What to do about people like Philpotts?

[woolybanana]

Unscrupulous child manslaughterer, bleeder of benefits from the State, yet Philpotts is a creation of the welfare state. How do we (as European citizens for they exist in all of Europe), deal with these monsters? Osborne is quite right to question, but he has to ask what went wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/apr/04/mick-philpott-benefits-lifestyle-questioned

edited

 

[andyh4]

I would have thought the answer was obvious WB - either change the rules to exclude or limit such people (and run the risk of excluding quite genuine claimants in doing so) or accept that a few will abuse the system but within the rules.

 

Incidentally I would change the third word in your posting, it leaves you and the site open to presecution for libel.

[woolybanana]

thank you, andy,  I edited. Hope that is ok

[Théière]

Termination!

[Hoddy]

I think that one thing that would help with people like Philpott (not too many of them I hope because he is much more than an ordinary scrounger) would be not to allow them to allow them to become famous for what they do. After his appearances on the Jeremy Kyle show and in the Widdecombe documentary he had become something of a local 'celebrity'.

He managed to create a myth that he was a good father while doing things, quite apart from the fire, which made it clear that he was not and people were afraid to challenge him.

There has been a lot of gossip about it round here. Victory Road is about ten or twelve miles from where I live, but it could be another world.

Hoddy

[Russethouse]

My understanding is that in fact Philpott was not himself a benefit claimant however both of Mairead and Lisa were and that money was paid into Philpotts bank account. Maireads sisters said that Mick Philpotts parenting was minimal and it was the two women who looked after the children.

Of the six children, on the night they died only one was wearing night clothes, one was in bed in his school uniform and the others were just in pants.

On face book there is a photo of Mick and Mairead Philpott with the caption £40,000 a year in prison and another photo of a rope from B&Q with the caption £20. With feelings running that high I wonder if Mick Philpott will ever live out his term of imprisonment ?  He'll surely have to be in solitary confinement.....

Given Mick Philpotts violent history I'm very surprised that social services didn't have the family on their radar, yet every report I have seen says the children were no problem at school.....

[Hoddy]

One of the things I find hardest to accept about this is the way that he preyed on these women. Both of the women who lived with him worked as cleaners and their wages were paid into his account. I'm not sure if they claimed benefits other than family allowance.

In my experience children who are unhappy at home are often happy at school because they are in an orderly and predictable place where they are praised. The schools these children attended, the secondary one in particular, are OK.

I agree with what you say about their safety RH. Mairaid had to be moved from the local women's prison while she was on remand. I can't imagine that they will go back to Derby although Pihilpott has such an ego that he might try.

Hoddy

[Russethouse]

According to my OH (who heard it on the news) the family were getting £60,000 a year in total so I would suspect that they did get benefit other than child benefit.

[NormanH]

Duplicate deleted by RH

[NormanH]

"Exploiting extreme

cases is a key tactic in the Mail’s mission to demonise the poor

That’s why people

like Philpott are so attractive to the media, and why he was invited

on shows like the despicable Jeremy Kyle Show and starred in a

documentary by Ann Widdecombe: to illustrate to the world how

monstrous and degenerate welfare recipients are

This is deliberate

politics. The best way to defend benefit cuts is to attack benefit

recipients, and Philpott offered a perfect opportunity

In this way the case

is made. The Duncan Smith narrative that our problems as a society

arise from ‘welfare dependency’ is justified by example. Focus

shifts from the swingeing and punitive cuts that he is implementing:

after all, he is only trying to save benefit recipients from becoming

Mick Philpotts. Unemployment is not a systemic failure; look, these

people chose to be unemployed to get the benefits. And typical

council tenant: having more children just to get a bigger house."

There is a deliberate campaign to stoke up envy and division in order to gain populist support. If this  Philpott character hadn't come along someone like him would have been invented.

Hard cases make bad law.

If he was created by the Welfare State, what should be done about Eton and Oxford, who have created characters who are doing far  more harm to far more people.

[Russethouse]

You read far too much Owen Jones ![blink]

Why don't you stop reading pundits opinions and read what George Osborne said - which was that there needs to be a debate. Why I or any other UK tax payer should subsidise Mick Philpotts life of arrogance, dogging and debauchery heaven knows - do you ?

Hopefully there aren't too many more like him around.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22024061

 

[YCCMB]

I do not care how this man lived his life prior to killing his chidren, providing they were not subject to harm up to that point (and all indications are that they weren't). Having never watched Jeremy Kyle, nor seen the documentary with Ann Widdicombe, he wasn't even on my radar. I avoid the Daily Mail at all costs, so any attempts they may be making to foment discontent are lost on me. And I am not going to start reading the opinions of journalists from whatever end of the political spectrum, because they ALL have an agenda.

What I DO care about is that Philpott callously risked (and lost) the lives of six of his children in order to try and create a situation that may have been to his advantage.

I don't hate the man for being a benefit scrounger, but for being an odious, callous human being. That's MY opinion. Not the Mail's, not the Guardian's - MINE.

[Catalpa]

[quote user="Russethouse"]Why I or any other UK tax payer should subsidise Mick Philpotts life of arrogance, dogging and debauchery heaven knows - do you ? [/quote]

But how do you provide support for the children without 'subsidising' the parents. I'm not entirely sure removing the children at birth is an option (who makes that judgement and on what criteria?) and apart from providing their children with abysmal adult role models, it appears from the little I've heard and read, the children were well-cared for and weren't truanters (is that a word?) and there were no concerns from social services (or anyone else) about their general welfare.

Until... [:(]

[Théière]

What about the previous victims and the stupidity to allow this maniac out after 3 years of "good behavour"?

http://m.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/national/10329118.Philpott_victim_tells_of_stabbing/

I still say termination.

[Hoddy]

I agree with that Theire.

Additionally there are people who deliberately set out to murder their children who don't get fifteen years. The whole system needs an overhaul.

Hoddy

[Quillan]

Of course in the Torygraph they are wetting themselves with glee as this plays right in to Camerons hands to justify the new welfare changes. Sad all round I think.

[Patf]

I agree with Norman's last sentence (can't edit a quote on here.)

Sadly there are plenty of people who have done such wicked things, and worse, who were earning a good living.

[Gardengirl]

[quote user="Patf"]I agree with Norman's last sentence (can't edit a quote on here.)

Sadly there are plenty of people who have done such wicked things, and worse, who were earning a good living.

[/quote]

That is quite true, Pat, but with people like the Philpotts it's the rest of us who are underwriting them through our taxes. Both sets of people are appalling.

[nectarine]

If the bills weren't being picked up by the taxpayer, I wonder how many children he'd have had if he'd had to fund it himself. I know there's lots of deserving people out there, for which the welfare state was created, but I know plenty of people for whom welfare and benefits is now a lifestyle choice and a right. Oh, and they have a lot of children too ... more than the average working family might be able to afford.

[Russethouse]

I agree with GG

I've read things that indicate the government may be looking at limiting the amount of children it is willing to pay family allowance for, but with todays society where so many  people have children from more than one partership and so many children live with a step parent I suspect it could be hugely complicated

[Hoddy]

It might also be construed as discriminatory against some religious groups.

Hoddy

[YCCMB]

Yet overall, in the UK (according to the BBC last night) the number of families who have five children or more is in the hundreds across the UK, and the number exceeding 10 children is extremely small. I can't remember the exact figures but it is tiny. I don't think that even among "religious groups" - whichever you had in mind - there's a huge trend towards big families.

Perhaps a solution might be to pay whatever allowance is available only during the period when the children are of primary school age, or something along those lines? In that way, there is extra money available during the time the children are growing and need lots of clothes and shoes (although, presumably, if you have enough children then hand-me-downs are available). It would potentially make some people think a bit more.

I'm sure that this argument is full of holes, and no doubt someone will be along presently to drive a bus through one of them..

[Rabbie]

The figures I heard last night were 180 families with over 10 children and 40,000 families with 5 or more children. A cap of child allowance after 3 or 4 children might stop the few who are deliberately having children just for child benefit or least restricted to those cases where the children would suffer if there was no benefit. I would suggest that this cap should only apply to children born after the legislation is enacted

[Russethouse]

If £13.40 pw is really going to make a difference whether you add to your family or not, maybe you shouldn't.

May be its better  for the state to pay for less children per family but make it a more meaningful amount..

[YCCMB]

[quote user="Rabbie"]The figures I heard last night were 180 families with over 10 children and 40,000 families with 5 or more children. A cap of child allowance after 3 or 4 children might stop the few who are deliberately having children just for child benefit or least restricted to those cases where the children would suffer if there was no benefit. I would suggest that this cap should only apply to children born after the legislation is enacted[/quote]

It's still only 0.06% of the population. And of that 0.06%, there will be a fair number who have big families but are working and managing fine without state help.