Anna B Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 How many people have 17 kids? This was so unusual Philpott's was notorius for it and a local celebrity, making TV programmes out of it. He was unusual. Not the norm, yet the DM is trying to create the impression that this is somehow typical of people on welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Started with the sport section. That was pretty good. Then the business and finance sections. I was pleasantly surprised. Interesting and a decent standard. Perfect for a quick fairly informative read. Then the main section of the paper. Never have I read so much venom and bile. You'll like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_W Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Indeed. I'm shocked how many people think that claiming welfare created an evil monster. Also shocked how many people think Mick Philpott is a typical welfare claimant - they obviously forget about the millions of pension claimants, claimants of disability welfare, housing benefits etc... It's a terrifying thought for them I guess, all those pensioners and housing benefits claimants being moulded into evil monsters by the welfare system. The life he lead, gave him the time and the inclination to act out some of his evilness, nobody has said it was the only reason but to disassociate the element completely would be pure ignorance IMHO ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 The life he lead, gave him the time and the inclination to act out some of his evilness, nobody has said it was the only reason but to disassociate the element completely would be pure ignorance IMHO ! Of course you can disassociate the benefits element, it would be ignorant to try and form a connection and as daft as saying someone who murders their wife wouldn't have been a murderer if they'd not been married-the fact is it's a certain mindset that kills other human beings and based on his antecedence Philpott seems to have a predilection for it or trying to do it. ---------- Post added 04-04-2013 at 12:43 ---------- How the hell do you know that, you know nothing about the man other than what you have read What we know is that he set fire to a house where 6 of his children were sound asleep, and cracked jokes with members of the emergency services-what more do you need to know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishy_taste Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 The mail tells it how it is, at least your eyes have been opened to the truth and its not pleasant reading is it.Go to any of the large council estates in Sheffield and look round they are full of philpotts.The old saying" the devil finds work for idle hands to do " has never been truer. Despite you mentioning the name of the paper, what you have written clearly identifies which newspaper you read. I know a number of people who, to use a Mailism, are scroungers. However, I know many, many more who are claiming benefit because they have been made redundant and are struggling to find work or who are physically and mentally disabled and are struggling to provide for themselves. I would never call them scroungers. To use the Mail logic, though. Claim benefits = scrounger. Simples! I haven't seen much of it the last couple of days, but have they run any stories criticising Paulo Di Canio for being a Fascist? Now that would be ironic. Maybe he's their Page 3 guy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Of course you can disassociate the benefits element, it would be ignorant to try and form a connection and as daft as saying someone who murders their wife wouldn't have been a murderer if they'd not been married-the fact is it's a certain mindset that kills other human beings and based on his antecedence Philpott seems to have a predilection for it or trying to do it. Aren't you assuming that Phillpot wanted to actually kill the kids..? I don't believe he did...it was crackpot scheme but I don't think he meant for them to die.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_W Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 How many people have 17 kids? This was so unusual Philpott's was notorius for it and a local celebrity, making TV programmes out of it. He was unusual. Not the norm, yet the DM is trying to create the impression that this is somehow typical of people on welfare. Really is it, or are you just jumping on the usual DM bashing bandwagon, I don't read the DM but / because etc ? I find it hard to believe anyone would read such an article and then interpret it as claiming such was typical of benefit claimants per se Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Aren't you assuming that Phillpot wanted to actually kill the kids..? I don't believe he did...it was crackpot scheme but I don't think he meant for them to die.. I believe the difference is a trivial one truman, no loving parent would ever intentionally put their child's life in serious danger, especially for reward which is what he appears to have done. The reckless nature of what he did has to be the issue for primary concern. It's not as though he lit the fire AFTER ensuring the safety of his children, so he was cavalier about their wellbeing at best and a murdering t*** at worse. Also his previous conviction for attempted murder seems to suggest he's well accustomed to causing people pain and suffering for his own ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_W Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Of course you can disassociate the benefits element, it would be ignorant to try and form a connection and as daft as saying someone who murders their wife wouldn't have been a murderer if they'd not been married-the fact is it's a certain mindset that kills other human beings and based on his antecedence Philpott seems to have a predilection for it or trying to do it. ---------- Post added 04-04-2013 at 12:43 ---------- What we know is that he set fire to a house where 6 of his children were sound asleep, and cracked jokes with members of the emergency services-what more do you need to know? Well I disagree old lad ...... OK ! Besides, it would not be like you to narrow down the thought process in your favour, what's up don't you like the DM either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 4, 2013 Author Share Posted April 4, 2013 Really is it, or are you just jumping on the usual DM bashing bandwagon, I don't read the DM but / because etc ? I find it hard to believe anyone would read such an article and then interpret it as claiming such was typical of benefit claimants per se Yet several articles in the Mail yesterday clearly make that connection. Make no mistake, the Philpott case was used by the Mail to attack the welfare state. Edit: this is the title from the AN Wilson piece: 'Michael Philpott is a perfect parable for our age: His story shows the pervasiveness of evil born out of welfare dependency' Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2303071/Mick-Philpotts-story-shows-pervasiveness-evil-born-welfare-dependency.html#ixzz2PUq9OxrG Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.