Philpott – Welfare and homicidal tendencies

I shouldn’t think they are capable of analysing their feelings.

All three were charged and found guilty of manslaughter – not murder. They have been sentenced and good riddance. I wish the media would now forget about them. I am sick of their story, frankly.

I agree Chas, whatever we say on here isn’t going to change things one little jot. I too am sick of reading, and having to see it disected in the Media. Beleive me, he will get his just desserts one day in Prison.
Two things Inmates like to have a bash at, 1) Bent Coppers sent down. 2) Nearly anything to do with harming kids.

Send Bronson in, he will look after him.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Grey – should it also be the case that we have to pay for parents who have no responsibility for the children they produce ?? I am sure if he had a larger house he would have had more children -should we just keep giving cash on the basis that the more kids you have the more entitled you become??

So society should do nothing and let some procreate their way to a life of idleness at society’s expense?

Back in the the old days, people had shame to prevent them from having children they wouldn’t/couldn’t support. Today, there is no shame.

These are fair points.

As I said, it’s a difficult equation to balance and I certainly don’t pretend to have the answer.

I think we can agree, though, that the kids themselves have no choice about the identity and circumstances of their parents.

Is it fair or just to penalise children for the actions and life choices of their parents and, if so, where do you draw the line?

Which begs the question. Do the people watching him feel disgusted or are they all from the same mold?

I shouldn’t think they are capable of analysing their feelings.

All three were charged and found guilty of manslaughter – not murder. They have been sentenced and good riddance. I wish the media would now forget about them. I am sick of their story, frankly.

Should we instead be in a position where it’s acceptable to penalise (because ‘punish’ is too strong a word) children for having made a poor choice of parents?
.

So society should do nothing and let some procreate their way to a life of idleness at society’s expense?

Back in the the old days, people had shame to preventthem from having children they wouldn’t/couldn’t support. Today, there is no shame.

I recently read a societal history of marriage. The author stated that 100 years ago, people in rural America did engage in premarital sex knowing that if the woman became pregnant, the man responsible would likely do the “honorable” thing…in part because of family and local pressures…in other words, everyone knew him and he had no where to run. besides, he was likely tied to the land.
Cities offered less assurances, therefore out of wedlock sex was less common because the women didn’t have the same assurances that the guy would stick around. back then, people behaved themselves in part because there wasn’t the welfare safety net to cover their mistakes.

Interesting stuff.
But society has to find a way to curb costs, otherwise there will come a day when those being supported will out number those paying their own, and the majority’s, way.

As far as being penalized by the parents we have, everyone reading this is a member of the lucky sperm club.
We were born in a wealthy western society.
But since we’re (presumably) not the children of a Branson or Gates, I suppose you could say we’re being penalized by the parents we had.
Darn, I don’t have a Ferrari and a Gulfsteam jet.
Perhaps the gorvernment will see fit to remedy that inequality. 🙂

I also hope it means life and when he has done 15 years he is not let out because some idiots think he has changed or found god or similar claptrap.

Thankyou for the clarification Tony.

If you watched the programme on TV about it, there was a singer doing a song that one of his friends thought was inappropriate ( caught in a trap ) under the circumstances and went to ask him to stop which he did, next thing that turkey was up there singing it and the family friends were disgusted as the rest of the population and said such, and I believe left. Indeed several of the family friends thought something was amiss and said as much at the time.

So to answer your question, yes they did and no they arn’t from the same mould, similar to all the neighbours, including those next door he tried to stitch up and had to suffer hate and murderer taunts from others because of it.. Nasty person and one hopes his prison sentence of life becomes just that.

I put him up with Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, that’s how I view them.

Well if the Sunday People is to be believed

This was 6 days after the fire.
I suppose the poor man had to make a few bob seeing that he lost six lots of benefit.

Which begs the question. Do the people watching him feel disgusted or are they all from the same mold?

And that is why I said there should be a cap on child benefit David, say three kids and no more, it will stop the proffessional work shy boosting their income through breeding.

There is no need to move Mick Philpott into the echelons of evil as the tabloids are trying to do . We are looking at a manipulating idiot who led two other people into a plan -that plan didn’t work . So whilst the various programes and tabloid articles seek to explore him and his lifestyle -none of it benefits the dead
children .

As for his intent -the CPS didn’t prosecute him or his accomplices for murder . If they could I am sure they would.
So whilst it in no way justifies or explains his actions – the factors that put them on that path have to be a concern.
How could the local council see that many people living in a small house as acceptable and how can our welfare system
allow for children to be used as cash cows ?

Re 18

….”stupid plan that backfired….”

You are too kind. Most would describe it as perhaps a ‘criminally insane act of murderous intent’ or, ‘an act of insensate savagery beyond the understanding of normal people’.

I used ‘homicidal’ in the perjorative sense. There are no mitigating circumstances for the perpetrator whether found guilty of murder or manslaughter.

Grey – should it also be the case that we have to pay for parents who have no responsibility for the children they produce ?? I am sure if he had a larger house he would have had more children -should we just keep giving cash on the basis that the more kids you have the more entitled you become??

Bet he is not feeling big now, banged up in solitary, God help him if he ever gets put onto a Wing.I recon his days would be numbered on the fingers of one hand, before he got Shivved.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Should we be in a position where its acceptable to have as many kids as you like even if you have no desire to support them or have any idea on how to house them.

Should we instead be in a position where it’s acceptable to penalise (because ‘punish’ is too strong a word) children for having made a poor choice of parents?

There are no easy answers, no simple remedies, and we’d all be a lot better off if politicians of all hues stopped pretending that there are.

Lastly as for Osborne -he is saying what a lot of people think !

In that case, more fool them.

So in other words the welfare system should have supported him no matter what? He seemed perfectly capable of driving his kids to school in the morning -maybe the Job Centre could have suggested a driving job ?
Should we be in a position where its acceptable to have as many kids as you like even if you have no desire to support them or have any idea on how to house them. Its perfectly clear in this case that he wanted to damage the house so he could have a bigger one -on top of that he was loosing something like 1K a month because the other kids had been taken away by their mother who he wished to frame.

As for the other points -there is no indication that he had any homicidal instincts towards his children . If he did he would have been tried for murder . All three were convicted of manslaughter – therefore the intention was not to kill deliberately -it was a stupid plan that backfired and they will pay the price .

Lastly as for Osborne -he is saying what a lot of people think ! People are fed up of the ‘celebrity’ of people who have no moral and financial responsibility- who believe that being on Jeremy Kyle is status!

Personally I feel Osborne is a total disgrace using the deaths of 6 children as poilitcal football, but then again I’m not really surprised.

The welfare system didn’t create Philpott, that man has been a violent control freak for a long time, it wouldn’t have made the slightest difference whatever his financial circumstances.

I saw the press interview that he did, where a question was put to him and he answered – carefully and with considered language!

Unlike some other politicians who have tried to make an issue out of it!!

Yes, George Osborne might have chosen his words carefully, the report that I read came from the Telegraph.

It doesn’t alter the impression that not only I, but also many other, perhaps better informed political commentators and assorted journalists made, that, George Osborne was attempting to make an association between Philpott’s murderous inclinations and the receipt of welfare payments.

The suggestion was that he, Philpott was producing numbers of children to increase his welfare income. Then, when that income appeared to be threatened, he resorted to homicidal instincts – that of course, he did not have prior to the threat of income deprivation – to cause the awful deaths of six beautiful young children.

What nonsense! This monster was, by his previous record, irredeemably evil and fully capable of the crime that secured his conviction. Check with the woman that he stabbed 27 times. He did not need any incentives.

What the fine upstanding Osborne trying to distract us from what?

Travelling first class on a train with a standard class ticket or parking in a disabled bay while stuffing his face with a McDonalds?

Seems rather like he is desending to “smeg” level himself to me.

Not sorry for the rant as a blue badge holder. I would swap my legs for his any days as long as I can keep my morals!

Yes. I take your point. Political capital, no less. To the very limit of what is disreputable.

Perhaps a change of newspaper might help, even the BBC headline reads – “Philpott gamble? Osborne chose words on welfare carefully, says Carole Walker”

Regardless of this specific case, the main point should be that there are far too many people taking advantage of the system…whether it be welfare of health benefits.

The argument that the Royal family (or military or anything else you’re against) takes XXX many millions is not the issue.
There would be plenty of (or at east much more) money for for health and benefits if some people would quit gaming the system.

Welfare-heathcare cheaters/people who would rather let the the government support them are stealing from everyone, especially those that really need and deserve the system benefits. They are as Mr. Green pointed out above…sociopaths. They don’t care about anyone but themselves.
To them, it’s okay for YOU to pay higher taxes, for the governmen tto go wanting in important areas (like defense..I can’t believe the the UK , an island nation can’t have MR capability), for the NHS to be less than it could be for ill people…as long as they get to stay at home and watch TV while others support them.

This preoccupation about blaming whatever party you don’t like plays into their hands…making the issue a non-solvable political one instead of the crime against all of society (especially the ill and old) which it it really is.