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'm still not getting here how being on benefits was part of this crime?

People do seem angrier about the fact that he was on benefits than about him killing his children and his shocking history of violence and abuse.

One if the worst aspects of his crimes was that he was able to carry on with his abuse virtually unchecked over many years. Now that really is outrageous and disgusting.

Hopefully a Serious Case Review may throw some light on his abusive behaviour and how it affected the children/family and if any of the 'agencies' could have done more .

But who will address the issue of him claiming so much public money ?

If people are determined to believe money played no part his control fixation, then I don't think debating it on a forum is going to change their minds. But the evidence is there from the trial. Not the primary factor. Not what made him a killer. But there as part of the manipulation which dominated his life. And for that reason: that a system designed to support, actually enabled an abusive person to wreak havoc on this scale, it's worthy of debate.

Lots and lots of aspects of MP's lifestyle (aside from financal abuse) provided him with ways to express and exert control. Tv appearances. Confiscating his partners' house keys. Bullying. Threatening. Assaulting. E was a domestic abuse perpetrator. The presiding judge, who heard all th evidence, concluded the same. The 'benefits' issue is a smokescreen and right wing propaganda-v useful in a time of economic hardship

*He

In times of economic hardship what can't the benefit system be looked at ?

I completely disagree that anyone is angrier about him being on benefits than that he killed his children. That's utter nonsense and actually rather offensive. The thread is focusing on the role of the welfare system in his life- that's why we're talking about it

If anyone wants to start a thread focusing on another specific aspect then they are free to do so. But it seems odd to come on a thread with this focus and then ask why people are talking about money.

It can: but not in association with a crime such as this which bears no relevance to the welfare state

"lemon but you are not making any sense. The benefit cap would have made him worse off with those children under his roof"

It might have. But the current benefit system still enabled him to sit on his arse, having lots of children and watching tv for several years.

Janey - the opening OP asks if the DM was right to call MP a product of the welfare system-naturally some people will come on here to say no

Who is angrier that he is on benefits! Benefits did give him the lifestyle he craved. I am not sure how anyone thinks they are nothing to do with it.

Excellent post MrsDV

I give up.

The crime had brought to attention the way the benefit system is abused by some - a small minority - it therefore needs to be looked at - especially in a time of economic hardship.

The crime has highlighted the extent of one man's wish to exert control over others.

I don't see how it's offensive, I'm giving my impression.

I'm also observing that some people seem angrier about the benefits issue than about his appalling personal history. I know I keep coming back to that but I'm genuinely bewildered as to why that isn't the main focus. Maybe I should start a thread about that.

Thing is, and again I know I've said this before - if he hadnt been on benefits and committed the same crime we simply wouldn't be having this heated discussion.

Yes he was on benefits and yes he committed a terrible crime. The two aren't linked.

I meant the fist one about his motives MrsDV.

I do think he enjoyed the power and status he had as the man who could have 2 partners and father children simaltanously with them. He even boasted as much (in less words!) to AW on the show where she lived with him for a week and to JK.

The fact benefits allowed him to receive money for not working wasn't his motive in my view.

However - I can see where it's linked because if the 5 children came and lived with them there would monetary benefits - but do think it's more to do with the fact one of the people he'd publically boasted about being able to control - left him.

Perhaps it was something to do with the title thread

Sorry meant to say ' I can see why people link the 2..................BUT.....'

ASmidge- nearly everyone has answered 'no'. I did on my first post! The debate has broadened to discuss how welfare facilitated his lifestyle. It seems some posters are just determined to think we're agreeing with the daily mail comment.

As someone said on I think the last thread, anyone who thinks mick philpotts is the product of the welfare state needs to read more dickens (yes George Osborne I am looking at you). People like this have always existed. His numerous children existed for him to probe his virility and dominance of the women who bore them. How they were maintained financially was probably completely irrelevant to him. He controlled the money in the house because he was a controlling bully. That's all.

FFS.

The turd couldn't even get the larger house he wanted, despite being already highly overcrowded with two adults and 6 children in a three-bed (and that's after the mistress & kids moved out).

He was no more "getting the lifestyle he wanted" than he was flying to the moon.

He was however, jockeying what he could get - benefits, womens' wages, reality TV - entirely for his own use.

Listening to some of you, it sounds like he was living in a 10-bed mansion with a jag in the stable block.