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!

Oh and I also was going to mention AGAIN as some people still haven't got it, that he wasn't claiming a lot of the benefits involved - they were being paid to the women, but then appropriated by him.

So, maybe we should stop paying tax credits to working women on crap wages, just in case some abusive dickhead then steals them?

DarkesteyesWed 03-Apr-13 13:50:20

Ive thought of something else that could be a result of this headline.
Its been revealed that both Mairead and Lisa were being financially abused.
This has been completely glossed over and ignored by many publications except the Guardian

The message this gives out to women....if you are being financially abused forget confiding in anyone about it because you wont be believed. There was a real chance here to publicise that financial abuse (as well as other abuse obvs) seems to be getting worse and is a major problem for women in relationships. An angle like this could have reached out to women in similar situations which would have meant the deaths of these poor children would not have been in vain

DarkesteyesWed 03-Apr-13 22:44:11

Both women were working. Their salaries and tax credits were paid into HIS account. WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY do institutions like the banks DWP and HMRC and employers not query why this is the case?
When me and DH were signing on in the late 90s we used to receive a giro in the post with only his name on it but he was claiming for me.
And i know this still happens with joint claims where the money is paid to one person.
Now my DH is very reasonable with money and not controlling with it but they arent all like that.
Surely another thing we should be asking is how this sort of thing could be avoided in future. We really need to educate young people about financial abuse in schools.
The fiancial abuse aspect here is being glossed over by all publications apart from the Guardian. If just one woman could have recognised that she was being financially abused by reading this story and got help and saves herself AND her children then something good could have come out of all the sensationalism today. But NOOOO much more productive to focus on the benefit aspect?! I think not.

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

If anyone thinks Philpott was motivated by money, please read this about his past history of control, manipulation and DV. It's truly shocking. I'd point out the cpvery young age of the women he formed relationships with. Two were 14 years old.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Philpott#Biography_before_2012

He was not motivated by money or benefits in any of these previous "incidents". He is just an evil monster who hates women.

DarkestEyes yes, good point about nobody querying why the benefits were all bring paid into his bank account.

I think the real scandal of this is not the benefits but the way he was able to carry on with his horrible behaviour for so long, without any checks. If this hadn't happened, he could have carried on for who knows how many years.

Have just made a thread about the DM's response to the criticism in their new headline

I still think if he had been stuck down a coal mine or away in a Lorry all day he wouldn't have had so much time on his hands to father the children (all though he may have still had dcs in another area) or take drugs etc. His sexual boasts and behaviour were disgusting especially if he made it so obvious around his DC. He may have shown his true colours at work and got into trouble. He may have resorted to crime and been imprisoned at an earlier stage.

The benefits do have relevance because he was hoping to gain a larger council house for his family by starting the fire and it wasn't as if he was going to make any contribution towards paying for it.

Yes, there did used to be jobs in coal mines.

Er, the guy was convicted of attempted murder in 1978. I don't see how much more "showing his true colours" and "getting into trouble" he could have done.

Men who used to work in coalmines 100 years ago, used to have 11 children too.

They apparently had enough time.

yes but they paid for the 11 children out of their earned wages and there was no contraception as there is now. He had 16 children funded courtesy of the taxpayer and it isn't right.

When violent men show their "true colours", most people pretend that they're not showing their true colours, they're just stressed, over-reacting or the woman must have provoked it. The effort people go into to minimise the showing of violent men's true colours, is amazing.

Do you think the Victorian/Edwardian model of society is actually something we should be aspiring toalemci?

If there wasn't enough to eat, the children starved.

They would also be sent out to work at a very young age. It was normal for children to be out doing a full days work at the age of 8, or even younger. And if they got sick and couldn't work well, tough shit.

Oh, and if the provider got sick and died or again inured and unable to work then again, tough shit, you had to rely on charity or shift for yourself.

I don't believe anyone seriously thinks that situation would be an improvement on what we have now..we are slowly heading back that way though.

I haven't read the whole thread, I don't think the Daily Mail was right on this occasion but I think their view will chime with a lot of people. The one thing missing from the welfare system is reciprocal morality. There is a generally accepted moral obligation for society to help those less fortunate. However, it is currently a one-way street and that's why people like Philpott, Karen Matthews and the fictional 'Shameless' types inspire such venom when they take the piss.

This is what the judge said (from the Guardian):

"The judge then detailed Philpott's history of violence against women, starting with his attempted murder of a partner who left him, whom he stabbed 13 times. On his release from prison Philpott continued to abuse, control and beat women.

Philpott beat his first wife, with whom he had three children, before leaving her in his 40s for a 16-year-old whom he controlled "through physical and sexual violence, threats and emotional abuse".

The judge added: "She, like the two women before her, speaks of the lifelong damage she has suffered as a result of her relationship with you."

Philpott then met and married Mairead, who was from a troubled background and viewed him as her "guardian angel". She not only allowed Philpott to have a relationship with Willis, but allowed her to live in the house.

"You controlled and manipulated those women as you had controlled and manipulated their predecessors," the judge said. "They ran the household and looked after all the children. They went out to work. Their wages and their benefits went into your account, you controlled how money was spent ? These two young women were not even permitted to have a front door key.

"I accept that the level of physical violence had reduced in recent years, but the level of control, aggression and fear most certainly did not. Women were your chattels, there to look after you and your children (for that is how you describe them all). You bark orders and they obey. Witness after witness described the dynamics in your household. You were kingpin, no one else mattered."

I think that there have been failings in the criminal justice system and possibly the child protection agencies. I think this man was an absolutely evil bastard who should not have been free to carry on as he did. If society was more ready to lock up people who present a clear and ongoing threat to others he would not have been around to commit this latest crime.

For the DM to blame his actions on the benefits system is utterly despicable and I will not be changing my mind on that any time soon.

Instead of going on about benefits people should be asking questions about the criminal justice system, domestic violence and the child protection agencies. But no-one's interested in that, are they.

Exactly BasilBabyEater. this is a patriarchial problem NOT a benefits one.

looking at dv in relation to this case is always going to be tricky as Mairead was obviously a victim of Mick but while she did refuse to divorce him, she didn't refuse the fire plot.

so has been found guilty of the manslaughter of her DCs. his other partner did leave him.

It's not always going to be tricky. He was a serious serial abuser of women. Pretty straightforward.

That should be women and girls. Apparently some of his "girlfriends" and "partners" who he abused were 14.

No of course not Flipinda but I got the impression that the children were hungry in this current situation as well and not properly fed. He wasted money on drugs and a snooker table.

Also contraceptives were more limited and I think people had lots of children because some of them did not survive 'til adulthood. Healthcare, nutrition and contraception are greatly improved in 2013 but I still think people should not be having umpteen children they cannot pay for. one or 2 on welfare but not 16 when they are not employed

No of course he shouldn't have been having children and not supporting them.

Or taking money that was meant to feed his family.

Or attempting to murder one woman.

Or actually killing six children.

But he DID do those things. Because he was a dangerous, abusive, misogynistic piece of shit.

The welfare state is to provide PROTECTION from people like this. By not completely allowing the children to starve. By supporting Lisa Willis and her children to escape.

The failure here is that it didn't do more - hands tied with current funding, etc.

I acknowledge what you're saying, but non of that had any impact on MPs behaviour.

He was an abusive controlling bully and the fact that he was absorbing in work benefits from his abused female partners is incidental to that. The welfare system didn't cause any of that.

nicet - I agree with you, just don't think its how the media will play it.

I still think the welfare system was a contributory factor. he could do as he pleased, however he behaved that money kept coming in with him not being accountable.

Flip I do understand about the other factors too but the welfare payments into his account gave him license to abuse the system and power to behave in this awful way. He didn't have to be in the public eye or answer to a manager or face a disciplinary at work etc like most people.

It was more than he could earn and a high salary for alot of people.