Was George Osborne right?

[bad company]

About supporting the likes of Phillpot?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304037/Mi...

[vodkalolly]

Not only was he right, he probably did himself some good. I think most people are getting sick of the broken record "I was shocked, I find it offensive" emitted by the moron loony left nutter bhes and tossers from the Lib Dumbs to the full blown right on morons like Diane Abbot, every time a real issue is mentioned. It is just not right that this man was getting nearly 70k income from the state.

[anonymous-user]

Spot on IMO.

Unlike Mary Begg who tried to dismiss this argument because "the number of families with 13 or more children is less than 50".

Good use of statistics Mary, we can see where you look for votes. What about the families with 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6 kids etc, all indefensible, unsupportable numbers when paid for by someone else.

[Adrian W]

So how many other parents on benefits have murdered their children

[JagLover]

Adrian W said:

So how many other parents on benefits have murdered their children

Irrelevant

The point was that it was the morally corrupting welfare state that helped lead him down this path. If he had, had to work for a living rather than receive the equivalent of a six figure salary for doing nothing then things might have ended up differently.

Remember that one of the points of the crime was to frame his mistress, who had left with 6 of the children and so deprived him of thousands in income.

[MarshPhantom]

JagLover said:

Irrelevant

The point was that it was the morally corrupting welfare state that helped lead him down this path.

How exactly?

He started the fire to get back at his ex. Philpott has appeared on numerous TV shows, presumably because his situation is not the norm.

[Crafty_]

JagLover said:

Irrelevant

The point was that it was the morally corrupting welfare state that helped lead him down this path. If he had, had to work for a living rather than receive the equivalent of a six figure salary for doing nothing then things might have ended up differently.

Remember that one of the points of the crime was to frame his mistress, who had left with 6 of the children and so deprived him of thousands in income.

If he was out working he might not have the time to screw the wife and mistress (and god knows who else) enough times to make his own fecking football team.

Osborne has only said what many tax payers think "why should I be funding someone who chooses to live on benefits?"
I haven't seen the lefites give a proper answer to that yet, all they do is starting ranting about the poor/needy. The problem is that the poor/needy haven't chosen to live on benefits so their argument becomes null and void.

[MarshPhantom]

Crafty_ said:

Osborne has only said what many tax payers think "why should I be funding someone who chooses to live on benefits?"

Osborne wants people to think that everyone on benefits is there by choice.

Philpott claimed he couldn't get work due to his criminal record. Would you employ him?

[Crafty_]

MarshPhantom said:

Osborne wants people to think that everyone on benefits is there by choice.

Disagree, Osborne did not say that at all and like it or not there is an element of society who choose to live on benefits.

Thousands of ex-cons get jobs, what made him so special (at that time anyway) ?

[RYH64E]

MarshPhantom said:

Osborne wants people to think that everyone on benefits is there by choice.

Philpott claimed he couldn't get work due to his criminal record. Would you employ him?

What job would pay enough money to support a family of that size anyway? The only way his lifestyle was sustainable was via benefits.

[davepoth]

MarshPhantom said:

Crafty_ said:

Osborne has only said what many tax payers think "why should I be funding someone who chooses to live on benefits?"

Osborne wants people to think that everyone on benefits is there by choice.

Philpott claimed he couldn't get work due to his criminal record. Would you employ him?

Think about it this way. All of his children were born after his conviction. He knew he wouldn't have any way of supporting that many kids (and women) with his own means, but he carried on because it was financially beneficial to do so.

I don't think anyone has too much of a problem with benefits claimants who, when they go on benefits, cut their cloth accordingly. The money is there to support people to work to the best of their efforts and make sure that they don't go hungry.

I don't like the fact that two full time parents on minimum wage earn around £22,500 a year, which really isn't enough to care for a family of four, and that they need benefits to survive, but that's where we are at the minute. Anyone in that situation deserves to be cheered because it would be an incredibly hard existence IMO, and I think most would agree with that statement too.

The system needs to do exactly what the Tories have said - reward work. The position should be that if you are able to do any work - anything, even an hour a week - the welfare system should be set up to make it financially beneficial for you to do that work.

[bad company]

MarshPhantom said:

Osborne wants people to think that everyone on benefits is there by choice.

That's not what he said or implied at all.

[Steffan]

bad company said:

MarshPhantom said:

Osborne wants people to think that everyone on benefits is there by choice.

That's not what he said or implied at all.

No but it is a common feature of some contributors who would prefer to answer a question that was not posed in the original comment, because then they can answer a question that they would prefer to be answering.

What Osbourne raised is the entire question of whether a man like Phillpot should ever have been allowed to live the lifestyle he chose on Benefits at £70,000 a year. We must not forget that this evil man had already served six years for attempted murder of a former wife and wounding of her mother in the fray. He was pocketing all the earnings of his family into his bank account including all the family allowances. He was clearly known to the Police clearly known to Social Services and yet able to destroy the lives of six children by arson with intent to endanger life and apparently no one involved saw any problems in this arrangement.

I think this case may well become a landmark in the benefits jungle that raises public concern to the point where fundamental changes start to be made. Should for example a man previously convicted for attempted murder and wounding be allowed to receive all these benefits on behalf of others. It gave him the dominance he craved. Is that a reasonable considered decision by the Benefits agencies involved? Similar questions should be raised on every aspect of this case throughout the entire disgraceful affair.

[MX7]

Steffan said:

What Osbourne raised is the entire question of whether a man like Phillpot should ever have been allowed to live the lifestyle he chose on Benefits at £70,000 a year.

I don't think he did. I think it started with the Daily Mail and the rest of the media, then was discussed by the public, and then GO said that perhaps a debate is needed.

[Countdown]

MarshPhantom said:

Philpott claimed he couldn't get work due to his criminal record. Would you employ him?

It could be argued that there was no incentive for him to change his "approach to life" BECAUSE of the relative comfort provided by the welfare system.

Just to clarify - most people on benefits have a 5hit life. But for a certain feckless few, who have learned how to "game" the benefits system, it's actually quite a cushy life.

Over the past 2 or 3 generations living on State welfare has lost its stigma and become more acceptable. It's going to take while to change that attitude.

[Sticks.]

MarshPhantom said:

Philpott claimed he couldn't get work due to his criminal record. Would you employ him?

Certainly not, but I wouldn't emply Osborne either - arguably both got where they are by excessive handouts

[Steffan]

RYH64E said:

MarshPhantom said:

Osborne wants people to think that everyone on benefits is there by choice.

Philpott claimed he couldn't get work due to his criminal record. Would you employ him?

What job would pay enough money to support a family of that size anyway? The only way his lifestyle was sustainable was via benefits.

That is precisely my view of this benefits nonsense. Who could work and manage that many children and bring home £70,000 a year TAX FREE. Which must equate to £100,000 a year if you were actually earning it. You would also then be paying NI which might at least make a token contribution to the cost to the NHS alone of this disgrace.

Unemployment whether intended or unintended cannot be a reason to have 24 days a fortnight to act like a dangerous lunatic and sponge of the state in perpetuity. That is what was happening in the case of the lunatic collecting benefits here and it was and will remain a damned disgrace on the reputation of this country and in direct consequence six children have been unlawfully killed. That is how far some of these benefits scroungers are prepared to go in chasing their selfish ends and it behoves every voter in the UK to see this for what it was. A set of circumstances that should never have been allowed by the authorities.

Not that I am removing any responsibility from the murderous trio. But this should have been spotted by the authorities at the time for what it might become given the existing sentence of attempted murder which sent the idiot to jail for six years. The system is hopelessly ineffective in monitoring reasonable parenthood and in consequence nobody bothers.

[rohrl]

AIUI both Philpott's wife and mistress were working and he was pocketing their wages. They got child benefit but so does everyone.

Mick Philpott is an utter bellend and a domineering bully. To extrapolate from him is a bit of a stretch I'd say.

[A.J.M]

The comments on the wail's page is interesting.

Split between heartless Tories looking after their own, Labour are the party who cares, The Royal family are spongers, the general public are sick of being taken for a ride to pay for your lazy lifestyle..

I agree that making it financially rewarding to continue to fire out kids to get more cash is wrong, the kids are likely (but not always) to grow up in a poor family environment.

A system needs to help people get back into work, not pay them enough to sit back, stick their hand out and demand the rest of us pay to keep them.

[Countdown]

I agree with IDS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304833/Ia...