max 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. Not sure how many have 17 kids but according to one paper yesterday there are fewer than 200 families with 10 or more kids claiming benefits. So you're right, it's not the norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s2 blade Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 I know a couple like him, never worked a day in the life, not as many kids but the money they get for the kids is spent on booze, fags and gambling, the kids see very little of what is meant for them. The sad thing is so many of us know a family like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 4, 2013 Author Share Posted April 4, 2013 I know a couple like him, never worked a day in the life, not as many kids but the money they get for the kids is spent on booze, fags and gambling, the kids see very little of what is meant for them. Why not just answer the questions: Are you saying that an in-work Mick Philpott would have been less dangerous? Do you think he is a typical welfare claimant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 The govt pay people to have children?? When did they pass that legislation? I must let my wife know - we've got some catching up to do!!! Yep the governmnet gives people more money for each child they have, just like an employer gives you more money for each hour you work. He abused the system. Some do. Many do not. Many, who genuinely deserve help, get less than they are entitled to because of pride or lack of understanding of the system and what they are entitled to. Yes he was alowed to abuse the system. So, because of 'scum' like him (I get the sense that 'scum' extends to anyone claiming benefit or are they just 'scroungers'?) you want to radically overhaul the system so that 'scum' like him still find ways of abusing the system, and those who really deserve help get more and more squeezed or put off by the process (and just disappear off the scale)? No I want to radically overall the system so that this can't happen and the people with the most need, get the most help. The problem in this case (and many others where children are involved) is that anything that is done to him (or his ilk) affect the innocents - the children - who are an unwilling, unwitting side effect of this. Work for benefits would have a positive affect on the children. You squeeze the benefits given for the benefit of the children, you penalise the children. Cildren can be provided for without giving money to the claimant. So, your civil, social, caring conscience extends to hurting the children because, well, they're related to scum and will no doubt become the next generation of scum in years to come. The children wouldn't have existed so couldn't have been hurt. Philpott may be all you say he is, but that does not mean everyone else claiming benefits is 'scum' or a 'scrounger'. No one has claimed they are, benefits claimants that aren’t like Philpott would be happy to work for their benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Not sure how many have 17 kids but according to one paper yesterday there are fewer than 200 families with 10 or more kids claiming benefits. So you're right, it's not the norm. But papers like the DM research and dig up stories on them to try and make them look commonplace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 But papers like the DM research and dig up stories on them to try and make them look commonplace. The Mirror has a lot to answer for.Personally I stick to the Dinnington Advertiser for balanced journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 The sad thing is so many of us know a family like that That may, indeed, be the case, but where the Daily Mail fails is the fact that those families are not finding themselves in court, one after the other, for burning their children to death. Philpott is an exceptional case due, very possibly, to being a narcissistic sociopath, and due, certainly, to the extreme nature of his actions. He is typical of nothing other than the work of abusive personalities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s2 blade Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 But papers like the DM research and dig up stories on them to try and make them look commonplace. Do the maths and that's still a hell of a lot of money for taxpayers to keep footing the bill for . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Clearly then he should never have been paid to have children This is the rhetoric of DM journalism. It's unmistakable and it feeds a percentage of the population, of course I include you in that percentage. what kind of country pays a scumbag like that to breed. Clearly you do read the DM regularly and not just at the Chinese restaurant you frequent, unless you eat at the Chinese every day that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 4, 2013 Author Share Posted April 4, 2013 Do the maths and that's still a hell of a lot of money for taxpayers to keep footing the bill for . How much? What percentage of the welfare bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.