Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

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

351 replies

Notsoyummymummy1 · 04/04/2013 12:57

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

OP posts:
flippinada · 04/04/2013 19:21

But, he's not a product of the welfare system is he?

The fact he claimed benefits is incidental to the fact he us a violent abuser. The two aren't linked.

handcream what makes you think the crime was motivated by money?

lemonmuffin · 04/04/2013 19:21

Nope Mrs DV.

It was all about the money.

handcream · 04/04/2013 19:22

Agree with Chimp (again!) He knew the system. He knew that no one would dare judge him. He even went onto Kyle's show demanding a bigger house. He used women but lets not make excuses for Mairaid. She knew what she was doing. It wasnt just him.

Still -prison beckons for them. Lets see what happens then.

flippinada · 04/04/2013 19:22

I think you're spot on MrsDV

twofingerstoGideon · 04/04/2013 19:22

The state was supporting his family/families. No-one is disputing that, are they? But it's irrelevant to his crime.

janey68 · 04/04/2013 19:23

Yes faster stronger- I think various aspects of it would have fuelled his ego... The feeling that he was 'above' getting a job, that he was the 'big guy' who could do what he liked and get away with it, that the money would keep coming no matter what.

AmandaPayneAteTooMuchChocolate · 04/04/2013 19:24

Absolutely MrsDV

twofingerstoGideon · 04/04/2013 19:24

I think Mrs De Vere is spot on, too.
Lemonmuffin Why are you so convinced it was 'all about the money'? That is surely just speculation on your part?

lemonmuffin · 04/04/2013 19:25

'handcream what makes you think the crime was motivated by money?'

This is a waste of time isn't it?

I'm out.

flippinada · 04/04/2013 19:25

I'm really surprised that anyone would read the available commentary on this case and conclude that money was the primary motivating factor in this crime.

janey68 · 04/04/2013 19:27

It wasn't ALL about the money, but that was a PART of it. The whole issue came up in the investigation and subsequent trial. Much of the evidence came from those involved. I don't see why anyone is disputing that.

janey68 · 04/04/2013 19:28

Ah, so we're now conceding that it might not have been the primary motive... I don't think it was either. But it was a factor. That evidence came from the perpetrators themselves. Therefore, it is totally relevant to debate it as a factor

flippinada · 04/04/2013 19:31

Sorry janey but I don't understand. It may well be I've missed something, but I genuinely don't see how money was the motivation for the crime?

znaika · 04/04/2013 19:33

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

flippinada · 04/04/2013 19:34

But he didn't commit the crime because he was on benefits. The two are not linked.

If he was independently wealthy, a high earner, or even just comfortably off DVD had committed the same crime, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

janey68 · 04/04/2013 19:34

I said, I don't believe it was the primary motive. But evidence at the trial showed that he was motivated to pursue that lifestyle- numerous kids, not working- by the benefits he had access to. That evidence came from the horses mouths- the perpetrators themselves.
Therefore, it is totally relevant to debate the role the system had in facilitating him. That fact does NOT mean 'he did it because he was on benefits'- not at all!

handcream · 04/04/2013 19:35

Why do I think it was motivated by money - well it came up in the trial!

Please - no one is saying that ALL benefit claimiants are like this. But this was about money and about control. The whole country is talking about it and I think a fair majority of people are thinking it was about the fact he was allowed to behave like this and the benefit system didnt stop paying out more and more.

It might not be what some posters think but I feel a change in the benefit system coming tbh.

flippinada · 04/04/2013 19:37

He wanted to get custody of the children, but not because of the benefits.

It was to punish his ex for leaving him; he wanted to get her back, in both senses.

That's what Lady Justice Thirlwall says in her summation anyway.

handcream · 04/04/2013 19:38

Yes, listening to some of the evidence (not all of it!) he did want full custody of the children, to become more famous perhaps, appear on day time TV, but also for the money.

Otherwise there would be no point. If the rules were 2 bed house if you arent working well he would be stuffed. There would be no point making a song and dance and demanding a bigger house

znaika · 04/04/2013 19:39

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

flippinada · 04/04/2013 19:41

Allowed to behave like what and by whom?

I don't follow.

flippinada · 04/04/2013 19:43

How are benefits a key part of the crime?

Mumcentreplus · 04/04/2013 19:46

Look..if this was about 'benefits' why would you kill said children?..he's a control freak and a complete utter bastard cunty git...

look @ the West's they killed their own children and others ..were they a product of the benefit system? or flawed social emotional mental situation..did benefits cause that?? it's bull shit please think about what is being said...

Obviously my child benefit encouraged me to have 2 children who cost me more than £130 quid a month..

something2say · 04/04/2013 19:47

I work in this sort of field so would like to add my tuppence.

I think that DV needs to be debated properly again...

I think that ethics and morality need to be thought about again.... Anyone who steals what is not theirs, tax evasions, cheating ministers, those who think they should be able to live and not contribute while others aren't able to....lots of things to be thought about.

The idea of having children you cannot support needs to be thought through.

Men having children they abandon to women needs to be discussed.

Women having children with men they don't know properly...

The use of contraception and responsibility....I realise that accidents happen of course but what happens after that? Who pays? I reckon it is principally women and the state who pay.

I have also been personally very hurt by working on behalf of those who have a better lifestyle than I do, yet I have suffered quite extreme abuse and am quite hard up but still work full time and pay my way, yet have a lot less than people who claim houses in areas I can't afford to live in, and who bear no responsibility I life set against the responsibilities I shoulder. That has hurt me and angered me. I feel tired and would like time off work but can't afford it. I would also like a baby but can't afford one and certainly couldn't afford to stay at home and be a mother which I would love to do, yet day after day I facilitate other people to do this. It is against my principles to claim money for a baby I chose to have when I can't afford to pay my mortgage if I had that baby.

On the subject of this man being abusive to women, I am delighted that yet another high profile case has hit the news because we need to read it again and again to get the message out the that men are still abusing women.

And if we can also get the message out that you are supposed to take responsibility for children you have, that wouldn't hurt either.

I think a benefits system is needed for people who are vulnerable but I don't think it should be a choice. I think it takes away from those who do not choose but need it.

flippinada · 04/04/2013 19:48

Surely if it was all about benefits, he'd have done the utmost to protect his guaranteed revenue stream (aka his children), not risked their safety by starting a fire?