Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
I'm surprised that this has not surfaced before now so here goes.
It's obvious that we are dealing with sick-minded criminals here but surely the problems run deeper than that.
Issues such as:
- three adults and 11 kids in a 3 bedroom council house?
- allegedly £60k annually in benefits to keep Mick in some style?
Comments please but no party political points.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
no party political points indeed!!
the chancellor has already done that with his comments linking mass murder and perversions with the benefit system, possibly the nastiest comments yet that i have heard from a leading politician and he was up against strong opposition.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Yes Howard but the debate should be on moral compass rather than party point scoring. Hence my rider, as I knew the hand-wringing brigade would jump on that instantly.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
"It's obvious that we are dealing with sick-minded criminals here but surely the problems run deeper than that."
Should we then draw certain conclusions about the upbringing of the adults, the upbringing of the generation before that...?
Or
do we get right on down with the £££££?
I'm not so sure that homing-in on the money would get us very far. Presumably the money was spent. Spent locally at places sanctioned for whatever trade by the Local Authority.
Would it be possible to think more highly of this chap had this money gone to the Virgin Islands?
[typing while at the same time wringing my hands...must be my feminine side coming to the fore?]
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
I think you have to define morality here. There was no evidence that the children were neglected, on the contrary to all intents and purposes the were well looked after. The lifestyle was different but then setting aside the politics, their is no law against what the adults were doing and the children knew no other way of life.
From a personal view I won't have any guests sleeping together in my house unless they are married, i suppose in this day and age that is old fashioned but I am actually very broad minded in other respects.
As far as the benefits are concerned very little can be done, stop the benefits and the children would suffer, after all they did not ask to be brought into the world and surely any limitation on the number of children a person can have would be a breach of human rights.
A sad case and certainly not one for political point scoring.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Came across the headlines highlighting the Chancellor's comment on benefits in connection to this, and didn't read the article, as it was sure to be a very cynical statement from what I have come to consider a very, very cynical cabinet personality holding the reigns over the destinies of tens of millions of people and enjoying pulling the strings and watching people jump and fall.
Don't know what to say about the 3 bedroom council house part, Peter, with 11 children, as my mother was one of 11 children living in a 3 bedroom council house with 2 adults (mother and father), and they got on well.
My granddad worked and brought in a wage, and plenty of home-grown produce came from the back garden, which included orchard and vegetable plot, plus rabbits.
At 14 the children were working full time and bringing in wages to the family, before marrying at 17+ (and above).
In the case in post 1, the £60.000 a year benefits would be quite acceptable counting 11 children, and I doubt they were meant to keep any particular adult in a stylish life-style.
All in all, I can't see where the benefits comparison comes into it all. Seems irrelevant to the case.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Not just the case of the benefits, but also what happened in this case, the so called mother and father setting fire to the house knowing the 6 children were still inside, and then hoping they could get all 6 out and look the hero.
Sadly it all went wrong as we know, very very sad case indeed
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
We now know he obviously did not really care for the children or he would not have set fire to the house when they were ALL asleep in bed and then relied on neighbours to rescue them. The pair of them could easily have had an 'accidental' chip pan fire when they were all out of the house.
From what I have seen and read he seems to be greedy, controlling, intimidating and thoroughly nasty piece of work.
Anne Widdicombe on the radio yesterday seemed convinced he did it to regain high benefit payments that were lost when the other side of his family moved out. I think the figure was £1,000 a month but I did not hear all the interview properly as I was busy in the kitchen.
I am surprised that three adults and eleven children were cramped together in a three bedroom house but that is no excuse for what happened.
Trying not to be political here Peter but there should be a cap on benefits one can receive, apart from food and sometimes shoes after a certain number of children costs are almost stagnant after all clothes and toys etc get handed down.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
howard mcsweeney1 wrote:no party political points indeed!!
the chancellor has already done that with his comments linking mass murder and perversions with the benefit system, possibly the nastiest comments yet that i have heard from a leading politician and he was up against strong opposition.
Osborne was absolutely right to say what he did.
What we have seen with Labour's reaction to this is simply their usual tactics of trying to close down a debate on a valid subject because it does not suit them, they tried this also over immigration with accusations of racism at anyone who questioned it.
Back to the Philpotts for which there are two matters partly related.
The depraved individual actions that led to the deaths of these children are not simply because of his being on benefits and such wrongdoings are not confined to benefit cheats. There are nasty evil people in all stratas of society.
It is his whole lifestyle that is in question in which he milked the system to maximum advantage, breeding multiple children from multiple women to get money to fund his indolent, useless and utterly depraved 'way of existence'. He would not have been able to live a life like that if the benefit system was fit for purpose.
This man and others like him, perhaps on a lesser scale, bring disrepute to the benefit system on which many genuine and deserving people also depend. It is the laxness and inadequacies of the system that allowed this lifestyle that is as much at fault as he is. This is a valid debate that must be aired.
Anyway - this man deserves the rope but as we are not civilised enough to deal with him that way then I hope he gets a very 'hard' time from other inmates for the rest of his wretched and worthless life.;
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#9,statement;-
1/ If ever, "Osborne was right to say...", it could only point to his utter silence.
2/ Obfuscation and drivel combined with a one-eyed view of the recent past.
3/ Indeed, the depraved are amongst us.
4/ "milked the system to maximum advantage" Yes give this fellow a shave and feed him up and he could indeed pass for a relative of Francis Maud, indeed, the depraved are everywhere amongst us. No sooner do we have 'depraved' defined that is redefined and broadened and narrowed and applied to this fellow more than any other.
5/ Those who most strikingly bring the nation of 'Benefit System' into disrepute are those who despise taxation and yet hire and fire without the least thought:single-mindedness meets maniacal stare, and of course their fellow travellers.
6/ Yet again we see an impossibility performed before our very eyes. Another instance when caring in the least for our fellow man has come to an end, without there ever having been a beginning to it. That vital cord of Conservatism, the only one-ended rope.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
barry
the chancellor gleefully made a political point about the deaths of these children, the politics of the gutter and there is no excuse for it.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Quite right howard,
on the actual case im against the rope no matter what, we should not be judge and jury, and who says we are right to take someones life.
Mr phillpott we stay in jail most of his life and rightly so, of course he milked the benefits system, but this should not fuel the attacks on the deprived which im sure is what will happen.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Not sure I read it that way Howard and you won't find me defending Osborne too often.
The fact is the welfare system needs a massive overhaul, unfortunately it sometimes takes tragedy to polarise things.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I dont think many even on benefits that would support some of the monies being dished out to people who dont to get it
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
There are thousands of dysfunctional families in UK,who are, highly probably, abusing the Benefit system.
All of us have one or more such families in our neighbourhood.
They need to be exposed but the law seem helpless and neighbours live in fear of them.
However they are a minuscule element in financial terms but devastating to our quality of life.
Many involve crime,intimidation,gbh etc,etc.
I do not have an answer to the problem,only by the public whistleblowing but the fear of their
families being exposed to repercussions is a deterrent.
NB...Political scoring on this matter does not help.The `Few` the author of this thread and Chancellor
are continually using this minority to tar brush the genuine majority on Benefit.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
To true its not a political issue
that said Reg we realy must chat about this whistleblowing that you have so much faith in
it doesnt work and i can give you examples why it doesnt
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
I caught the end of a TV programme the other night to do with such families and the effective employment of ASBOs.
I'll have a look to see if I can find it on iplayer.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 756- Registered: 6 Jun 2012
- Posts: 727
I found the single life sentance sickening, you can get that for manslaughter, should have been six life sentances to run consecutively.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
howard mcsweeney1 wrote:barry
the chancellor gleefully made a political point about the deaths of these children, the politics of the gutter and there is no excuse for it.
What he said was right Howard - spot on.
It had to be said.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the chancellor linked in the benefits system with the awful crimes yet i don't remember the construction industry being blamed for fred west's actions or van drivers being pilloried over peter sutcliffe.