I read the Daily Mail today. Gobsmacked.

[boyfriday]

But you already know the answer to your silly question so why ask it ?

 

Sorry but I don't recall asking you anything so your intervention was unnecessary.

[Mister M]

Anders Breivik was a fan of Daily Mail and their position on multiculturalism.

The Daily Mail is responsible for the deaths of 69 people.

 

See how they like it

[JFKvsNixon]

Without it there wouldn't have been 17 kids, he clearly had the kids just to make money, there are two problems it seems, our system didn't locking him up for life, and then we paid for his lazy lifestyle in which he produced children for government money.

 

I think that he had that many kids because he like having sex and didn't care of the consequences later on. Do you really believe that he would have started to act in a manner where he began to consider how his actions would impact upon others, if he had a lower level of social security benefits?

[SevenRivers]

They're right that he and his family were a product of the welfare state, and he was also violent thug so they got that bit right too, but the former I don't believe is causal to the latter.

[MrSmith]

How can you know that fore sure. People in work have large families too.

 

 

He would have been in prison so incapable of producing kids.

[Anna B]

Only 110 families in Britain have 10 or more children. Out of millions of families that's not a lot. So hardly a typical family.

 

It's a bit like saying all doggers are a product of the welfare state.

[MrSmith]

I think that he had that many kids because he like having sex and didn't care of the consequences later on. Do you really believe that he would have started to act in a manner where he began to consider how his actions would impact upon others, if he had a lower level of social security benefits?

 

I think there would have been fewer kids if the state didn't support people like him and the children were clearly failed by the state, chucking money at them didn't do the kids any favours.

[evildrneil]

If he couldn't have claimed child benefit for the kids he wanted to get custody of, he wouldn't have tried to frame their mother for the house fire, so she would lose custody so he could get custody and the child benefit that comes with it.

 

Ergo, product of the benefits culture. Next.

 

So you know why he did it? Strange how many people on slightly more rational news outlets are suggesting that he was continuing his controlling behaviour towards women and wanted custody of the children to regain control over their mother. That at least has some modicom of evidence rather than simple Daily Mail-ism...

[MrSmith]

Only 110 families in Britain have 10 or more children. Out of millions of families that's not a lot. So hardly a typical family.

 

It's a bit like saying all doggers are a product of the welfare state.

 

£150m scandal of benefit families with 5 or more children

THE cost of Britain’s bloated welfare state has been revealed by figures which show that 40,000 families with five children or more depend on benefits.

 

Almost 200 families with at least 10 children are each eligible to claim more than £60,000 annually in state benefits,

[Mister M]

Only 110 families in Britain have 10 or more children. Out of millions of families that's not a lot. So hardly a typical family.

 

It's a bit like saying all doggers are a product of the welfare state.

 

Indeed.

 

But it's interesting that when police corruption is discussed it's always 'few bad apples'; and when the phone hacking scandal broke 'it was a single rogue reporter', etc etc....But with the Philpot case, attempts are made at tarring all benefit recipients ith the same brush.