I read the Daily Mail today. Gobsmacked.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Well the OPs argument that his actions were not a product of the benefits system was a supposition

No it isn't.

 

Mick Philpott set fire to his house and killed his children because he was a deranged man. Giving a man benefits does not make him deranged, so thus the welfare state is not to blame. No supposition in that statement at all.

[I1L2T3]

Well the OPs argument that his actions were not a product of the benefits system was a supposition therefor I am entitled to argue this supposition with my own supposition.

 

And I think, given the evidence that has come out in the case, my supposition is more likely to be true.

 

Next.

 

Your supposition is that the benefits system turned him nasty?

[Mister M]

I don't think it was his intension to kill them; after all they were his meal ticket.

 

Yes he did mean to kill them. Where do you get the idea that he didn't?

[I1L2T3]

Yes he did mean to kill them. Where do you get the idea that he didn't?

 

To be fair he messed up his plan. The kids weren't meant to die.

[skinz]

Yes he did mean to kill them. Where do you get the idea that he didn't?

 

Intent or not..his illegal actions were the cause of his children's death. As for premeditated I wouldn't like to comment. Only Phillpot knows that.

[Mister M]

One the **** stirrers who wrote this piece of filth published in the Mail has a degree in English Literature.

http://mcserver.gold.ac.uk/journalism/ma/2008/ma_journalism_jmm/Student_Profiles/Paul_Bentley.html

 

 

So he's studied the great writers like Milton, Sheakespeare and Dickens.

Now he's reduced to writing crap for living. Poor ba$tard

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2013 at 20:54 ----------

 

To be fair he messed up his plan. The kids weren't meant to die.

 

I was referring to Harold Shipman in response to a statement by Mr Smith

[Jessica23]

Women's Aid on the case here.

 

We have heard in court that the violence perpetrated by Philpott was psychological as well as physical. Both his wife and girlfriend worked, and their money and benefits were paid into Philpott’s bank account. Not allowed to go out shopping on their own and driven to work by Philpot, he tried to control every element of their lives. They did not have keys to the house and had to ask permission to leave. When his girlfriend fled to a refuge to escape his abuse, he lost control. He decided to take revenge by framing her for arson, a plan which led to six children dying in their burning home. This case has highlighted over thirty years of domestic violence, where Philpott’s partners have been controlled, manipulated and have been terrified with good reason of what he would do if they didn’t obey him.

 

This is why we need to have greater support for those experiencing domestic violence, yet at the current time, local services are facing the impact of spending cuts and of welfare reform which threatens to undermine their funding, including measures that will specifically impact on women with more than two children. We need to increase help for abused women and children living with domestic violence so that they can safely escape life threatening situations.

[andygardener]

The fact that a man convicted of the attempted murder of a child he had been abusing for several years was let out after just 3 years in jail seems more pertinent than the fact that the benefits system was previously uncapped with regard to children.

[MrSmith]

Yes he did mean to kill them. Where do you get the idea that he didn't?

 

Wouldn't he have been tried for murder as opposed to manslaghter if he had intent?

[Crosser]

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.

 

If his mother hadn't had sex with his father, then 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 it's the fault of women NEXT!