Topic: 6 Kids Killed in House Fire - Parents Charged

[RojoLeón]

The Guardian features the full range of opinions. Tories regularly write for it. They regularly publish pieces that disagree with their editorial line. Whereby the Mail is a bit more Goebbels.

The Tory/Telegraph is more like Goebbels.

The Mail, is more like Comical Ali.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

The Mail actually has better historical links to Goebbels.

"Hurrah for the Blackshirts" and "Youth Triumphant" indeed.

They had a Paolo's fascist XI today
http://inagist.com/all/320487554120036352/
I assume Lord Rothermere was on the bench, I can't imagine they could have missed him out completely.

[RojoLeón]

Maybe the original comparison should stand:

The Tory loving bellends at the telegraph are more akin to Dick Morris, or Karl Rove perhaps?

[Alan_X]

I also believe that the welfare lobby has every good intention in the world. But is simply, sadly, misguided.

The link between welfarism and the Philpott case is there for all to see in my opinion.

Oh dear. I wrote a long reply but deleted it because it's pointless with someone who has views like that.

The link between 'welfarism' (whatever the fuck that is) and Philpott is that he happened to be on benefits. The actual link is his psychotic controlling nature, which would probably have played out even if he was in work. If you jumped off your and George Osbornes anti-welfare agenda-driven bandwagon and look at the available research, you'd know that this sort of act is almost always to do with loss of control, with the highest risk during separation and divorce.

Now it does appear that Philpott is a slightly different case but that's because he's a violent criminal, not because of the welfare state.

If you're going to condemn the welfare system because it might have created a motive for Philpott to carry out the crime, then you should surely be condemning Life Insurance for the same reason. There are plenty of people who are now dead because a life insurance policy gave someone a financial motive for committing murder.

See, even if it was a motive, it says nothing about the welfare state itself.

[NOTBORNIN1982]

Oh dear. I wrote a long reply but deleted it because it's pointless with someone who has views like that.

The link between 'welfarism' (whatever the fuck that is) and Philpott is that he happened to be on benefits. The actual link is his psychotic controlling nature, which would probably have played out even if he was in work. If you jumped off your and George Osbornes anti-welfare agenda-driven bandwagon and look at the available research, you'd know that this sort of act is almost always to do with loss of control, with the highest risk during separation and divorce.

Now it does appear that Philpott is a slightly different case but that's because he's a violent criminal, not because of the welfare state.

If you're going to condemn the welfare system because it might have created a motive for Philpott to carry out the crime, then you should surely be condemning Life Insurance for the same reason. There are plenty of people who are now dead because a life insurance policy gave someone a financial motive for committing murder.

See, even if it was a motive, it says nothing about the welfare state itself.

When I say ‘welfarism’, I think you understand what I’m getting at and I will admit to slight preconception due to the problems I have suffered because of it.

The fact your strongest conviction is a ‘probably’ would imply that you are as confident as me regarding his motive, the fact is, none of us can know for sure - perhaps I shouldn’t have been so forthright with my judgment. It’s simply my opinion to suggest, without the welfare payouts Philpott would not have been afforded the opportunity to father 18 kids, hence those 6 children would not have perished.

In hindsight, a few of my previous post are perhaps wide of the mark. It’s not my intention to annoy anyone or cause offence. But I’m not joining in with the shrill, self-righteous outrage expressed by the likes of Owen Jones and Pamela Nash.

[Millie]

For goodness sake the man was an evil control freak - and that's putting it mildly.

He wasnt on any benefits when he was convicted of attempted murder and gbh with intent.

[Corkboy]

It’s simply my opinion to suggest, without the welfare payouts Philpott would not have been afforded the opportunity to father 18 kids, hence those 6 children would not have perished.

It's equally possible that, without the welfare payments, he might have fathered 18 kids who went on to live in squalid conditions and went hungry most days.

It puzzles me, in cases such as these, that people focus much more on the one guy who is gaming the system, rather than the 18 healthy children who are not.

[Red Beret]

FFS, don't be blinded by the red herring of benefits.  Philpott had two women working in his household - their wages were paid into his bank account.  Yes they got a ton of child benefit but the benefit was intended for the children  From what I recall Philpott's children weren't bad kids - even that rat arse Kyle said as much.  Mick Philpott was a bullying, narcissistic control freak.  He may have been irked by the loss of income when his ex-mistress bunked off with five kids but it was the damage to his EGO that motivated him to start a fire that killed six children.

[Sir Harvest Fields]

This was fuck all to do with benefits, it was about a man who was losing control of his life.

[Kez]

I expect all 3 of them to get life sentences with long minimum tariffs. At best guess, I'd say at least 30 years a piece. Huntley got a minimum of 40 for the Soham murders. It depends on how pissed the judge is, but the Huntley sentencing was in the High Court and that's a nice precedent.

Blimey. Got that a bit wrong didn't I? I think I got my murder/manslaughter guidelines confused...