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!

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

He was a scrounger.
People do hate him and he was evil .

Bingo !

I can't even countenance the conversation around this despicable crime and the way people are using the actions of this vile repeat criminal to condemn everyone on benefits.

I am in receipt of child benefit and used to receive tax credits and I am not experiencing an urge to burn my children to death FFS. Maybe a few more years on benefits and that will happen, eh.

FFS.

If some bastard takes out life insurance on his wife and bumps her off, or a wealthy woman becomes involved with a manipulative abusive man who wants to control her finances, then that's shocking, but it's out of our control. Surely for no other reason that it was public money which facilitated philpott manipulating women into giving birth to a child a year, simultaneously, and financing this huge brood, we have a responsibility to debate whether this was a justifiable use of public funds. Not in a Daily Fail 'I don't want my taxes used on that scum' way, but in an intelligent and rational manner.

It's not simply the 6 innocent lives lost- its the 11 other blighted lives of his surviving children, plus numerous other women who may have been involved... Just how much carnage should philpott and the others convicted be allowed to leave behind them?

I agree with Chimp. He WAS a benefit scrounger. Not everyone who claims benefits is like this.

He has got what he deserves. Once in prison - well I think we all know what will happen to him......

Not true Nicetabard.

People are questioning how he was allowed to breed all the children that he had and receieve all the money to pay for his lifestyle.

I don't think people are condemning everyone on benefits.

The benefit system allowed this man to fulfil his lifestyle without him making any contribution to society.

Right. You are aware forced sterilisation is illegal?

FFS. 'Breed' like those poor kids were animals. Listen to yourself.

Do people honestly believe that MP would have turned into a decent person, limiting himself to a couple of children and keeping his head down and maintaining a job without the safety net of benefits?

I don't believe for one moment anyone thinks this is true, but it suits their agenda to pretend otherwise.

His wife and mistress also helped fund that lifestyle...

lemonmuffin
He is only one person, yes, but quite likely the tip of a similar iceberg.

The benefit system enabled him to sit at home, breeding lots and lots of children with different women, and living in a house with plenty of mod cons, drink, drugs whenever he fancied etc.

Without ever doing a stroke of work. Because it was all paid for. By the benefit system. Time to reconsider, I would say.

I'm finding the repetition of these myths really tiresome. I'm reposting THIS to counter this bullshit.

Tip of an iceberg my arse.

So, are we saying that the benefits he received for having so many children (and 17 is staggering tbh!) and the fact he was paid by the state accordingly had nothing to do with this crime?

Its not ALL benefit claimiants. Of course it is not! But for him, did benefits and the fact that the state were paying for all those children make his life run the way he wanted it to and ultimately cause him to make the decisions he did and start that fire.

This is a really unusual case. There are what 200 families with 10 or more children in the UK?

They are really good info graphics.

So, some are saying that his two partners worked. How much did they earn? I suspect a pittance and probably not for very long. They could have had one cleaning job a week at say £30. It was the benefits that Philpott was after. I dont believe for one moment it was the two women's salaries. There were all these children to look after - something I really cannot get my head around.

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?

This old chestnut again.

Here's an old chestnut for you to chew on in return: 'What do you propose happens to the children if the state stops paying? Do you honestly think these people will stop having children?'

it has been reported their joint salary was around £14k.

So, are we saying that the benefits he received for having so many children (and 17 is staggering tbh!) and the fact he was paid by the state accordingly had nothing to do with this crime?

Yes, it has nothing to do with the crime. You are conflating two entirely separate issues.

Handcream if he didn't want their wages why were they paid into his account? Along with all top ups...

"Do people honestly believe that MP would have turned into a decent person, limiting himself to a couple of children and keeping his head down and maintaining a job without the safety net of benefits?

No.

No-one has said that. But he wouldn't have been able to maintain the lifestyle that he enjoyed so much and which enabled him to have so many children and receive all the welfare payments, without the current benefit system.

why is that so hard for people to accept?

That's nice twofingers, thank you for that.

Tell me how he paid for it all then?

I did say intelligent debate but I see we've already for screeches about enforced sterilisation...

I just think its terrible that apart from the 6 dead children, philpott, his wife and friend have left a trail of utter misery for the remaining 11 children plus various other hangers on...

Tbh if people are saying that condemnation of philpott is bashing everyone on benefits, then frankly they are shooting themselves in the foot because they're inadvertently making out that he's a typical
Benefit claimant. He isn't. He's evil.

I agree Janey. He is evil. Benefits paid him to have 17 children. It DOESNT mean that everyone on benefits will have 17 children and do what he did.

He isnt typical at all, however I do think benefits allowed him to carry on with no real consequences until he made the decision to start that fire. it was motivated by money (again!)

MP wanted money for nothing - that included taking the money from his wife/partners salary and also playing the benefit system .

Because he was the type of person he was he knew how to get away with it - or thought he did.

He knew that the system would re house him , he knew the system would 'provide money for his children' that he would then use. He knew that he didn't have to work because the state would help him out and he knew how to play it.

This is about him and how easy the system was to for him to abuse.

I am interested too. Who was allowing him to carry on his lifestyle and paying for it before it resulted in him deciding to set fire to his house?

and I think getting a lot of money without working would have fed his ego.

i bet he thought we were just the fools working to pay for his dogging lifestyle.