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

[Notsoyummymummy1]

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

"Yes he was on benefits and yes he committed a terrible crime. The two aren't linked."

How?

How are they not linked?

It's all wrong. He was an abusive man using his power over others. It was nothing to do with welfare payments and everything to do with the control he had.

I wrote this today on why this is domestic violence and why this will keep happening until we start helping women escape these relationships.

Explain how they are linked then lemon because I don't get it.

How can you not get it?

I think we all agree he is evil. If he gets attacked in prison - well who cares. I don't.

I don't honestly believe though that the state giving him all these benefits is right and there does need to be a limit set. People do need to take personal responsibility as opposed to just being allowed to do what they like at someone else's cost.

I don't understand why you (our anyone else) thinks his being on benefits was a motivator for the crime he committed - that's what I don't understand.

I think it's irrelevant.

People have said that his "lifestyle" actually "facilitated" the crime. I don't see how that can be, except in the most tenuous of ways - such as having more time to think about it because he wasn't at work.

Ok I'll try once more flippin!

The two things are linked because, first and foremost, evidence presented at the trial indicates that part of his reason for his actions was accessing the money and notoriety which fed his ego. He wanted power and control. A more intelligent and attractive abuser may have facilitated this through hunting down a well off woman and manipulating her. For him, the welfare System facilitated that. The more children he had - by two women simultaneously-the more money he accessed

So- first the direct evidence from the trial, which came from witnesses who were either perpetrators themselves or close to the family.

Secondly, it seems the welfare system facilitated Other aspects which fed his ego. He wouldn't have got on Jeremy kyle if he'd fathered 4 children on benefits. Equally he wouldn't have got on if he'd been a respectable working father of a large family. It was the combination of those two-'his sticking two fingers up at society and thinking he could do what he liked. The system which is designed to support people, and which is used properly by almost everyone on benefits was completely abused by him. He abused women. He abused the system.

I don't think either side will agree with the other on a thread like this. But I think there will be some changes. The benefits cap will be seen as more acceptable and this scum will be used as a reason why.

I do agree with a cap of some sort btw regardless of this case. 17 children is completely irresponsible to have whilst on benefits.

I read a quote earlier today by Owen Jones from the Independent.

"The idea he is representative of people on benefits is as absurd as suggesting Harold Shipman is representative of doctors"

I think that pretty much sums it up. Personally I think Osbourne should not try to politicise this issue. It shows poor judgement in my opinion.

Osborne is a moron. It pains me to say so but he really is.

MP is not representative of people who claim benefits and neither is Harold Shipman representative of GPs - I agree.

However as a result of Shipman certain flaws were found in the way that deaths were registered and other issues- why can't it be recognised that there maybe flaws in the benefit system ?

Am I getting a feeling that some people feel Mairaid was a victim herself? The woman just got 17 yrs!

I do see what you're getting at janey, I don't agree that benefits was a motivator, except in the sense that tied in with his need to dominate and be in control.

I think the primary factor was his abusive nature and desire to control his female partners; the benefits money was simply an unforeseen bonus.

If he hadn't obtained the money that way he'd have found another.

Yes!

The woman just got 17 yrs!

Perhaps she should have thought about that and called the cops on Philpott before setting the place on fire.

I know if I suggested that burning the house with the kids insides was a good idea, my OH would have the cops on me in no time.

The only flaw I can see in the benefits system highlighted by this case is that it was possible for the women's tax credits (let's all remember they were working please) to be paid into his account. However even if HMRC insisted benefits and tax credits were paid into an account in the sole name of the intended recipient, then in an abusive relationship that money could be misappropriated.

He's a vile vile man and I find the polygamous set up deeply odd, but there are plenty of people who have had children by more than one partner. There are plenty of couples in which one partner works and the other doesn't. There are many people, many MBers who have more children than I could conceive of coping with, and seem to do perfectly well.

The Philpotts and their depraved actions tells us nothing about the average benefit claimant in this country. Perhaps the DM should have made that headline " vile product of the armed forces". It would be about as relevant.

As an aside I am pretty sure George Osbourne costs the taxpayer more in subsidised accommodation than the Philpotts ever did.