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!

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!

After all, the oldest was 13 so the cash would have kept coming in for quite some time. Nice little earner there.

Ok. Can you clarify how the system "facilitated" him killing his children? Was it by ensuring he had enough money to buy petrol or something?

Flippin- one thing which is very clear is that he DIDNT intend to kill
Or cause harm to the children. However ignorant it seems to us, they started the fire with the intention to 'rescue' the kids. If that weren't the case they would have been tried for murder - which indeed was the original charge

What bothered me most about this case was listening to the recordings made of the tapped phone conversations and the two of them speaking in the police van.

Are we sticking to the story?? We're sticking to the story right???? He said.

That's what bothers me most.

People do things behind backs and then lie.

I think pretty much all of us need to ask ourselves the question 'am I ethical???'

It facilitated his lifestyle. Which is what people are debating. As far as i am aware no one is actually debating whether benefits caused the crime. Well, the Daily Fail may be suggesting that, but I'd hardly call that debate

He was fixated on money - jurors heard during his trial that one of the many possible reasons for setting fire to the house might have been because he wanted all of his children in one place so he would get the most benefits payments

Above taken from here

I think only MP knows what his true motive was - but the benefit system was the way he got his money and I think questions should be asked how as a society we allow people to rely and receive huge benefits like he did.

Why not ? Why not question the system ?

The guardian is writing that DV was omitted as part of the argument. Well bloody said!!!!

Another point to raise is that people will say - if you take away benefits, it will be the children who suffer.

I think partly they will.

But when are parents going to take responsibility? That's the better question. When are adults going to take responsibility for choosing to being children into the world that they cannot support.

But what do we do when you make decision based on your life today ( two full time jobs for example) and then someone gets sick?

I have no problem with benefits there.

But what about if you have never had a job?

But how did his lifestyle "facilitate" the crime? What does that actually mean?

If people take the time to read this whole thread, the key theme which keeps coming up is ' no he is NOT a product of the welfare system. No, it didn't make him commit the crime. But it is right to debate the role the welfare system played in his life because it is public money, and every £ spent facilitating his lifestyle meant a £ less on something else, and the fact that the sheer scale of this crime may well, according to the evidence, have been determined in part by the money he accessed

I'm not sure his main intention was to get his kids back. Is there actually any evidence for this?

I think his main motive was to get revenge on his ex. He didnt think past the fact she had the audacity to leave him. The last time a woman had finished a relationship- he tried to murder her. I truly think he was so outraged she'd left, that he wanted to framed her for arson (and maybe murder) and didn't actually care about the consequences.

His whole attitude in the aftermath- not trying to rescue the dc, laughing and joking at the mortuary etc etc, points towards his lack of concern about the dc.

But MP did work - he was in the army; that's the job he was doing when he attempted to kill one of his former partners. Why aren't people getting het up about the army facilitating this crime?

Is it because that would be absurd?

I agree, typos.

I think he was controlling and wanted to punish his ex, dunno about the financial aspect of getting the kids, I do suspect he wanted to use the children to control the mother, as usual.

I wonder also if he felt it was his right to have a bigger house and would use the children he had needlessly had to further that. He sounds like many people I have heard say its my right to have a bigger house, I have this number of children but the state has to give me a bigger house. I don't feel bad suspecting that he would have caused harm to his existing house in order to force the councils hand and make them give him what he understands to be his right.

Flippin- AFAIK there was no evidence brought up in the trial to suggest that Post traumatic stress or any other issues from the army, were a factor in the case. Money and housing were brought up. That's why they're being discussed.

But the women in the house did...

Excuse that's my understanding, from reading the summation by LTJ.

Have people read this?

But MP did work - he was in the army; that's the job he was doing when he attempted to kill one of his former partners. Why aren't people getting het up about the army facilitating this crime?

Because that happened in 1978 !

Flippin - he has not worked for the last 10 years!!

I do believe he was a very evil man. Partly motivated by fame and money. The system enabled this lifestyle he wanted.
But this is nothing new. Although this is a particularly tragic case, we have known all of this for a long time and we have managed to change very little.

Money (whether it be the women's wages, benefits or whatever) were one of the many ways in which MP expressed his control. As MrsDV says this crime was about control.