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 agree as far as the word vile....no further though.

That's not what I meant janey.

I was trying, perhaps not very clearly, to illustrate my previous assertion that his occupation had no bearing whatsoever on the crime he committed.

All the evidence, and information released after the case concluded points to him being a violent abuser who was obsessed with power and control.

He did abuse the benefits system to get the lifestyle he wanted, but I doubt very much that in the absence of it he would have got a proper job. Far more likely that he would hasn't committed more crimes, pressured his partners into prostitution and generally made more people suffer.

remember one of the reasons for the welfare state was to keep the unemployed poor from crime and rioting

Obsessed with control , power and money - money he got from the benefit system - why can't this be questioned ?

What is so wrong in questioning a system that allows someone to live like he did ?

Yes flippin- but the money he has access to facilitated that control

I don't think you and I are poles apart on this- I am agreeing that it's not being on benefits which caused the crime. But it facilitated it. In another abusive man, it might be chasing a well off woman and manipulating her to get her money which is the context. But in this particular case it was benefits and housing which provided the context- we know that from the trial- and therefore it's highly relevant to debate the issue.

I genuinely don't understand why people are so fixated on the money aspect.

He had a violent past. The judge who presided over the case where he was convicted of ABH stated he was a very dangerous man.

Violence and abuse have been a feature of all his relationships with women (again from judges summation).

He was also charged or about to be charged with assault over a road rage offence (from numerous reports in the news media).

The fire was set the day before an access hearing.

The judge herself stated he wanted to get back at his ex.

Because the money aspect enabled him to indulge his power fixation.

Without the benefit money where would he have been?

The chimp paradox if he'd manipulated money out of any other source would we be blaming that? And today is been sounding like about half the stuff the media has been full if about benefit scroungers was just him.

Without the benefit money he would have been committing crimes and running scams. Not a respectable member of society with 2.4 children and one wife.

Men like this did exist prior to the welfare state. They pushed their wives into prostitution, abandoned them to the workhouse or let the kids starve, beg or steal.

This fuss about benefits, would be hilarious if it wasn't both moronic and tragic.

I think the benefits issue is entirely incidental janey

It's only because he claimed benefits people are discussing it these terms.

His money came from benefits - benefits that come from taxpayers money - that should be there for people that truly need them.

He could work but chose a lifestyle that he knew he could rely on benefits to uphold.

Didn't matter to him that he had previous convictions and probably couldn't get a job , even if he tried - because benefits would pick up the tab.

I wouldn't really about the money if he was in employment and didn't play the system - but he didn't work , he played the system and took the tax payers money and took the piss !

Yes it may sound very DM but it is wrong that someone can rely so much and receive so much. The children needed that money - but he got their child benefit - they didn't benefit from it - what is wrong in reviewing a system that is obviously flawed.

Rubbish Mrs Devere.

He wanted those children back at home for the benefit money they brought in. £100's of it.

Yes he loved the control over them all, I don't doubt that for one single minute, over both the women and all of the children.

But the money let him sit on his arse and do that.

I think it would be more accurate to say he was a product of reality TV. A thoroughly unpleasant man, with a dubious lifestyle funded by benefits whose sense of his own importance was bolstered by various TV appearances.

We don't know and probably will never know the motive behind this all .

But what has come to light is the way that benefit system is flawed and that he abused the benefit system - yes he may have got a job and still committed this but the majority of people are appalled that someone can receives so much public money by doing very little for society.

and we will still be paying for his upkeep - albeit that via her Majestys Prisons.

Indeed yes, he seems to be a rather unpleasant individual. Not many people would deny that.

But what I am saying is; if it wasn't for our current benefit system he wouldn't have been able to thrive in the way that he did.

Is it really that difficult to understand and accept that he was a violent, evil, controlling man BEFORE he'd even had a child. That is his personality.

As CanAnybody said, if there hadn't been a welfare state, do people seriously think he would have had a job and been a decent member of society. No, he would have still made his patners work and still sat at him doing nothing. He would have still taken revenge when his ex left him. It was nothing to do with the dc and everything to of with control and revenge.

Flippin who is LTJ?