steve68 Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Why would you kill your "meal tickets"? Wouldn't that mean he'd have to start all over again...assuming he got away with it that is. This case has nothing to do with benefits. It's a classic example of how a particular incident can be used by so many to attack the so many innocent and use benefits and child killing as though they are somehow synonymous...clever propaganda for the dimwits ready to soak it up. The sad reality is many do believe or just simply want to believe the hogwash stirred up by the right. He didn't intend to kill them, his plan was to frame his ex and gain custody of his other children. I'd tend to believe the covert recording the police made during their investigation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lil-minx92 Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 I don't think he intended to kill them,neither did the police hence the manslaughter charge and not murder... Plus he'd have taken life insurance out on them first. ---------- Post added 03-04-2013 at 12:55 ---------- He didn't intend to kill them, his plan was to frame his ex and gain custody of his other children. I'd tend to believe the covert recording the police made during their. investigation No doubt to spite her or for the extra benefits rather than he actually wanted to care for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Why would you kill your "meal tickets"? Wouldn't that mean he'd have to start all over again...assuming he got away with it that is. This case has nothing to do with benefits. It's a classic example of how a particular incident can be used by so many to attack the so many innocent and use benefits and child killing as though they are somehow synonymous...clever propaganda for the dimwits ready to soak it up. The sad reality is many do believe or just simply want to believe the hogwash stirred up by the right. The sad reality is he torched his home to get a bigger house - FACT or as factual as witness statements can be,not to kill anyone. 48 hours after the sad demise of his beloved children, he entered a local sports clothing stockist and told them who he was,what had happened and what could he get for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMoon Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 I wouldn't class the Mirror as right wing.. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mick-philpott-freak-show-shames-1804988 "His children were a commodity. Their existence wasn’t based on love – it was based on *expedience. They had no purpose other than to sustain the selfish, feckless life that Philpott wanted to lead. They brought in child benefit and magazine fees, " I didn't realise we were talking about this particular person. My mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vwkittie Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 I doubt he actually deliberately had them for 'meal tickets' (I doubt anyone really does to be honest), probably more like he just didn't give a toss about the possibility of bringing a child into the world when he was banging his missus (es) and neither did they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 I don't think he intended to kill them,neither did the police hence the manslaughter charge and not murder...If I've read correctly his plan was to get his mistress, who had left with her kids,blamed for the fire which would give him custody of their kids which would ensure his source of income,benefits,was continued..I may have read things wrongly though... I understand his reasoning albeit abhorrent. But the point I was making is that his actions seem somewhat sidelined by the media (rags) or as has been said/implied in the OP that "benefits" and the amount of children you have are somehow synonymous with those that claim it and child killers..regardless of manslaughter or murder. Children, benefits and how many and how much isn't relevant to his loathsome actions..him as a loathsome person is. It's wrong to castigate or even imply a section of society for the very rare action of a repugnant single character/s. We've seen in the past and the present what happens when a section of society is tarred with the same brush. Yes there are a percentage of people who use and abuse the system..but generally they don't go around killing their kids accidently on purpose or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Children, benefits and how many and how much isn't relevant to his loathsome actions. In this instance it comes across as though children and benefits were the reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 In this instance it comes across as though children and benefits were the reason... Again I understand that and the rags will use that reason as to whip up hatred or prejudice. But If benefits and children are such a dangerous combination as to his actions why aren't we legislating against the combination of both? This is the point...there are some who would like to see the formation of such an act and use the Phillpot case as a prime example as to why..when in effect Phillpot is not a prime example..he's quite the reverse. Benefits and children may be the reason for him in particular but as far as I can see it stops there..unless we're having a benefit and kid killing spree. Example: I don't hate you because you killed my wife accidently on purpose driving a Red car, I just hate Red car owners. Result: Let's legislate against all owners of Red cars because we hate scummy red car owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidneystone Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Influencing public opinion, that's all it is. When it first happened, most people were sorry. They now class him as a scrounger just because he is on benefits. Public opinion all aided and abetted by the likes of The Sun, the Daily mail etc And Mr smith on SF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 And Mr smith on SF Don't forget his long lost gladiator brother maxmaximus.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.