It is your absolute right to hold your opinions but to abuse people who hold different ones is a thoroughly unpleasant trait and diminshes you, not them.

It probably is all planned but that's not relevant to me. Most political expediency is. And of course the tories want to tighten up the welfare state, I'm continually surprised that people are shocked by that.

pansyflimflam Fri 05-Apr-13 08:42:35

I am at liberty to express myself as I wish. It is not directed at you personally so do not trouble yourself. These are bad people exploiting strong feelings about a dreadful situation. It is manipulation at the most sinister level.

I have not suggested that voting for Tories makes someone a cunt(This would suggest to me that you have misconstrued what I have said: possibly deliberately) but I think ethically Tories are cunts to people and time and time again their dreadful 'good poor bad poor' debate is trying to turn people against one another and use this horrible event to bolster their position. Disgusting.

pansyflimflam Fri 05-Apr-13 08:48:33

It probably is all planned but that's not relevant to me. - It should be because they are exploiting a terrible situation - the morals of that need a looksee.

FasterStronger Fri 05-Apr-13 08:53:54

its pointless typing 'the tories are cunts' x 100%.

its not argument or debate.
its not offering solutions.

half the time posters aren't even commenting on the basic facts. in this case what Osborne said, after being asked a specific question by a journalist.

jennywren45 Fri 05-Apr-13 08:56:31

And I disagree entirely.

I think taking a country into an illegal war makes you a cunt, not suggesting that we need to review a system that allows someone not in work to net more cash than 99% of the working population.

I support the tories as do millions of ordinary people who are sick to the back teeth of working longer and harder for less. Ultimately though our opinions count for nothing because welfare reform is going through apace and huge numbers of people fully support that no matter how cunty some of you think our views are, like it or not we voted them in and they are bringing about reform.

pansyflimflam Fri 05-Apr-13 09:06:25

I would agree about the illegal war. Don't try to change this issue. Declaring that I think Tories are cunts does not mean I support Labour. I am a crest fallen LibDem as it goes but to the left rather than the right.

after being asked a specific question by a journalist........

ahh the innocence. How do you think he found himself there in that place on that day giving that speech - who briefs journalists????????? He should have declined to answer... said that it was impossible and inappropriate to ally this case with the benefits debate. He should have risen above it and not used it. It was a set up and it turns my stomach.

Surely you all know that all political parties have accounts with social media stuff to monitor and moderate opinions.

My point is as it was, please do not vote for people who would so blatantly jump on this distressing story to make their point. It is manipulative and using the horrible lives and deaths of these children as political fodder.

ChompieMum Fri 05-Apr-13 09:08:59

The suggestion of a cap on benefits is either inhumane or ill thought out. I say this because:

1. The fact that countries with more limited welfare systems have children living on the streets, begging and in some cases starving shows that lack of benefits do not stop or limit people having children. It will put some people off but not all.
2. Once the children are born, as a society we then have two choices. We either allow them to live below the breadline with limited food and clothing (with adults who by having large numbers of children they cant afford have demonstrated that they will put themselves first) and hope that someone kinder than us ie charities will help them a bit. Many of those children will be underfed and badly cared for. At worst they may end up streetchildren stealing and begging to survive. OR we maybe take some of them into care at a huge annual cost and with the emotional damage and future likelihood of getting involved in crime that goes with that. I can't see a lot of benefit to society there.

I am fortunate enough to be in a position to pay a lot of tax. And I am proud and happy to do so (and indeed to pay more) to avoid being part of a society that would allow children to suffer because of their parents' wrongs. Never mind higher tax payers leaving because they have to pay more tax. I will leave if I find I am part of a society that is prepared to abandon its children.

FasterStronger Fri 05-Apr-13 09:29:11

pansy - thanks for your views on journalists, but I have a number of close and long term friends who are journalists/subs who work for the FT, Telegraph, Guardian, Times etc.

so strangely enough, I know they like to stir the shit. it is their job to do so.

FasterStronger Fri 05-Apr-13 09:34:21

compie ^ And I am proud and happy to do so (and indeed to pay more) to avoid being part of a society that would allow children to suffer because of their parents' wrongs.^

you think we don't allow children to suffer at the moment?

ChompieMum Fri 05-Apr-13 09:54:18

Sadly, I think we probably do.

pansyflimflam Fri 05-Apr-13 09:54:19

Chompiemum absolutely agreed with you that ultimately the reforms will punish children. These very very large and sometimes dysfunctional families (and being large and dysfunctional do not go hand in hand as they would have us believe) are the exception and not the rule and I cannot imagine what is going to happen when all the changes kick in. The changes have also been made deliberately alarming and difficult to understand so perhaps people with less engagement and understanding can access help. Remember how complex the proportional representation debate and vote was made? A simple concept made dreadfully confusing quite deliberately to illicit the result required and to make people feel disempowered.

Agree with FasterStronger that children do suffer at the moment but making people poorer to teach them a lesson (because it has nothing to do with finances and everything to do about controlling the sort of people allowed to reproduce) is not going to help those most in need is it?

We too are higher rate tax payers and happy to contribute because we know that the overwhelming majority of people claiming are in need and we need to help one another to support them and their families to make sure they are provided for. People's willingness to vilify people already in desperate situations just because they are needy in all sorts of ways makes us all poorer.

PR is a horrible old game when used for such ends and I am appalled that people buy into it so much when it is all a media manipulation to control how we think about others in our society. PR is a dark art (I say this as someone married to a spin doctor) when used like this.

I have 5 children and seriously what would happen to us if something dreadful happened? We could survive for sometime of course we have plenty of money now but ultimately to be spurned and judged if God help us we were ever in need is unimaginable. I have two disabled children.... we are doing our best to prepare financially for them but will they, in time, be seen as less? as an underclass?

FunnysInLaJardin Fri 05-Apr-13 10:31:47

hideous hideous man, trying to score political points out of this terrible tragedy

Shellington Fri 05-Apr-13 11:04:55

No connection. A evil bastard is a evil bastard, whether in politics or the press "on benefits" or earning 200k a year.

aufaniae Fri 05-Apr-13 11:49:18

"I support the tories as do millions of ordinary people who are sick to the back teeth of working longer and harder for less"

Seriously? Seriously? PMSL!!!

You support the Tories because you are sick of working longer and harder for less?!!

Under the Tories, the gap between rich and poor will increase. The policies they are enacting how will drive down wages, increase job insecurity, make the cost of living higher for all of us.

You are being manipulated, can't you see that?

PhilPott did not "earn" £50K (or whatever). That money was mostly for his children and their mothers, to feed clothe and house them, it was not his! That he stole it from their mothers (along with their wages - are you aware they worked btw?) is criminal and despicable.

To say he was being paid £50K is a gross misrepresentation.

And if you think children in large families on benefits shouldn't receive so much money, please tell me what you think should happen to children for whom there is no money? Should they starve, beg, be pimped out, be forcibly removed from their parents? Should we build workhouses? Seriously, what's your alternative?

aufaniae Fri 05-Apr-13 11:50:41

That post was for jennywren btw

aufaniae Fri 05-Apr-13 12:01:43

jennywren45 you seem like a caring person, I am dismayed you can't see the wood for the trees.

The reason there is so much vitriol aimed at the Tories is that they are - for example - bringing policies which will lead to children in this country literally starving and being made homeless.

This isn't an exaggeration, it's a fair assessment of the impact of their policies. People are being told to magic up jobs and money to pay for "spare rooms" which aren't actually spare. Those who can't find jobs (which will be many as there are simply not enough jobs for everyone) or find a cheaper place to move to (again the maths is simple - there are not enough smaller places for everyone, not by a long way) will be left with not enough money to afford to live. Many will end up homeless and totally destitute.
That these policies disproportionately affect disabled people is another kick in the teeth from a party who claimed to have found compassion and caring, but who obviously don't know the meaning of the words.

Jenny, please open your eyes!

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 12:10:55

So, just the usual smoke and mirrors tactic then...how very predictable. I am non-plussed and YANBU.

ChompieMum Fri 05-Apr-13 12:27:24

What we have to remember here is that reducing benefits would have probably made the short and difficult lives of those six innocent children even worse.

pansyflimflam Fri 05-Apr-13 12:46:51

Yes ChompieMum I agree - in PR terms this is called ambulance chasing

Viviennemary Fri 05-Apr-13 13:07:02

Well we shall see what kind of support there is for Tory reform at the next election. I voted Labour last time but I doubt if I will be next time. And I am reluctant to vote for LD because of the student loan u-turn although it didn't affect my family but I know quite a lot of people annoyed about it.

BasilBabyEater Fri 05-Apr-13 13:11:16

TBH it's exactly what I would expect from George Osborne.

I think he's very clever; he's using the disgust at Philpott as a way of trying to pretend that his dismantling of the welfare state is justified.

Like somehow, violent misogynist abusers won't exist once we no longer have a safety net.

hmm

pansyflimflam Fri 05-Apr-13 13:27:06

Yes Basil but seriously so many people buy into it, it amazes me.... and makes me a bit sad. Flinging shit at other people does not help anyone. Making the divide between rich and poor even wider, making even harder to attain even a basic standard of life particularly when children are involved is verging on criminal. The Tories nearly managed to dismantle the NHS the last time they were in, this is because it does not affect them and their demographic group.... spitting on poor people and making them poorer just for having the audacity to exist is dreadful. Making that gap wider will only serve to disenfranchise them more, because what is the point if you can never get out of where you are.

My husband and I are both from council estate beginnings and now both educated and higher rate tax payers and I think productive compassionate member of society, if our parents were unable to find work (as now people genuinely struggle to do) or find work so low paid they can barely exist how is anyone ever meant to be 'socially mobile'. If he and I for instance had had to borrow 28k to go to uni it would not have happened.... Our Dads didn't even earn that sort of money in those days. Are we all now consigned to being born into and dying just where we started eking out pitiful existences to make richer people feel better about how good they are? (Remember the American social model is built on this, why do you think they don't want the poor to have heath care?)

Making people poorer will not help the likes of the Philpotts, in fact I would imagine it could only make things worse for them. Osborne should hang his horrible Tory head in shame for even aligning the issues together. Philpott killed his family because he was a mentally ill, controlling monster who could just have easily been a middle class man with a job.

tomverlaine Fri 05-Apr-13 13:38:02

Agree with pansy .
Whetehr or not you think benefits should be capped or not is irrelevant - the Philpott case is not about benefits and any decent politcian/person should say this.
However the mail has succeeded in making it about benefits- just look at the debate here- so they have hijacked the agenda

jennywren45 Fri 05-Apr-13 13:45:35

I disagree entirely pansy but that's the beauty of our political system.

I believe in self reliance, responsibility and helping those who help themselves or those who genuinely can't and luckily for me teh current Govt. shares my views..

Giving more money to people so that they are better off not working doesn't help children, it condemns them to a half life of semi poverty trapped on Welfare.
Do you really believe the Philpotts fed their children good food? Nourished them? Expanded their lives and generally enriched them on their almost £100K a year? Do you?

All throwing money at the Philpott's did was encourage reckless fathering, drunkeness, debauchery and drugs.

SkaterGrrrrl Fri 05-Apr-13 13:46:11

Osborne out. Am disgusted both by his inhumanity and his ineptitude.

jennywren45 Fri 05-Apr-13 13:48:24

Inhumanity? Really?
Saying we need a discussion about welfare lifestyles is inhumane?

What on earth did you make of Blair then! shock

FunnysInLaJardin Fri 05-Apr-13 14:01:40

jenny people here are not nec arguing that the benefits system is right and that it doesn't need looking at, what they are arguing is that the tories are entirely wrong and yes inhumane to use the Philpott case as a reason why the benefits system needs to be looked at.

There are two huge and very distinct issues here. Using one as an illustration of the ills of the other is very wrong. As others have said Mick Philpott didn't kill because he had loads of benefits, he killed despite having loads of benefits.

btw when did the benefits system suddenly become Welfare?

jennywren45 Fri 05-Apr-13 14:08:21

It's always been the Welfare state since inception.
The tories are not using the Philpott case, Osborne was put on the spot and he said that it needed looking at . he was also very clear that Philpott and Philpott alone was responsible for his behaviour.

We are all going round in circles here. What the Lefty are afraid of is that this has ignited debate and actually, many, many people are supporting the tories on welfare reform and the Philpott case has simply fed into that. The left know that most ordinary people support reform and that scares them, as it rightly should.

limitedperiodonly Fri 05-Apr-13 14:09:25

when did the benefits system suddenly become Welfare?

That's a good point. The two terms are interchangeable now but they're different things.

Wonder when that happened?

aufaniae Fri 05-Apr-13 14:10:18

Jenny you've ignored my question, perhaps you missed it? I'm curious to know your answer:

If you think children in large families on benefits shouldn't receive so much money, please tell me what you think should happen to children for whom there is no money? Should they starve, beg, be pimped out, be forcibly removed from their parents? Should we build workhouses? Seriously, what's your alternative?

pansyflimflam Fri 05-Apr-13 14:12:01

The women in Philpotts home worked.

This is not about benefits, it has nothing to do with it. That man is either sociopathic or psychopathic. He has attacked and bullied and abused women all his life. He was not on benefits and that is why the women worked, he could not claim because he walked out on work several times, sometimes after violent episodes. His first know attack on a woman (for which he went to prison) - the one he stabbed his ex. 27 times in her bed was when he was in the Army. Did he do it because he had a job? No he did it because he was a fucking psycho!

I cannot believe that anyone can be so daft to think that this awful situation is anything to do with anything else except a warped, psychologically, personality disordered individual. That is the beginning and end of it and using it to bolster debate about the welfare state is disingenuous at best and wholly unethical at worst.

A wealthy man recently shot his wife and child and even his dogs, then blocked the gate to his home with a horse box and flooded his house with heating oil and set light to this. Why did he do it? He was losing his wealth? Maybe, but he did it because he was psychologically disturbed. He had pursued money and wealth possibly to the exclusion of all else and when faced with losing it murdered everyone in his family.

Crazy men revenging themselves that is what it is and this sort of thing can happen in all demographics it is just easier to throw shit at people like the Philpotts.

WafflyVersatile Fri 05-Apr-13 14:14:33

Doctors are evil, look at Harold Shipman.

jennywren45 Fri 05-Apr-13 14:14:39

aufaniae what I believe is that if a cap is introduced for those yet unborn it will discourage people from having more children than they can feed.

I would introduce, alongside a cap, hot school lunches and breakfasts for those children plus benefits being paid in part in vouchers.

pansyflimflam Fri 05-Apr-13 14:24:20

Jenny - you sound horible and ill informed. Most schools hardly even have the facilities nowadays to provide hot meals. Lots and lots of local authorities cannot provide this even when people are prepared to pay.. Nice, all the poor kids getting fed at school. Fuck it just pop them in the work house. FFS

pansyflimflam Fri 05-Apr-13 14:25:47

And this would not have helped the Philpott children. They were all well fed. Benefits have nothing to do with this case and the Government should not be allying the issues.

FunnysInLaJardin Fri 05-Apr-13 14:29:41

grin Waffly. Yes that one case neatly illustrates the well known fact that all doctors are evil.

I think that 'benefits' has now been replaced with 'welfare' is possibly political too. Being 'on welfare' is an american term and may garner less sympathy with the British public than describing people as being 'on benefits'. Dunno really it just seems to have recently crept into common usage here and it doesn't sit well with me

The Welfare State and being on welfare are two distinct things jenny

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 14:30:20

Jennywren45 - I too thought that a cap might be a good thing on the face of the idea: I add in the caveat that I also firmly believed that if a cap to two/three children was introduced that there had to be provision for those who already had more than the cap would allow because shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted would create more problems.

However, I did some research on birth rates in the UK from 1900 to 2000, which obviously includes a time before the benefits system was introduced and a time after the system introduction.

Here are the figures which are illustrated in live births per 1000 UK people:

1900 - 29 live births

1950 - 16 live births

2000 - 12 live births.

Tiffen and Gittens (2004)

If we are going to use the assumption that benefits encourages people to just keep using children as a cash cow and that the limiting or removal of benefits will stop this from happening, how do you explain the above figures?

Considering benefits to be paid in vouchers - are you saying that those on benefits cannot be trusted to spend their money wisely, while those that are not can be trusted? At what point is it acceptable to assume this and thus basically dictate how people can spend their money?

There are already breakfast clubs and free school lunches - some schools also operate a system where those children who are given those free amenities are singled out as being in receipt of them, leaving them open to scorn and derision doled out to them second hand via some of heir peers who have picked up this unpleasant lack of empathy from their thoughtless and sadly socially-uneducated parents. Is this ok?

FasterStronger Fri 05-Apr-13 14:32:33

waffly harold shipman did result in a review of the regulations & monitoring surrounding GPs, especially single practice doctors, like him.

its would have been foolish to suggest we didnt learn from him, like the Phillpotts.

pansyflimflam Fri 05-Apr-13 14:34:15

I think what Jenny is saying re. the vouchers is that if it is 'our' money then 'we' should get to decide how they spend it.... it is inferring that people on benefits make poorer choices about things like that and we should be able to over ride and control that for them That is very dodgy ground as far as I am concerned. Scary right wing fantasies.

lemonmuffin Fri 05-Apr-13 14:34:29

Pansy - you sound horrible and hysterical.

The phillpot children were not "all well-fed". You were there were you, to check that?

A family relative said that they took one of the children out for a meal who 'hadn't eaten for a week'. They never saw a child eat so fast.

Paying some benefits in food vouchers is desperately needed imo.

SherbetVodka Fri 05-Apr-13 14:34:51

The fact that countries with more limited welfare systems have children living on the streets, begging and in some cases starving shows that lack of benefits do not stop or limit people having children. It will put some people off but not all.

Very true. And the desire to have a family comes from a basic human impulse to reproduce. It's not present in everybody but most of us, wherever we are in the world and whatever our circumstances, do feel that fundamental, instinctive need to have children and a family of our own.

It's part of what makes us human and the thought that people who are less fortunate in life should have to forgo something as essential, and fulfilling as having a family is depressing beyond words.

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 14:36:33

Faster - but what are we to learn from the Philpotts? That the benefit system produces murderers? Or that there are terrible, awful, controlling people in the world and looking at who is controlling those benefits coming into a household could be a way of helping to identify a red flag that could put wheels in motion to try to find out if the household is being controlled by and abusive dangerous individual?

The former is a ridiculous conclusion to make.

The latter a more reasonable thought process...

FasterStronger Fri 05-Apr-13 14:36:50

flamin Considering benefits to be paid in vouchers - are you saying that those on benefits cannot be trusted to spend their money wisely, while those that are not can be trusted? At what point is it acceptable to assume this and thus basically dictate how people can spend their money?

if someone has more DCs than they can provide for, that is the point when the parents lose choices.

jennywren45 Fri 05-Apr-13 14:37:11

And this would not have helped the Philpott children. They were all well fed.

I think that depends on what your definition of well fed is and what reports or witness statements you read.

pansy hurling personal insults simply because you disagree on a political point instantly undermines your argument and has the effect of people refusing to further engage in debate with you ,as I now am. There are many names I could hurl at people who who believe differently from me but I don;t because i am better than that.

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 14:39:53

Lemmonmuffin - food vouchers to prevent children from being half starved by their feckless parents....a nice idea, but if indeed a parent is feckless they will find a way of turning those vouchers into whatever they want...selling them, using them to buy the best for themselves and failing to provide for their children...you can't stop fecklessness, but you can recognise that people like these are in the minority...

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 14:42:04

Faster, I'm sorry, could you go into a little more detail? I'm not quite understanding your point at the moment.

jennywren45 Fri 05-Apr-13 14:42:41

Pansy - you sound horrible and hysterical. grin

FasterStronger Fri 05-Apr-13 14:42:49

flamin - of course you could not stop someone selling the vouchers on but you could put pressure on shops. e.g. a large fine if a shop accepts a voucher without matching photo id.

lemonmuffin Fri 05-Apr-13 14:43:32

Yep, the worst and most feckless of parents will do that, no doubt.

But not all. There will be others who would spend cash on drink and fags and other stuff, but with vouchers they can't do that. The kids get fed.

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 14:47:13

Really lemon? So the parents who wouldn't sell the vouchers (and addiction is a very strong motivator to do just that) wouldn't just swap their vice for another that the vouchers would cover? Food vouchers doesn't jump-start a change in basic psyche...

And again, the kind of people you are talking about are in the minority...

And what about the fact that you are telling people how to spend their money, that you dont' trust them, that you are basically better than them because you somehow aren't on benefits - by the grace of the universe - but because they are they just have to sit back like good little children and do as they are told? How awful. The vast majority of people on benefits are responsible.

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 14:48:39

Jennywren - what was that you were saying about being "better than that"? You just did exactly the thing you were pulling pansy up about.

limitedperiodonly Fri 05-Apr-13 14:49:50

I can remember a huge buzz about American-style Workfare programmes in the '90s. Where people, usually single mothers, got benefits for two children and no more. Where they went to work for their benefits rather than that work being made into a job that someone could be employed to do.

It was billed as wonderful there and here but it didn't work, or did it? That's a genuine question. I don't think it did but I don't know. Perhaps someone can say.

The only other thing I'd say for now is that some people do have children without planning to or caring about cost, so threatening not to give them more money will have no impact on their birth rate if that was your intention.

Far more people have children in good times and then fall upon bad times through circumstances that could affect any of us. What do you do about them?

Viviennemary Fri 05-Apr-13 14:51:01

I think that calling people horrible and ill-informed is a pretty feeble way of trying to win an argument. Whatever side of the fence you are on.

limitedperiodonly Fri 05-Apr-13 14:53:19

And what about the fact that you are telling people how to spend their money, that you dont' trust them

Funny. That's an accusation made at those on the Left when discussing taxation. Interesting that some people adopt it the other way round when discussing benefits or welfare or whatever you want to call it.

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 14:58:55

Limitedperiod only - honestly I've never thought of taxation that way - that it's the government trying to tell us how to spend our money...but then again I'm not Left wing and find labels extremely unhelpful.

Voters get to choose (well, the majority of them anyway) which taxation system they agree with by voting in a government.

Without taxation though, what do you suggest as an alternative? Do we all individually club together to build our own roads, schools, bridges, parks, schools, health services, waste services, police, firefighting....

Viviennemary Fri 05-Apr-13 14:59:23

Tellling people how to spend their money. I think you mean taxpayers money. Mumsnet will make a Tory out of me yet. Can't believe the stuff I am reading here. No wonder labour didn't get in last time. Even though I voted for them. Wish I hadn't but in the end it didn't matter. Every time any suggestion is made like food vouchers and so on people are up in arms oh it won't work, it won't work. Well the system isn't working now.

Blu Fri 05-Apr-13 14:59:50

Philpott would still have been a murdering abusing violent rapist of a bastard no matter how many children he had, and whether he was on benefits or not.
As other posters have pointed out, he was a violent murdering (attempted) rapist bastard before he had any childen and while working.

Osborne needs to study causality before shooting his mouth off.

Totally offensive to many striggling families who despreately need the welfare system to imply that murdering children is a lifestyle choice which goes hand in hand with claiming benefits.

aufaniae Fri 05-Apr-13 15:00:22

You lot really do live in la la land!

Vouchers are a terrible idea, and yet another one which will make life tougher for vast numbers of decent people, at the same time further stigmatising the poor, while failing to tackle the problem it sets out to.

Why? Well ...

The number of people who genuinely put their own feckless needs (e.g. drink and drugs) before their DC's own basic needs such as food is very small indeed.

However the number of people receiving some kind of benefit is massive.

If you bring in vouchers you make life more difficult for everyone involved. It's likely they will only be accepted by participating i.e. mainstream retailers. People on very low incomes can't always afford to use the same shops you do. People also use fruit & veg markets, second hand shops, ebay etc etc to make ends meet. It's unlikely that vouchers would be accepted there.

The small amount of feckless individuals will simply circumvent the system. Drug addicts are nothing if not inventive for example. As soon as you bring a voucher system, a black market will appear. Feckless individuals will not stop being feckless, they won't suddenly start caring for their previously neglected and abused DCs!

As a RL example - vouchers were brought in for asylum seekers here. However the shops they could be used in were limited (and didn't include Halal butchers, which affected some of the asylum seekers). A black market quickly appeared, with unscrupulous shop keepers buying them for less than the face value.

It's an attractive idea to the Tories however as it'd be an income stream for big business, it's likely that they'd do it by card, and a card company would stand to make money here.

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 15:02:07

Vivienne - I agree that the system isn't working, but treating people like children is the answer? Really? Have you ever had some misfortune that landed you on benefits for a period? Would you have been alright with being told how to spend the money you were given when you probably have enough about you to decide what's best for you and your family?

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 15:04:07

Also who will food vouchers actually benefit? Likely the large corporations...just as the workfare scheme is doing now. The rich getting richer and looking down their noses at the poor who are to be used at their pleasure at all costs....

Dawndonna Fri 05-Apr-13 15:04:33

Vivienmary you have no right to dictate how I spend my carer's allowance. If I choose to spend it on the odd bottle of wine, that is what I shall do. In fact, that is a rare occurance, but that's none of your fucking business. How would you feel if, as a higher taxpayer (I was), I had demanded to know how you spent your household budget. How dare you tar all benefit recipients with the same brush.
Oh, and just because the system may not be working now, doesn't mean that fixing it your way is the right way.

FasterStronger Fri 05-Apr-13 15:04:36

Feckless individuals will not stop being feckless, they won't suddenly start caring for their previously neglected and abused DCs!

if the DCs are neglected and abused SS would be need to be involved. better they shop for the family.

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 15:07:40

Fasterstronger - were the SS involved with the Phillpotts?

Dawndonna Fri 05-Apr-13 15:09:48

But if they are feckless individuals, they will remain so, they will sell said vouchers and use them for the precise things you don't want them to.

Oh, and by the way, the last time I was on benefits (other than just carer's allowance) I was reported for daring to buy basmati rice rather than cheaper long grain rice. How idiotic is that!

juneau Fri 05-Apr-13 15:09:49

Osborne pointed out that there is a debate to be had about whether the taxpayer should subsidise, through the benefits system, the lifestyles of those who choose to have 17 children and not work.

I, personally, think he makes a very valid point. That, to me, is not demonising everyone on benefits. He maybe should've ducked the question - in retrospect it would've been wise as he should've known that twats like Ed Balls would immediately begin frothing at the mouth and accusing him of all sorts - but as a taxpayer who thinks the benefits system should be there to catch people if they fall and then help them back into paid work as quickly as possible, I agree with him. Philpott is a scumbag, a murderer and had no right to sit on his perfectly able-bodied arse and be supported by the taxpayer.

Viviennemary Fri 05-Apr-13 15:11:04

Yes I would have accepted that benefit could be part paid in food vouchers. Because everyone needs to eat. I have no power to dictate to anybody. That's what a ballot box is for. I wish people would get off their high hourses and appreciate that people are allowed to disagree. We don't live in a dictatorship.

Viviennemary Fri 05-Apr-13 15:11:56

'horses'!

aufaniae Fri 05-Apr-13 15:13:25

"Osborne pointed out that there is a debate to be had about whether the taxpayer should subsidise, through the benefits system, the lifestyles of those who choose to have 17 children and not work."

But the mothers were working!

<bangs head on wall>

FasterStronger Fri 05-Apr-13 15:14:39

flamin - i dont think so.

Dawndonna Fri 05-Apr-13 15:15:00

But by recommending food vouchers you are creating a dictatorship.

Dawndonna Fri 05-Apr-13 15:15:16

Or would be if they were brought into use.

Dawndonna Fri 05-Apr-13 15:19:23

juneau The women in the household were in receipt of IN WORK BENEFITS

Osborne can state all he likes that there is a discussion to be had about having seventeen children, but there are very few families that have that many children, either on or off benefits.
The problem with this discussion, not of the Philpotts and the murdering idiot that 'headed' the family, but of benefits, everybody is being tarred with the same brush, due to one, yes, just one psychopath.
I didn't see people stop visiting the doctor when Shipman went to prison, and I didn't see anyone having this discussion when the Wests were arrested.

limitedperiodonly Fri 05-Apr-13 15:20:50

flaminhoop that wasn't a criticism of you. It was a point of yours I found interesting.

I am a Lefty, btw, except that I have some views that I suppose are quite Right wing when it comes to the level of State intervention into people's private lives.

However, I do believe in quite a lot of State intervention, taxation being a definite and I agree with you about the things you mention.

Obviously some people don't. I don't understand why. It's not just because I'm a nice person that I want all children to be able to go to school. It's that I look at other countries and think it would be terrifying to live somewhere there is an enormous gulf in income and opportunity between rich and poor.

Viviennemary Yes, taxpayers' money is exactly what I'm talking about. Like the money spent on education or health say, that some people who have private arrangements argue that they should be excused from. See above.

I agree that 'the system' may not be perfect but I am content with it and the levels of fraud and abuse which I understand are not as high as commonly believed.

But if you don't like it, what do you suggest?

Vouchers are not the answer. They become currency and will be exchanged for whatever value the market dictates no different to a £10 note with the Queen's face on it.

Plus it's disgusting and degrading to treat everyone on benefits according to the relatively small number that abuses them.

Viviennemary Fri 05-Apr-13 15:22:50

I don't think there is very much chance of food vouchers being brought in. But I think it might be an idea especially as there are such scare stories about children going to be starving under this new scheme. So vouchers would be a way of helping families to budget and ensure children didn't go hungry. I don't see why there is such fury about it. Nobody is suggesting all a person's benefit is paid in food vouchers.

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 15:26:27

I was about to say the same thing, Dawndonna.

Viviennne - who said we are not allowed to disagree? From that statement I get the feeling you don't like anyone disagreeing with your opinion. If that's the case I do not understand why you are posting your opinions on a public forum. Public forums are for debate are they not? I'm quite happy that that people will disagree with my opinion, but I don't expect them to try to make me feel uncomfortable with subversive tactics of throwing their hands up in the air and complaining that they are not being allowed to disagree with someone. You're very much welcome to your opinions, and on a public forum, I am very much welcome to challenge those opinions in a respectful manner - debate is healthy.

I no more want to see people taking the Michael out of the benefits system than the next person does, but I also don't want to see people brought to such an all time low in their opinion of who they are and where they stand in society that they become hopeless, dispassionate and feel less of a person than the next person. The benefits trap already does that to many people.

ChompieMum Fri 05-Apr-13 15:26:55

I have no doubt that we are funding some people who are milking the system. But no system is perfect and it would be impossible to make it so. But we need to ask ourselves what we would rather do - do what we can to help those who need it and in the process pay money to some who abuse the system or make life more difficult for all those who need help (remember that more than 40% of disabled children live in poverty in the uk already). We could equally reduce the burden of proof in criminal trials from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "more likely than not". We would catch a lot more criminals but jail a lot more innocent people too. I know which kind of a society I would choose.

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 15:27:37

Limited, sorry, I didn't see you as criticising...I saw it as an opportunity to explore smile But, I suppose also, that's digressing a bit from the OP's original post....

juneau Fri 05-Apr-13 15:29:44

Yes, I know the mothers were working, but Philpott was choosing not to work, when he could have done so, and the family was claiming a lot of benefits, presumably because 1) they had a lot of DC and 2) because with a jobless adult in the house they could claim a higher amount of working tax credits than if he'd been working and bringing money into the house himself - something he was perfectly capable of doing as he apparently did nothing to care for the DC.

But Osborne shouldn't have been drawn on this question - he should've ducked it. I'm surprised he didn't TBH.

Darkesteyes Fri 05-Apr-13 15:36:40

DarkesteyesFri 05-Apr-13 00:02:52

And this is what i heard today.

DarkesteyesThu 04-Apr-13 22:44:19 I experienced first hand today the kind of attitudes that are being enforced.
A few years back we had a domestic abuse murder in the town where i live. A woman and her young child.
Today i overheard two people discussing the Philpot case and the conversation then focused on a local case.
the words were "they are just council house scum"
yes those were the words spoken about a dead woman and her dead child. Just because they were claiming benefits.
And these words were spoken by a woman who also has had problems with a controlling ex.
But the woman who spoke these words isnt a claimant so her logic is that she herself is an abuse victim but the woman who was murdered isnt. No she is just council scum just because she claimed benefits.
As i left the coffee shop i felt like screaming. its fucking despairing

Add message | Report | Message poster
SomethingOnceFri 05-Apr-13 07:39:56

The existence of a welfare state isn't the reason why sociopaths exist.

George Osborne is a despicable man.

Add message | Report | Message poster
jennywren45Fri 05-Apr-13 08:11:44

That's appalling darkesteyes , utterly vile.

Scum is a foul word. And yet on here I see it used fairly frequently about the Tories, " tory scum" is apparently a perfectly acceptable term according to MN.

But those of us who are tories feel exactly as you did when we see it written about us on here .

My God Jenny how can you even compare the two. The council scum comment i heard yesterday was made about a MURDERED WOMAN AND HER MURDERED 3 YEAR OLD CHILD.
There is a world of bloody difference between this and a fellow MNer who you have only talked to annonymously on here and dont even know in RL calling you scum (and i havent seen anyone here do that) just because you vote Tory.
However you interpreting my post and turning it around and trying to say these two situations are the same does speak volumes.
CHRIST ALMIGHTY <bangs head on wall>

lemonmuffin Fri 05-Apr-13 15:36:54

"But the mothers were working!"

Yes, they were. But for the minimum wage, which would have no way supported their lifestyle or their 11 children!

Viviennemary Fri 05-Apr-13 15:38:11

Lots of people I know disagree with my opinion. Even DH is very strongly Labour. I'm the one who is not allowed to disagree with his opinion. Though I often do. But he says it's the other way round. grin

limitedperiodonly Fri 05-Apr-13 15:42:58

flaminhoops I'm a bit concerned that taxation talk may be digressing too but I'm going to bang on about it a bit more grin

Lots of people, and possibly some of those on this thread, think benefit claimants are some kind of alien life form we can do whatever we like to because we pay for them and their feckless lives.

But we are all in receipt of benefits in one way or another.

It's a very popular idea to give tax breaks to married couples because a marriage is seen as the best place to bring up children. I'm not going to argue with that but it's purely a social lever. It has absolutely nothing to do with the economy and it will cost people who aren't married or who don't have children, possibly to the detriment of the economy.

So would it be a good idea to pay that portion of tax break in vouchers and tell people what they could spend it on? Or would that be not trusting them to do the best by their families?

Darkesteyes Fri 05-Apr-13 15:43:21

FasterStrongerFri 05-Apr-13 14:32:33

waffly harold shipman did result in a review of the regulations & monitoring surrounding GPs, especially single practice doctors, like him.

its would have been foolish to suggest we didnt learn from him, like the Phillpotts.


The difference is that politicians didnt hijack it to make a point. And Vile Product of the Middle Class or Vile Product of Medical School WASNT splashed across the front of the Daily Mail.

lemonmuffin Fri 05-Apr-13 15:43:52

There is no point to this debate really, is there?

The majority of ordinary people say: this is a cause for concern, how did he get away with this kind of lifestyle?

And The left say: How dare you say such a vile and terrible thing, never ever question benefit recipients' lifestyles!

And never the twain shall meet.

juneau Fri 05-Apr-13 15:45:09

Yes, lemon, you're right.

It's just knee-jerk, headline-grabbing nonsense, all of it.

limitedperiodonly Fri 05-Apr-13 15:49:26

lemon what is this majority of which you speak? Can I have some figures please?

<<wonders what colour is the sky in any world where Gideon would be considered ordinary>>

Mrsdoyle1 Fri 05-Apr-13 15:49:51

As many here have already pointed out, the issue of benefits is entirely separate from Philpott's crime, if we're sticking to fact rather than opinion, that is. The Philpott case is just a highly convenient vehicle for Osborne et al to continue their vilification of benefit claimants, as Aufaniae so rightly says. The mentality of a man like Philpott is the real issue here, and his type can be found across all social classes - many of those in corporate companies are indeed psychopaths or display psychopathic tendencies, as the writer Jon Ronson highlights. However, because these people have all the trappings of wealth and education, no one questions it, at least until it becomes so extreme that it's impossible to ignore - as in the recent banking scandals.

I wonder why it is so unacceptable to have nothing in our society, while it is entirely acceptable to have too much. I expect the right-wingers would claim that this proves their point about sheer hard work bringing rewards. So, all those hard working members of the aristocracy in past times or those who have inherited wealth or been born into a situation where they can be groomed for all the overpaid jobs are so deserving of their situation, while those who haven't been so fortunate have only themselves to blame.

I find it hard to believe that many people (usually those who are well off, of course) still refuse to make any connection between the accident of birth in terms of how fortunate we are with our start in life and how strongly that determines our future.

Our system is geared to produce a high number of losers for every winner, but the winners don't want to face up to that truth and will do everything to defend and preserve this inequality. Proof of the Darwinian theory of 'the survival of the fittest' is alive and well in our society and the wider global economy.

For the life of me i cannot understand what an earth his income had to do with the murder they commited.
6 children have been murdered, in an awful way.
George Osborne & pals should be focusing on what really matters and that is justice for these taken angels.

The need to change the Law on sentencing, they deserved 17+ per child, not for all.

All those arguing about everyone on low incomes, seriously you think we are all murderers? confused
Look at that posh bloke who shot his own family, funny how class wasn't bought into the argument then.

The government have used this tragedy for their own political gain, so we all fight each other instead of thinking about the real story, those angels taken by an evil group of people. There class does not come into it, they are evil to the bone, being rich wouldn't have changed anything as people like that are driven by power & hate, not the amount of money they own!!! [evil]

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 15:54:07

Lemonmuffin - you are missing the point by a pretty long shot. And really, left wingers are not "ordinary" people? I'm not a left winger BTW, but I disagree with using a horifically disturbed man's actions (and is wife's who obviously is pretty unhinged too because she WAS able to stand up for herself against him when the subject of debate mattered to her) to fuel a debate over something which is completely irrelevant to his actions.

Murdering your children has nothing to do with the benefits system. The benefits system does not create monsters.

Using the deaths of children to spark a shit-storm (which is what all of this is turning into) is vile! Ethically and morally barren and wholly despicable. And it seems plenty of people are buying into the whole smoke and mirrors of it.

If anything, what should be debated is this: where were the safety measures to ensure that these children were not suffering at the hands of these people? THAT is this government's huge failing, and they want to make damned sure they're covering it up with a paltry excuse of an argument to divert public attention.

SherbetVodka Fri 05-Apr-13 15:57:18

The majority of ordinary people say: this is a cause for concern, how did he get away with this kind of lifestyle?

And The left say: How dare you say such a vile and terrible thing, never ever question benefit recipients' lifestyles!

I think the issue is that the right wing media is making his situation out to be typical of benefits claimants and are using this one, extreme example of a poor family with a large number of children to support their plans to cut back the welfare state in general.

People on the left, or even some who don't necessarily identify with any political spectrum, see it as wrong and unfair to pretend that the very rare and extreme case of the Philpott family are representative of benefit claimants as a whole.

juneau Fri 05-Apr-13 15:58:17

I wonder why it is so unacceptable to have nothing in our society, while it is entirely acceptable to have too much.

What level of earnings is too much? Who gets to decide? And what do you suggest as a solution - confiscation of all monies earned above a certain level? The 'wealthy' in this country are currently taxed at 50% - that's a pretty large chunk of their earnings going straight to the government to support everyone else, plus VAT, petrol and alcohol duty, council tax, etc. So while those who earn more criticised for their 'privilege', they do a huge amount to support and sustain the lives of everyone else in the country.

Very true, where were the ss?

MiniTheMinx Fri 05-Apr-13 16:05:16

Welfare didn't kill those children, their father did.

Does class matter? well I would argue yes it does because the most vulnerable women tend to be those who lack a good education, good role models and aspiration. They are dependant upon a man or upon welfare to help them care for their children.

What Osborne seems to overlook is the fact that it is men of his class who benefit the most from a society that puts class and sex central to issues of social justice and economic justice. It is men of his class who gain most from a patriarchal society where men have power over women. Male violence towards women is born out of a social system where class matters very much. Whilst he is busy ensuring the Phillpots of this world have no equality with him, he is condemning women to the horror of living with a Phillpot.

Both Osborne and Phillpot are the evil creations of a class society.

jennywren45 Fri 05-Apr-13 16:07:02

Jennywren - what was that you were saying about being "better than that"? You just did exactly the thing you were pulling pansy up about.

Er, nope. I just quoted another poster.

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 16:09:20

Juneau - the wealthy are currently taxed at 50% - on a tiered system. Their whole earnings are not taxed at 50%.

Please do not forget that those who are wholly or partly reliant on benefits also contribute..VAT, petrol tax (sometimes), council tak (sometimes), alcohol/cigarette duty (dependant on the individual) - they spend the money they claim on the economy just like the rest of us do. Oh, and lets not forget, the multi-property landlords out there who are getting their properties paid for by HOUSING BENEFIT. (Who really benefits from the benefits system?) Some of those who are wholly or partly reliant also worked in the past and will work again in the future, they have and will pay income tax again.

But really, what does any of this have to do with benefits and a couple murdering their children?

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 16:10:13

You hurled abuse at another poster who had offended you by using another poster's comment - you abused by proxy jennywren.

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 16:10:53

And added a nice big grin (denoting that you agreed with the poster who posted the abuse) for effect.....

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Fri 05-Apr-13 16:17:56

I think there is a difference between saying that Philpott is tupical of benefit claimants (which is bonkers, as well as offensive) and making the point that our current approach to welfare is one of a number of factors which enable the development of the mindset possessed and the lifestyle adopted by Philpott.
I have never been involved in a case of this horrendous nature but I have in my time represented a fair few people who demonstrated the attitude that, on the basis of my limited knoweldge, I would speculate Philpott has. These are people who have not developed the link between actions and consequences that most of us do, in part because of poor upbringings and poor education and in part because in later life they are never expected to take responsibility for their choices. They father a child - the state provides for it and the mother cares for it. They are not required to do anything. They commit an offence - legal representation is arranged for them at no effort or expense of theirs. They never show surprise at this or offer thanks for the work that you do for them. If they are convicted, unless it is for a very serious crime, the court will spend its time worrying about their problems and trying to help them. Punishment is low down the list of priorities.
No-one at any stage expects them to take responsibility for what they do, so unsurprisingly they never learn to, and very important moral faculties never get the chance to develop. Philpott is an extreme example - he probably thought his crazy plan would work, because his brain has had so little practice at thinking through consequences and he assumes that things will always turn out OK, because they usually do - other people ensure that for him. I am not saying these people live well - they don't, far from it. I am not saying they are in any way representative of people in this country who claim benefits. but the left too often seems determined to deny they exist. Given they cause a lot of misery, cheifly to the people the left says it wants to protect, i wonder why this is so.

jennywren45 Fri 05-Apr-13 16:18:13

Well observed Sherlockflaming, I did indeed.

FasterStronger Fri 05-Apr-13 16:19:31

flaming - some wealthy are taxed at 50% - the more you earn over 100k, the more of your allowance you lose. plus NI on top.

jennywren45 Fri 05-Apr-13 16:20:20

karlos may I thank you for a clever and insightful post with which I wholeheartedly agree.

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 16:24:07

And there you ago again...doing exactly the thing you pulled someone else up for and pointing out that you're better than that, jennywren.

juneau Fri 05-Apr-13 16:38:18

Good post Karlos.

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 16:42:28

Karlos, I don't doubt your experiences, but I feel you are missing a vital point: there are lots of people out there who display the same distasteful attitudes of those whom you have come into contact with, but not all of them are on benefts or have even ever claimed benefits. Enron? The recent banking scandal? The CEO's during the Exon-Valdise accident? Nixon? HSBC laundering millions and millions through South American drugs cartels? Entitlement, lack of empathy, corruption, greed, doing as little as you can for as much in return as is possible and not caring whom you hurt in the process is not derived from being in receipt of benefits - surely not since the small handful of corrupt individuals I've illustrated above have likely not been unfortunate enough to be on benefits?

limitedperiodonly Fri 05-Apr-13 16:48:21

Good post flamin

FasterStronger Fri 05-Apr-13 16:59:13

flam - there is a parallel though between the two groups:

whether you are very rich or poor, you are insulated from the limits that many of us face: most of us have to get up, go to work, do 100 things we rather wouldn't.

as karlos showed, someone on a low income, can be insulated from the normal responsibilities that keep most of us grounded. so it is not only the rich and powerful who don't have to deal with everyday responsibilities.

MiniTheMinx Fri 05-Apr-13 17:04:48

excellent points flamin which I totally agree with. But only in a society where private property rights and class, where social and economic inequality exist does this happen.

MiniTheMinx Fri 05-Apr-13 17:06:15

so it is not only the rich and powerful who don't have to deal with everyday responsibilities but it is the rich and the powerful that benefit from the fact that you get up everyday and have to do a million things you rather wouldn't.

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 17:10:05

Faster - I was thinking about these parallels too..and thinking also that you see this in all walks of life (the boss who let's his staff do all the grafting but takes home the decent pay check?)

And while I do in part agree with Karlos - that environment shapes us - there's a lot of basic psyche in there that's already programmed in too.

Phillpott was in the military - not all military people have such a sense of entitlement and self-absorption: many have a great sense of duty, pride, empathy - what was different with this man?

While thinking about what happened here and the factors involved in it are interesting (horrifically so, please don't get the impression that I am some sort of person who finds tragedy merely interesting) from a sociological POV I still fail to see (and find it extremely offensive, actually) that there are some out there with influence that are using this incident as a driving factor in debating benefits.

What percentage of people claiming benefits are like this man? Are ungrateful, and scheming, and narcissistic? I'd wager very few.

I was extremely grateful for benefits when I needed them (I felt like the scum of the earth too, but that's to do with how benefit's claimants are often treated) I'm nothing like that man - I also come from a pretty privileged background where the word "No." was rarely said to me...in fact I was spoilt. But I'm nothing like that man. I'm just one person, but I'm certain there are many more out there like me.

limitedperiodonly Fri 05-Apr-13 17:26:06

But the rich and powerful don't generally have to deal with the chaos they cause us faster. And the people flamin has mentioned have caused a lot of people in the world a lot of misery without being punished and the system they worked under appears to continue untrammelled.

I'm not sure how many of us are going to have to deal with the chaos Mick Philpott has caused. The dead children, obviously, their mother and then I'd guess his relations, neighbours, friends etc.

But not many people in the scheme of things, unless you subscribe to the view that what Mick Philpott did is the fault of welfare or benefits 'culture'. Which I don't.

So without defending Mick Philpott, I look at my life and wonder who's caused me the greatest harm.

Darkesteyes Fri 05-Apr-13 17:38:15

MiniTheMinxFri 05-Apr-13 16:05:16

Welfare didn't kill those children, their father did.

Does class matter? well I would argue yes it does because the most vulnerable women tend to be those who lack a good education, good role models and aspiration. They are dependant upon a man or upon welfare to help them care for their children.

What Osborne seems to overlook is the fact that it is men of his class who benefit the most from a society that puts class and sex central to issues of social justice and economic justice. It is men of his class who gain most from a patriarchal society where men have power over women. Male violence towards women is born out of a social system where class matters very much. Whilst he is busy ensuring the Phillpots of this world have no equality with him, he is condemning women to the horror of living with a Phillpot.

Both Osborne and Phillpot are the evil creations of a class society

The best and most intelligent post on this thread.

FasterStronger Fri 05-Apr-13 17:53:01

limitedperiodonly But the rich and powerful don't generally have to deal with the chaos they cause us faster. yes in a similar way to MP, they create chaos for others.

lemonmuffin Fri 05-Apr-13 17:53:41

"Welfare did not kill those children, their father did"

Yes of course he did. No one in their right mind would disagree with that.

But their father wanted more benefits. And a bigger house. And he wanted the five children back in his house to provide him with more benefits that he craved so much.

Why is that so hard for people to accept?

merrymouse Fri 05-Apr-13 18:06:49

As a society we all impact on each other. 'The poor ' don't mysteriously vanish, never to be heard of again if you stop paying them benefits. None of us are immune to the ups and downs of life that can leave us relying on others.

Let's assume for one moment that philpott really was so motivated by the erroneous idea that his actions would net him a bigger house that he decided to put his children at risk, and his psychopathic tendencies were only a minor consideration. Lets assume that Cameron , the mail and Osborne have a valid point about benefit claimants.

Once they have finished wittering on about debate and made their cuts, what next? Speaking purely selfishly and assuming I would always be a have rather than a have not, I do not want to live next to a shanty town, I do not want to live on an estate with private security and I do not want my children to go to school with children who don't have food or a roof over their heads.

Please explain how the children who are surplus to requirements are supposed to be cared for, because saying "they're not my fault" isn't good enough.

pansyflimflam Fri 05-Apr-13 18:07:27

The thing is even if he had wanted to Philpott was unable to work because of his previous serious criminal record and because of his mental instability, there are reports of him having a pop at people in the workplace and walking out. He couldn't claim for unemployment because he walked out willingly so was ineligible. His partners both worked for minimum wage apparently and no it is clear that without the benefit system they would have had nothing. SO what is the answer here?

I agree with all those who say families like this are a very tiny minority and I cannot agree with vouchers etc. If people are crap parents, they are crap parents. To lump in all people on benefits with a few feckless fuckers is beyond wrong. It is limiting in the worst way for people.

And Jenny it is funny that you resorted to doing the very thing you pulled me up on.

I may diminish my point but Osborne and his lot are a bunch of immoral fuckers. They too have no moral compass. They will say and do anything to make their points.

merrymouse Fri 05-Apr-13 18:17:22

And to back up my point that you can't just abandon the children of the likes of philpott, however distasteful you may find them, please remember summer 2011.

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 18:19:37

Lemonmuffin - Phillpott's greed was not based on the fact that he lived on benefits though...greed exists everywhere, as does entitlement and all the other trappings of a dysfunctional mind. Can I accept that part of his abysmal scheme was based on getting more? Of course I can. Can I accept that benefits did this? No, because its a ridiculously sweeping statement.

MiniTheMinx Fri 05-Apr-13 18:25:45

Osborne and co' are a bunch of immoral fuckers because they are a class of people who have social and economic power, they shape society and culture to their will.

There actions impact upon all of us and they act as a class in their own interests. Their interests are at odds with creating equality of opportunity and a culture of cooperation and collectivism in favour of exploiting all of us. They perpetuate class differences and welfarism by making us dependand upon them to create work, pay wages or pay welfare.

They chose to pay peanuts, cut welfare and create fear because vulnerable people are disempowered people who are easy to exploit for even greater gains. Welcome to the neo-liberal social and economic system that picks the pockets of the many for the greed of the few.

Do they even care that innocent children burned in a fire, do they hell.

MiniTheMinx Fri 05-Apr-13 18:26:14

their actions*

ChompieMum Fri 05-Apr-13 18:28:39

I don't think many of us would like Phillpot to have more benefits. But would we rather his children were even poorer to avoid him benefitting? We simply cannot escape the fact that it is children like these who will suffer. Do we want to be sit back while they live even sadder, more deprived lives? We can't ignore their existence or prevent them from being born. We might reduce the numbers of children born with no means to support them by capping benefits. But we will not stop them being brought into the world. And once they are here, the choices are to support them or let them suffer. Surely no-one would choose the latter and have these children begging/stealing/starving? If we do support them, where is the disincentive to having lots of children you can't support? We are back where we started really. Capping benefits will do nothing but make innocent children suffer.

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 18:29:52

Let's assume for one moment that philpott really was so motivated by the erroneous idea that his actions would net him a bigger house that he decided to put his children at risk, and his psychopathic tendencies were only a minor consideration. Lets assume that Cameron , the mail and Osborne have a valid point about benefit claimants.

Merrymouse, I would say at last in part that his motivation was to get more. He was going to frame Lisa for the fire as a means to push the argument of residency for her children to be with him - and he would claim money for them. But to then use his basic need for power and control and money at all costs as a tipping point for pointing the finger at the benefits system, as the DM did and as Osbourne has done so, is to tar benefits claimants with the same brush. None of these people who are fuelling this attack on claimants are dumb enough to believe that public opinion isn't swayed heavily by a barrage of headlines, and none of these people are dumb enough to think that human beings like to put people into nice neat little boxes with labels on.

It's all just a nice little circus show using children's deaths to fan the flames of who's to blame for our hardships these past few years....deflecting public scrutiny from the real issues.

The real culprits can be traces back to the USA 2008 sub-prime mortgage scandal and the bankers who scandalously and irresponsibly encouraged lending and spending that simply couldn't be sustained - it's had such a knock on effect across the globe, and more and more is coming to light at just how much the wool as been pulled over our eyes.

This government needs a scapegoat - the Phillpotts are a happy coincidence to them and the press. As someone said in a different post: government and press, who wags which tail?

It's all spin.

ChompieMum Fri 05-Apr-13 18:36:36

Pansy's earlier point was a good one too. What would you do with larger families who started off well off but fell on hard times? Would we let their children suffer too? If not, on what basis would we differentiate?

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 18:40:27

It's a good point, Chompie - I originally wanted several (I won't say exactly how many) and the household income could support that number. But then my life completely changed - while I'm on the fence with putting a lid on how many children are eligible for benefits in one family - I shudder to think what would have happened if circumstances had been different and I'd been left with the amount of children that had originally been planned.

limitedperiodonly Fri 05-Apr-13 18:47:52

faster Thanks for reminding me of that. Yes, MPs do that, although they are working on a mandate so either I cheer them or shrug my shoulders unless they're guilty of egregious abuse.

But thanks for reminding me of another group of privileged people with a lot of direct power over my life who generally don't get punished for the bad things they do.

lemon it wasn't in the judge's sentencing remarks that Mick Philpott started the fire that killed his children to get more benefits. She said it was in revenge against Lisa Willis. Do you know better than the judge does?

Other people on this thread have said this to you; I apologise to them for repeating this, but it seems necessary.

Here are the remarks. Please read them. Or don't, it's up to you

MiniTheMinx Fri 05-Apr-13 18:48:19

culprits can be traces back to the USA 2008 sub-prime mortgage scandal

The bank that first created the securities and sold them on in the sub prime pass the parcel game, weren't holding any of these toxic debts when the music stopped. Strange that. Not only that but there is a revolving door btw this bank and the Whitehouse.

pansyflimflam Fri 05-Apr-13 18:56:21

Yes flamin, exactly and you have said it far more eloquently than I ever could due to my fucking sweariness

Chompie that is the thing, who decides? The assumption as tax payers we know better than those on benefits is laughable. They could set a time limit of getting oneself back on feet but what if it long term illness or death of a parent? Would that be a worthy large family? More worthy than one created by multiple relationships? Who the hell decides that one?

The main thing is that all of those children, no matter how or why they are created deserve as equal an opportunity as we can offer them, starving out poor children because of poor parental choice or life events is a dreadful and unworkable ideas.

Housing Benefit caps in London for instance have done a good job of clearing undesirable 'types' and it will go on like that - clearing the poor from desirable areas, it is a sort of ethnic cleansing in my opinion.

The amounts of money involved in large families as those I have mentioned above are actually a drop in the ocean and very very extreme cases but it was all about the spin. Even if that spin involves using six dead children to make your point.

The point here really is these poor kids died horribly after difficult half lives, seeing their Mother sexually and domestically abused, drug taking, six to a room and being the last on the list of their parents' priorities. The saddest thing for me was that only one child had PJs on and one was on full school uniform. Their Mother was downstairs involved in three way sex on a pool table rather than helping them get to bed and making them comfy... This is not about benefits, it is about neglect on a very fundamental level by the people who should have loved them the most. If we as a society abandon these children too then God help them and us as it makes us all poorer people.

lemonmuffin Fri 05-Apr-13 18:57:19

"Can I accept that part of his abysmal scheme was based on getting more? Of course I can. Can I accept that benefits did this? No, because its a ridiculously sweeping statement"

You're contradicting yourself.

I'm not asking you accept that benefits did this.
I'm asking you to consider that perhaps benefits contributed towards this. Yes or no?

merrymouse Fri 05-Apr-13 18:57:21

But flamin, they are all apparently dumb enough to believe that you can cut benefits with no consequence to the wider population.

None of them seem to be able to form a thought beyond "It's not my fault, I don't want to pay for it".

(Also see other government policies this that hadn't really been thought through...)

MiniTheMinx Fri 05-Apr-13 18:59:33

I think that is a very valid point Chompie.

I have always thought that if all women had access to a good education, better opportunities for a fulfilling career that they tended to have fewer children. I would extend this also and say that people who have few financial worries and access to social and cultural opportunities are less likely to start young and have big families. What if, instead of just subsisting on wages or welfare, we could swim, play tennis, travel, go to the ballet, paint, learn sculpture, write poetry and learn new skills or return to study completely free.......would women choose to have children and wipe bums for a life time?

merrymouse Fri 05-Apr-13 19:00:52

Philpott also conspired to divert profits made from hospital cleaning to his own bank account.

lemonmuffin Fri 05-Apr-13 19:01:41

Limited - I'm not saying I know any more than the rest of us do.

But I think (and rightly so) the judge's comments were measured and designed not to inflame the situation any further.

pansyflimflam Fri 05-Apr-13 19:05:55

I'm asking you to consider that perhaps benefits contributed towards this. Yes or no?

No. I think he had a lot of children as part of a control thing. He dumped a wife because she refused to have any more. I think he had a fixation about impregnating women to feel validated as a man - lots of reports talk about him being really over sexualised and inappropriate in that way with people so I think that is what the continual babies were about. Also having so many children made them stand out and be noticed and this was also a thing for him too

<armchair psychology.

flaminhoopsaloolah Fri 05-Apr-13 19:06:02

Lemon - I really am not contradicting myself. the aim of the DM yesterday and Osbourne's remarks today is simple: blame the weak and the vulnerable for feclkessness, greed and corruption - they are the problem.

Phillpott is a minority - if he had taken a different path in life and was well off he would still have the same basic psyche - get more, have more, don't bother caring about the consequences.

You are missing the point: the aim of the political game is to present the general public with a nice scapegoat - Phillpott has handed them a perfect scenario.

Does the benefits system need an overhaul? Damned straight it does..as does the banking world (when are the culprits in that little debacle going to be held to task for their actions btw? Never.)

Does the benefits system created people who will kill their children for more? No, this man was twisted and awful way way way before he was ever on benefits.

limitedperiodonly Fri 05-Apr-13 19:11:44

lemon afaik the judge doesn't care about inflaming things or not. She just speaks as she finds. And she didn't find that Philpott was motivated by a desire for more benefits.

I imagine he might have been. I imagine a lot of things and I imagine that you do too.

But that's not proof, is it?

lemonmuffin Fri 05-Apr-13 19:16:17

Okay. Forget about 'scapegoats' and 'welfare' then.

He was given directly/indirectly quite a lot of money by the state. And this enabled him to carry on with the lifestyle he enjoyed so much, which involved harming others.

Right or wrong?

ChompieMum Fri 05-Apr-13 19:21:37

Wrong. How did the money enable him to harm people?

merrymouse Fri 05-Apr-13 19:25:18

Wrong.

His children were given money by the state.

He took it.

merrymouse Fri 05-Apr-13 19:29:20

And lets assume that the state stop giving money to children because they assume that parents cannot be trusted.

Please explain how you look after the children.

(And please do not suggest that stopping benefits acts as some kind of retroactive contraception and the children cease to exist).

aufaniae Fri 05-Apr-13 19:49:31

"Please explain how you look after the children." Yes please do, I'd like to know.

I've asked this question a couple of times on this thread, as have others.

I haven't seen a proper answer yet.

Mrsdoyle1 Fri 05-Apr-13 19:56:52

^juneau Fri 05-Apr-13 15:58:17

I wonder why it is so unacceptable to have nothing in our society, while it is entirely acceptable to have too much.

What level of earnings is too much? Who gets to decide? And what do you suggest as a solution - confiscation of all monies earned above a certain level? The 'wealthy' in this country are currently taxed at 50% - that's a pretty large chunk of their earnings going straight to the government to support everyone else, plus VAT, petrol and alcohol duty, council tax, etc. So while those who earn more criticised for their 'privilege', they do a huge amount to support and sustain the lives of everyone else in the country.^

Indeed - it's difficult to set a limit of what is too much, but the disparity between those who have a great deal and those who can't put food on their tables should surely be of concern to any civilised society. (Many people seem to have no problem deciding how much is 'too much' for benefit claimants, incidentally...)

There is, of course, no easy single solution and I am not trying to suggest that there is. However, as I pointed out in my previous post, those in a position to 'support and sustain the lives of everyone else in the country' are in a privileged position, so why should they not pay something back? And why do you assume that it is only the privileged who contribute in this way? Most people do, even benefit claimants!

Part of the solution should surely be that those who have benefited from a good start in life, and had a good upbringing and education, should recognise their good fortune and stop vilifying those who haven't been so lucky, rather than trotting out smug platitudes that bear no relation to reality.

Cant believe this debate is still ongoing.
Some of you care more for where your taxes should or not go, instead of caring about the six children that have been murdered. Disgusting sad

Darkesteyes Fri 05-Apr-13 20:57:23

FFS he was a financial abuser Men IN work do this too. Take a read of the Relationships board.
Im now beginning to think we ought to be teaching and raising awareness about financial abuse in relationships in workplaces as well as schools because there appear to be some adults who dont understand!

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Fri 05-Apr-13 21:07:06

I used to be a criminal barrister and am now a lawyer in the city so I am well placed to comment on the point which has been made above, to the effect that there is a similarity between the attitudes of a Philpott and the attitudes which motivated some of the behaviour which leade to the financial crisis and other corporate misbehaviour.
This is, in my view, and I do not mean to be as rude as I sound, rubbish. It is based on the notion that those who worked in the city were all merrily contributing to the crisis with the view that it did not matter if the economy collapsed, they would profit. This is nonsense. Many of those who worked in the areas involved in our recent difficulties have lost their jobs and suffered personally. They were responding rationally to the structures and incentives in place at the time. What they (and the government, central banks, regulators and voters) failed to see was the big picture that was building and which eventually imploded.
These were people operating in many cases with high intelligence and a sound understanding of the concepts of action and consequence. The Philpotts of this world operate in a world in which all consequences have been removed, by the intervention of the state, and are as a result without significant moral or intellectual capacity.

Dawndonna Fri 05-Apr-13 21:23:04

I would disagree that there are many,many people with the philpott's lack of morals. I accept that you may have worked in a court and not had thanks, but db is a barrister and tells a different story. Funnily enough, he operates the Nottingham/Sheffield/Derby circuit.

Mrsdoyle1 Fri 05-Apr-13 21:49:25

^ pumpkinsweetie Fri 05-Apr-13 20:01:15

Cant believe this debate is still ongoing.
Some of you care more for where your taxes should or not go, instead of caring about the six children that have been murdered. Disgusting ^

I don't know if your comment above is meant to include me in the 'some of you', but I sincerely hope not. The issues I raised are part of a wider debate that is bound to spring from a discussion like this. I share the concern expressed in the original post about the Government's hijacking of this tragic incident to make a point about the welfare system, and my points in previous posts are made to challenge those who are buying into the government's appalling propaganda. Just because I have ventured into other related issues does not in any way mean that I don't care about what has happened to those children - quite the opposite, in fact - so please don't tar me with the same brush in case that was your intention.

limitedperiodonly Fri 05-Apr-13 21:51:35

I too am very familiar with people who work in the City. Many of them are not the finest of minds. Some of them are not the most upright of individuals. Just like everyone else, really.

Mrsdoyle1 Fri 05-Apr-13 22:54:22

^KarlosKKrinkelbeim Fri 05-Apr-13 21:07:06

These were people operating in many cases with high intelligence and a sound understanding of the concepts of action and consequence. The Philpotts of this world operate in a world in which all consequences have been removed, by the intervention of the state, and are as a result without significant moral or intellectual capacity.^

Do you not think the fact that those involved in the financial crisis were operating with 'high intelligence and a sound understanding of the concepts of action and consequence' makes their behaviour even more despicable? I fully accept I have no expertise about the financial world. I also don't doubt that many in the financial world were/are acting within the rules responsibly, but the recent rate fixing scandal at Barclays is one example of how at least some of the people you refer to above operate. Are you seriously trying to contrast them with Philpott in that they somehow have 'significant moral capacity'? And talking about the removal of consequences and state intervention, am I wrong in thinking that millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been used to bail out the banks precisely because those involved in major decision-making have taken unacceptable risks despite the possible consequences?

Your defence of the blatant greed, total immorality and selfishness of those individuals is unbelievable. (May I suggest you read Sebastian Faulkes' 'A Week in December'? Fiction, yes, but based on research among his contacts in the City.)

Human nature is what it is - personality traits emerge unbound by intelligence, class, gender or whatever convenient category you choose. Some seem to think that certain sections of society are the receptacles for all the bad traits, while other sections are guardians of the good. Now that, if you will excuse me for saying, is total rubbish.

(Incidentally, I made a point earlier about the fact that those with psychopathic tendencies can be found at all levels of society, including the corporate world. Psychopathic tendencies are not merely 'attitudes', they are psychological traits that unfortunately seem to be incurable, unlike attitudes which have the capacity to be changed.)

merrymouse Sat 06-Apr-13 06:50:20

Everybody and his dog could see that the financial crisis was looming. Everybody knew the numbers didn't add up, from consumers taking out mortgages and credit they couldn't afford to bankers who knew that there was no underlying substance to their transactions. I am sure you will find threads on mumsnet predicting financial doom and chaos.

Nobody did anything about it because as individuals, everybody found the short term pressures and rewards too great to change their actions.

merrymouse Sat 06-Apr-13 06:59:40

However, shacking up with 2 women, having 17 children and setting fire to a house containing 6 of your children is not really comparable.

There are apparently 190 households claiming benefits for more than 10 children. I have no idea whether they are trying to get extra benefits, have had serial multiple births or are just very religious. However I wouldn't be basing key government policies around the fear that there is about to be an epidemic of them.

flaminhoopsaloolah Sat 06-Apr-13 11:31:33

Lemonmuffin - yes, he directly/indirectly got money from the state. This though did not make him a cruel awful man - he already was a cruel awful man. The DM headline was purposely driving the notion that WEFARE made him this way.

Phillpott - just like most awful terrible people that you find in all walks of life, is fortunately a minority.

I really really do have a problem in people taking someone's actions and applying their mind-set to everyone who may have something in common with them eg someone claiming benefits.

That sort of knee-jerk reaction serves no one, and encourages action that hurts everyone instead of targeting the minority.

merrymouse Sat 06-Apr-13 11:44:34

Actually, as has been said over and over again, when his partner and children left they took their money with them.

Dawndonna Sat 06-Apr-13 11:48:46

the other view
Not a dm link.

aufaniae Sat 06-Apr-13 12:01:32

Thanks for that Dawndonna smile

Had to fiddle with the link to get it to work though:

The other view

Dawndonna Sat 06-Apr-13 12:16:12

Oh, sorry aufaniae and Thank you for making it work! Usually check but for some reason didn't this time.
blush

aufaniae Sat 06-Apr-13 12:27:49

It's a great link, worth the extra effort. I know it's meant as parody but it's got more than a grain of truth IMO!

limitedperiodonly Sat 06-Apr-13 12:29:42

A lot more than a grain of truth.

flaminhoopsaloolah Sat 06-Apr-13 12:40:45

Is it ok for me to smirk? So very true...inheriting money and having daddy make sure you go to the best schools etc obviously makes you qualified to run the country.

Not that I think I could run the country - I'm no where near qualified.

Mrsdoyle1 Sat 06-Apr-13 12:42:58

Thank you, Dawndonna and Aufaniae - a wonderful spoof that hits the nail on the head!

Love it aufanie grin

aufaniae Sat 06-Apr-13 16:21:10

I do too smile But I feel blush about taking credit.

It was Dawndonna who found it.

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 17:08:05

I did enjoy that link, thanks for posting it smile

jennywren45 Sat 06-Apr-13 17:17:32

Glad you all spotted the differences . He's running the country and your average benefit claimant ain't so not really so similar, eh? wink

flaminhoopsaloolah Sat 06-Apr-13 17:32:15

You're misding the point...again...jenny

Dawndonna Sat 06-Apr-13 17:41:08

I really enjoyed watching that fly right over Jenny's head. Says a lot really.

Dawndonna Sat 06-Apr-13 17:41:53

Ooo, sorry, thank you Aufaniae

jennywren45 Sat 06-Apr-13 17:45:54

I know, I'm so stupid giggle, have no idea how I hold down such a good job like most other stupid tories. hmm

danielle1981 Sat 06-Apr-13 17:45:59

I would have to agree with Staceys post, she's hit the nail on the head!

flaminhoopsaloolah Sat 06-Apr-13 17:49:56

I dont have anything against Tories jenny...I do have something against people who stereotype.

jennywren45 Sat 06-Apr-13 18:29:37

And I am not missing the point. I simply don't agree with yours.
Osbourne inherited wealth. He has a job for which he receives a salary. How is that remotely like being on benefits where you get money from other people for doing nothing?

Or are you against all inherited wealth ?

Dawndonna Sat 06-Apr-13 18:34:05

OFGS.
He didn't work to get where he is. He'd be alright if he were doing something else. He is never going to be in a position of need. There will always be someone to tap for a job via the 'old boys network'. He will never have to do a Tebbit.
I would rather someone running the country who had valid experience. I don't count Cameron's experience as valid. Heartbreaking, definitely, but not valid.
You missed the point by few miles. How do you think I live?

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 18:39:33

I what the parody is aiming for is this: having inherited wealth and being in a position of privilege doesn't automatically make you superior to someone who is poor and/or on benefits.

That's how I read it anyway.

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 18:40:38

I *think

flaminhoopsaloolah Sat 06-Apr-13 18:57:00

Jennywren - is there any chance you can debate constructively wuthout being childish and sarcastic?

jennywren45 Sat 06-Apr-13 18:57:37

No. grin

jennywren45 Sat 06-Apr-13 18:58:51

Dawn the problem with what you say is that most politicians form all political persuasions are in a similar boat - Clegg, Miliband, Blair...all wealthy , cocooned and somewhat removed.
Not sure how you redress that.

Dawndonna Sat 06-Apr-13 19:05:12

Not entirely sure you'd want to, Jenny.

Don't give a flying fuck anymore.

<gone>

jennywren45 Sat 06-Apr-13 19:06:23

Ciao grin

ivykaty44 Sat 06-Apr-13 19:09:22

Mrsdoyle1
The 'wealthy' in this country are currently taxed at 50% - Is it really a large chunk compared to someone earning a lot less - I wasn't sure so did a few calculations

when they earn over a certain amount that part of their earnings is taxed at 45%

It isn't the entire earning that are taxed at 45%

e.g if you earned £155000 then your take home pay per year would be £92.837

£55.848 would be income tax - that is a lot of money in my view
£6.314 NI contributions
total £62.162

making 40%

If your salary was £50000 per year your income tax would be £9.818 per year BUT your NI contributions would be £4.214 a total of £14.032

meaning 28% has been taken in total 12% less than someone earning 100k more.

In real terms it is surely the average wage earner that is paying a lot into the pot

what do you reckon?

Molehillmountain Sat 06-Apr-13 19:26:12

Great link. Made me want to jump up and down and say "exactly". Typed a couple of paragraphs and deleted several times so I obviously can't articulate what I feel about the unfairness of the current view of benefits and poverty. But it seems to be heading back to the idea that the poor are somehow morally inferior to the rich. I can't pin it down exactly. But luck, good and bad, seem to have very little place in it all whereas I think they are critical and central,

Viviennemary Sat 06-Apr-13 19:36:12

A lot of Labour politicians come from extremely priviledged backgrounds. And champagne socialist types with very left wing pie in the sky views have put me off the Labour party. I don't like Milliband. And I don't like the fact that the only labour policies are to disagree with almost everything the government does. It's not very convincing. I do want to see reform to the welfare state and some sort of cap on benefits to prevent people raking in thousands a month.

Molehillmountain Sat 06-Apr-13 19:50:44

Most of the great philanthropists came from privileged backgrounds. Not a problem. People need to be wealthy enough to have time and money to spare. The important thing is they also have to recognise their good fortune and its inherent unfairness for want of a better word. Then, they go and do something about it. I don't think you have to live in sack cloth to prove you care. You just have to wish and work for better for those who have t got as much as you, and crucially,not feel more entitled to what you have than anyone. Yes, it gets more complicated than that. But I feel that the prevailing attitude is shifting from supporting people to achieve more to shaming them into it. With the fallout of many feeling unfairly judged and others feeling completely smug.
Why don't we set up some moral value added system, a bit like the school league tables value added measure, to ask how well we've all done from where we started? There might be some surprisingly low scores from some folk heaped with privilege.

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 19:55:08

Molehill like you I had a big long post typed out then deleted it all because some people will just never "get" it.

Agree with everything you have said.

Molehillmountain Sat 06-Apr-13 20:31:53

It's good to know that flippingada. I feel I'm getting so much clearer in what I fundamentally believe as a direct result of seeing what this government is doing. Actually-not so much what it's doing but the spirit in which it is doing it. It's quite an exciting time fur me and I want to do something useful with the strong feelings I have. I'm not in the position to be a rich philanthropist, sadly, but I do need to do something to at least set my children a good example of how to balance living your life for your family and their immediate needs and doing something to, in some small way, to stand up and be counted. Not accept the status quo and all that.

Molehillmountain Sat 06-Apr-13 20:34:29

I really hope the exciting wasn't the wrong word to use. It sounds as if I'm excited by what's happening-I'd rather be content, slightly bored and not be feeling politicised because then perhaps it would mean people weren't having such a crap time.

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 21:04:38

I know what you mean, it's good to feel engaged rather than apathetic, cause being engaged gives you the energy and motivation to do things.

I was bought up with the idea it's important to help and to make a difference if you can so am trying to do that (also not rich but hey).

jennywren45 Sat 06-Apr-13 21:09:59

I know what you mean, it's good to feel engaged rather than apathetic, cause being engaged gives you the energy and motivation to do things.

Absolutely. Which is why I strongly support volunteering, community work and workfare for those long term unemployed.

Mrsdoyle1 Sat 06-Apr-13 21:22:11

^ ivykaty44 Sat 06-Apr-13 19:09:22

Mrsdoyle1
The 'wealthy' in this country are currently taxed at 50% - Is it really a large chunk compared to someone earning a lot less - I wasn't sure so did a few calculations^

Apologies, ivykaty, but not quite sure why you're directing this one specifically at me....? I would be the last person to say that the average earner didn't contribute massively to the system! Or am I missing the point here? Sorry, just a bit confused! confused

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 21:45:52

Good for you jenny- genuinely meant, in case you think I'm being snarky.

I don't support workfare, which I'm sure won't come as surprise but agree that community and voluntary work is a brilliant way to contribute.

ivykaty44 Sat 06-Apr-13 22:25:06

I was reading your post and wondered whether it was the average earners that are actually contributing in real terms far more than high earners - so yes I agree with you and that was my point smile

Molehillmountain Sat 06-Apr-13 22:28:20

Not that this is about workfare specifically, but ditto, Jenny. Volunteering, community work, brilliant. Workfare? Easy and legal way to bypass n m w.

Mrsdoyle1 Sat 06-Apr-13 23:15:30

^ ivykaty44 Sat 06-Apr-13 22:25:06

I was reading your post and wondered whether it was the average earners that are actually contributing in real terms far more than high earners - so yes I agree with you and that was my point^

Ah, thank you, ivykaty, now I see ... sorry I didn't grasp this first time round! The figures you posted are interesting, and as there are far more average earners than those who earn above the 50% - er, I mean 45% - tax threshold, it must certainly be the less well off majority that foot a large part of the bill overall. The impact of tax on the less well off is far greater in terms of managing basic living costs, even though the actual percentage taken is smaller. In contrast, the minority of higher-rate tax payers are presumably not going to be struggling to put food on the table at £92 k (for illustration purposes), despite paying a higher tax bill, nor will they ever have to be subjected to that awful woman on 'Superscrimpers' or whatever it's called. Life really isn't fair... sad

flaminhoopsaloolah Sat 06-Apr-13 23:18:23

I'm all for volunteering...and I|'m actually not completely against workfare - but workfare where the company is somewhere like Tescos and all they do is keep the free labour rolling in a cut existing staff hours and rarely offer a job to the "employee" at the end of what is a pointless exercise in learning basically nothing for the most part is a stupid stupid stupid idea. I have read about people who were taken out of the place they were volunteering (usually something worthwhile and where they were actually gaining valuable experience that could help them get a job that, when paying full time, paid enough to live on) and dumped into Poundland, or Argos, or Tescos...they did nothing of any value for future prospects, didn't get a job at the end of it and got rolled straight back on the treadmill. Worthless waste of time for all involved.

limitedperiodonly Sat 06-Apr-13 23:56:07

Really? I'm vehemently opposed to Workfare. It's not only unfair, it is economic nonsense.

If there's a job to be done, the employer should pay someone to do it. They work the wage out according to the employee's skill, experience and the fair market rate for the job. It is not the business of the government to get involved beyond having set the National Minimum Wage and the strictures of other employment legislation.

That way we take people off Jobseekers' Allowance and get them paying taxes.

Workfare benefits only those employers who want free labour and the government who want to massage unemployment figures.

It does nothing for the unemployed, the employed who may be let go to make way for free labour, the taxpayer, who is still paying the benefit bill in full, and those companies not involved in the scheme who are disadvantaged through having to pay for their labour.

If people would like to volunteer their labour that is entirely up to them. However, I would take a very dim view of any organisation using volunteers when they can and should be using salaried staff.

That includes the pernicious spread of internships which is the exploitation of young people and is largely open only to those whose parents can support them.

Darkesteyes Sun 07-Apr-13 00:47:58

flamin ive read about people getting made redundant from their job and then getting sent back to same employer being made to do the same job for JSA.

And ESA claimants are being made to do indefinate workfare.

Tortington Sun 07-Apr-13 00:54:37

I actually think that you should work for your unemployment benefit. - but not in a job that you would get money for.

this scheme is not for the benefit of lazy bone idle sofa dwellers.

this scheme is for the benefit of business men. make no mistake about it

large business owners are saving shed loads.

limitedperiodonly Sun 07-Apr-13 09:50:12

What kind of work would that be custardo?

Tortington Sun 07-Apr-13 10:11:02

working for not for profits what is currently called volunteering - but of course it would be compulsory. the charity would get no incentive from govt to take on jobless over others who want to volunteer.

flaminhoopsaloolah Sun 07-Apr-13 10:28:28

Limited and Darkest - I completely believe it all. I did say under certain circumstances - those circumstances being that big companies aren't benefitting from it and cutting the hours of the regular employees (or even making them redundant) and that the position is somewhere that really will do some good for society as a whole and the job actually gives the participant a real chance at gaining real skills (or new skills) that are measurable and gives them a real fighting chance at a job at the end. The way the scheme works now is simply rewarding big business - they are the only winners...and the government are also having to pay out more benefits to those who have had their hours dropped. The current incarnation seems to be beyond stupid.

flaminhoopsaloolah Sun 07-Apr-13 10:30:42

Oh and the government shouldn't' be allowed to use those on such a scheme in figures for employment - because that's just utter number fiddling bollocks.

Darkesteyes Sun 07-Apr-13 16:39:41

And the Job Centres and charities should not be able to cause the community worker/workfarer to get sanctioned.
At the moment there are massive conflicts of interest going on like the Salvation Army reporting a claimant to JC for a sanction causing the claimant the very hardship that the Sally Army are suppossed to be against.

flaminhoopsaloolah Sun 07-Apr-13 16:53:03

I heard that the Job Centres have actually been given sanction targets...does anyone else know anything about that?

limitedperiodonly Sun 07-Apr-13 17:04:10

I'm shocked at that story darkest. I agree, if a Workfarer doesn't fulfil his or her obligations there is an obligation to report, and that's why charities should keep their beaks out, particularly, as you say, a charity that knows all about people who live chaotic, difficult lives.

I contacted the British Heart Foundation, who I've donated to in the past, to ask them to remove me from their mailing list until they'd ended their association with Workfare.

Nevertheless, they kept sending me mailshots which I kept returning in their prepaid envelopes with a note to say why.

One day one caught me in a very bad mood and I scrawled on it which probably made me look unhinged. It seems to have done the trick though.

limitedperiodonly Sun 07-Apr-13 17:12:54

It's not clear flamin There was a letter circulated to staff at Walthamstow, NE London I think. It's been downplayed as the actions of one over-enthusiastic manager but the public accounts committee is looking into it.

public accounts committee

it's only someone being a bit keen

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