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!

The welfare system was not a contributory factor in this man's violence. Which went on for years and the authorities knew about.

Amazing that instead of questioning why he was allowed to continue abusing women over the years, what failures in the justice system allowed this to happen, the focus is on money.

I don't understand it, quite frankly. You'd think, from reading the comments on here, that if this man was receiving no money from the public purse then people would not particularly have any issues with him. Mind boggling.

I saw the headline and it really looked like the DM was calling the children vile products of the benefit system.

A friend of mine was ranting on Facebook about people claiming benefits but she doesn't work, she gets child benefits and tax credits, she relies on her partner's income so i think she is being a tad hypocritical.

By the way the Mail are really contrite about it all:

"Meanwhile, aided and abetted by the BBC, the Left-wing commentariat hysterically demonised anybody who dared suggest the over-generous welfare system had allowed Philpott to live a vile, base life, while his taxpayer funded existence ? the equivalent of a salary of almost £100,000 ? was cynically ignored.
Thus, the Left tried to censor the debate on welfare that the Chancellor said Britain needs to have. In the same way, the Left has tried to silence criticism of Labour?s open door immigration policies ? this despite the social damage, as Frank Field so bravely points out, inflicted on Britain?s poor, white working class."

NiceTabardFri 05-Apr-13 15:45:50

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

sits and waits for certain posters to say that the welfare system is a contributory factor to Philpotts paedophilia

I am wondering what the state should have done to stop this man tbh. He forced apparently the women in his life to feed money into his bank account.

What is the government/state going to do about that? Not allow us to pay money into other people's accounts. I do it all the time with my DH and he to me. If I thought that someone would oversee this decision and grant permission I would be up in arms.

Mairaid Philpott wasnt some little victim - she just got 17 years....

"Meanwhile, aided and abetted by the BBC, the Left-wing commentariat hysterically demonised anybody who dared suggest the over-generous welfare system had allowed Philpott to live a vile, base life, while his taxpayer funded existence ? the equivalent of a salary of almost £100,000 ? was cynically ignored.
Thus, the Left tried to censor the debate on welfare that the Chancellor said Britain needs to have. In the same way, the Left has tried to silence criticism of Labour?s open door immigration policies ? this despite the social damage, as Frank Field so bravely points out, inflicted on Britain?s poor, white working class."

Yep. That seems to be a fair point.

And?

It doesn't seem like a "fair point" it is entirely contradictory. In one breath it says they want to support Britain's "poor white working class" and in the next breath it talks about removing money from those very same people.

It's utter nonsense.

handcream questions should be asked when all monies are being paid into a sole persons account as was the case with Philpott.
The DWP and bank and employer never query things like this and that shouldnt be the case.
There needs to be more education and awareness raised in society about financial abuse in relationships.
Which is evident by some of the attitudes ive seen.

In one breath they want people to take personal reponsibility.
In the next breath they want to hand out food vouchers.
More contradiction.

handcream that man had been convicted of attempted murder for stabbing an ex partner multiple times, had relationships which were violent and abusive with women and girls some of whom were underage, he sexually abused women and girs and beat them and so on and so forth.

All of those things are illegal. Very illegal. What the authorities should have done was ensured that he was not in a position to abuse women and girls. Men who are proven to be serially, seriously violent should simply not be let loose on teh public to do what they will. This is a massive failing in the criminal justice system and yet BIZARRELY no-one is talking about that, preferring instead to witter on about money.

Dark, persumably Mairaid authorised the payments to go to Mick. Are you seriously suggesting that the government start to poke around people's financial affiars and effectively decide who is allowed to do what.

Even if they had those powers Mairaid would have claimed that she authorised it anyway.

What next, the DWP looking at bank accounts and deciding what is right and proper for you to spend your money on!

handcream this very government has removed the long held principle of personal taxation in the UK, in favour of looking at household accounts and deciding who gets what based on that. So, um, yes.

I also think that in a family such as this, with a man who was known to be extremely violent and abusive, the fact that the benefits were being paid to him and the women did not have door keys and were being coerced sexually and beaten IS a matter for the authorities frankly, yes.

Sadly the authorities didn't agree. Although I believe a serious case review is underway.

I guess what I am saying is that Mairaid chose to be with him, she chose him over her children, she lied and lied in court - and got 17 years!

We cannot stop relationships amongst two adults. A very close relative stayed with a abusive man. We tried and tried to support her and she went back again and again, she lied about what was happening and tbh - it only ended when he decided to end it! What can we do about these women? Cart them off in the middle of the night.....

Realistically - do you think the authorities will look into why someone doesnt have front door keys (they wouldnt know for one thing) and also are you suggesting that Mairaid is a victim?

Of course you can stop relationships between adults. He wouldn't have been able to do all this stuff if he'd been in prison, would he.

The things he did to women were illegal, he was a serious repeat offender, the authorities knew. Yes of course women and girls should have been protected from him.

handcream YES if a man has been convicted of attempted murder and abusing women, beating them, raping them, and the authorities know (which they DID) and moreover there are children in the household I would ABSOLUTELY expect them to look into the dynamics of the household including who does what, when and how, who has access to money and so on to pick up on ongoing abuse most especially in a household where there are children.

This is the sort of thing social services are THERE FOR.

handcream that must have been incredibly frustrating.
What i meant though was that there should be education in high schools about financial abuse in relationships so women (and men lets not be sexist here) can recognise the signs and end a potentially abusive relationship a lot earlier.

Lisa on the other hand chose to leave him. My understanding is that she spent some time in a shelter and then moved into a council house with her children. Apparently she was shocked to realize how much money she was entitled to. So in Lisa's case benefits enabled her to leave this abusive man.

Are you SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING that the authorities should have had NO INTEREST in this family? In what this man was doing?

I say they weren't interested enough.

Moreover, I say that if our criminal justice system worked properly he wouldn't have been able to do half of this stuff in the first place.

Exactly NiceTabard. Agree with all your comments.

I agree that women need to stand up for themselves. Of course that is right. However there are some women who do go for these types of men. Time and time again.

My relative covered up all the time, everytime someone tried to help she lied. In the end we decided as a family to state that we were there for her, however we couldnt physically remove her from the situation. She was covering for him all of the time. And this wasnt some women living on a pittance who had no where to go. She was a professional women but for some reason (I really dont understand why) she was atracted to these sorts of men. It wasnt the first time (although I wasnt in the family when the other incidents occured). She made her parents sick with worry - in the end the only thing we could do was pick up the pieces afterwards.

And then she did something similar with the next man....

The point I am making is what are they expected to do, arrest him for not giving them keys, not allow them to hand over their wages to him?

If Mairaid had been questioned she would have said that she was authorising the payments, perhaps she was bad with money and had a gambling problem (I know she didnt!) anything that would say 'I can give my money to whomever I like'.

Its a bit like people stating that when people leave a £1m estate to a cats home that is wrong. People can do what they like with their money, rightly or wrong.

Like my relative Mairaid would have covered for him - after all - look what she covered up in the end

You seem to be focussing on a single one of his relationships, handcream

And ignoring all the others, including with underage girls, his conviction for attempted murder etc. Simply saying "women need to stand up for themselves".

From my (personal) point of view women should not simply be expected to "stand up for themselves" when confronted with violent partners, and fortunately the LAW and many many charities and other organisations agree with me.

I don't really know what to say here.

MP was a an abusive violent man.

That he was allowed to terrorise, abuse and violently assault vulnerable women continuously, over a period of 30 years, is far worse than the fact he was living off benefits. We should all be horrified and angry that this continued, seemingly unchecked (some would even say aided and abetted).

Some people seem more bothered about the amount of money he got. No, he shouldn't have had it - because it wasn't his, it was to feed and clothe his kids - but he was not like he was because of benefits.

"I say they weren't interested enough"

Exactly.