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!

It wouldn't change his personality, he'd still be an abuser. He'd just find a different way to do it.

I agree it wouldn't change his personality. He's an abuser. But it's absolutely reasonable to have the debate about how his lifestyle was facilitated .

Oh FFS, I know I shouldn't find it surprising since it's been going on for ages, but are they really using this vile example of a human being to tar everyone on benefits with the same brush again? Bad person, loads of children, welfare lifestyle, never worked a day, and now.... benefits = child killer.

And the idiot Osbourne is using jumping on the bandwagon? Surely he should know what the actual stats are, he's supposed to be a politician. I can't find where I read them, but AFAIR, the real stats are that only about 10 families in the whole country have over 10 kids, and it's definitely true that the unemployed receive far less in benefits that those in work (you know, the "working hard and getting on" folk who Shiny Dave says we should all be like).

I can't believe so many people fall for the poor-bashing hatred. We pay a pittance in tax to people who are on a "welfare lifestyle". 99.9% of claimants either do/have worked, they have paid in, we are not "supporting them". It's damned lies to make us hate the poor so we're distracted from how businesses and the fat cat politicians are avoiding paying their own tax and laughing all the way to the bank.

Wake up!!!

I don't think anyone on the thread is falling for it. Most of the comments have deplored the DM stance on it.

But why is his lifestyle in question??

He was an evil bullying man who treat women like dirt and his children like they didn't exist.

There are men out there earning thousands who do the same.

But the title asks is he a product of the welfare system. The answer is no. People like Philpott think they are above the law anyway, whether they are rich, poor or in between.

This is an exceptional case. It's bizarre to use it as a "test case" by which to judge benefit claimants.

Unless people think he can do what the hell he likes as long as they don't have to pay..?

I hate, hate this story. I haven't read the DM link because I won't click through, but I have seen the headlines on Facebook.

This man is only a 'vile product of the welfare system' if you think, at some deep level, that there is something distasteful and corrupting about benefits.

Think about it. That man who killed his family for insurance. Stephen Seddon. All over the news last week. Did one story say that he was a vile product of the existence of life insurance'? No. It was taken as fact that insurance was a sensible thing for the financially prudent to have. The fact that he killed them to benefit was just the target of his crime, not the reason for it.

But with Philpott, the fact that he could financially benefit by getting his other children and mistress back under his control was seen as meaning the crime was caused by benefits, not that this was a financially motivated crime where the source of the money was pretty irrelevant.

And that's even leaving aside the fact that I'm not sure that the financial motive is that clear. This is a violent man who punished everyone who crossed him and seems to have been violent in every relationship.

Good post Amanda. From reports, it seems that the motive for the crime was a combination of control, power, anger at being crossed and determination to get his own way no matter what the cost.

"I for one do not pay my taxes so vile "people" like him can sit on their lazy alcohol drinking drug taking backsides all day getting free money, a free house and having 17 bloody children"

Apparently some people are falling for it.

Well posted Amanda.

life insurance does not capture the public imagination like Shameless Mick or Oscar Pistorious.

Very rich people who die in odd circumstances feature regularly in the press.

I don't recall anyone on MN wanting to discuss the life insurance murder so the press are only reflecting what people are interested in.

But I'm not talking about the amount of coverage of the respective murders, which I agree is governed largely by what the public is interested in hearing about. I'm talking about the moral judgement that press coverage chooses to pass, thus further generating the idea that this is a story about benefits. Not a story about a fucking vile abusive man. And, of course, however abused she was, a mother who colluded in their manslaughter.

MN is focussing on the benefits angle. BBC News has 6 links, 2 on benefits, 4 on the rest of the story.

Faster every paper is talking about benefits, every radio show, every online debate I've seen.

I've seen no-one trying to excuse him, but plenty trying to blame the benefits system as well, even though it was the benefits system that would have allowed the other mother to escape him with some of the children.

Annie- to be fair, I don't think that post you quoted is typical of the majority opinion on here. People have stated clearly that philpott is NOT a product of the welfare system . He would have been an abusive man whatever. However, given that evidence about the financial aspect featured quite a bit in the trial, it's clearly relevant as part of the framework of his lifestyle, choices he made etc

And while I entirely agree that any man who slaughters his family is just as diabolical, I also think there is a genuine debate to be had about the welfare aspect in the philpott case. If an abuser targets a wealthy woman and manipulates her for his own ends, or a self made wealthy man commits an outrage on his family, of course it's just as terrible, but in this specific case, it's absolutely right to question whether public funds were being used in a justified way. If there is any way in which welfare contributed to the number of children, then that has increased the scale of the tragedy apart from anything else. I completely see that a wealthy man could have a big family and wipe them out in an evil act and I'm not saying that philpott was worse because he relied so heavily on benefits, I am simply saying it is absolutely right to debate whether He should have been able to sustain his lifestyle, having endless kids and turning down work. That was part of who he was- the big I AM, thinking he was invincible.

MrsH - but you are talking about debates where you need 2 opposing views. you cannot have a debate on lots of the case as we all agree he is a vile man.

on the BBC's most watched/listened top 10:

4 = "A woman has finally told Mick Philpott what to do" - Derby Telegraph

9= Derby fire deaths: Were benefits to blame?

so benefits are not the most interesting part of this story for most people.

Yes I was particularly pleased that he was given what for by a female judge. He will have hated that.

There are some not-quite-accurate posts here.
Philpott's wife and mistress both worked.

Therefore money that tops up low paid workers should be abolished, by your thinking.

HTH.

In Victorian times the rise of life insurance was thought to be responsible for encouraging murders. eg www.thefreelibrary.com/Black+widows+who+brought+murder+to+the+slums%3B+David+Charters+talks+to...-a0111790953

Nowadays it is less easy to carry out a murder undetected so that the life insurance will pay out to the benefit of the murderer.

He played the benefit system - the system allowed it.

The system allowed him not to work.
The system provided him the money to spend on booze, fags and drugs without him lifting a finger to get it.
The system allowed him to spend the money that was meant for his children on above.

The system is at fault because it allows manipulative people like him to play it.

I think that Philpott was evil anyway and clearly not the brighest spark around. Of course benefits didnt make him like this, however, he was able to have 17 children without it really affecting his lifestyle.

He had 17 and the state paid him more and more. If benefits were stopped at say 2-3 children would he still have had 17? Would those 6 children have been here if he wasnt effectively doing what he liked (and being very proud of it) We will never know tbh.

He also bragged about it and the fact that in his opinion he deserved a bigger house, for fgs - he even went onto Jerermy Kyle!! His partners were in very low paid jobs and perhaps were not even revealing they were working so as not to affect their benefits.

And yes, I agree a female judge was great. He must have disliked that but not as much as being in jail. He will be hated. And it's no more than he deserves....

I think the saying 'the devil makes work for idle hands' is apt for him. If he was working everyday and was away from the house, would he have the time or energy to produce all the children.

Of course if there were no benefits would he have been like Fagin. He used his children as a commodity.

More ammunition for the "benefit scrounger" hating mentality. He's just evil.

alemci I think the saying 'the devil makes work for idle hands' is apt for him.

completely agree.

We can say of course the two women worked but how much did they earn? Was it one cleaning job a week, more than that..... Its a red herring. He had 17 children and was paid accordingly. Thank God this is rare.

I do think though that this case could kick start a review of just how many children the state will pay for from one person? Rightly or wrongly I feel something will happen due to all the media interest.