Mick Philpott

[antony1969]

Today the pretend tears can stop and once sentenced Mick Philpott killer of 6 of his own children will hopefully face years of utter hell inside .

Fellow lags will be eager to inflict serious injuries on him and hopefully he and his fellow fire starters will live in fear inside of such attacks for a long time .

No real remorse , no real tears for his six children just a sick attempt to get back half his benefits he had lost . If my paper is correct Philpott had £4000.00 a month in child benefits paid into his account for 11 of the children he had to two mothers . £4000.00 a month what a disgrace , how can that be ? nearly £50.000 a year in benefits to a workshy , filthy etc etc git like him .

Georgie Osbourne and Co please sort out our diabolical easy street benefit system .

[CliveH]

Well the are trying Anthony - Ian Duncan Smith's reforms will mean that no one on benefits will receive more than circa £26,000 a year as this is the average wage in the UK.

 

I think this is fair.

 

I also think Philpott is an example of how the benefit culture skews attitude and morals.

 

OK - he is an extreme case. But his attitude was that by having many kids he could gain circa £50,000 a year in benefits.

 

When that income was threatened his moral compass was so skewed by his thinking that he had a "right" to that £50,000 pa that he set up a scam so as to keep it.

 

And as a result 6 kids died.

 

I also hope the other inmates make their lives hell.

 

I am afraid this whole sorry debacle is more about the excess and how easy it is (hopefully "was") of the benefit system as much as it is about individuals killing innocents.

 

But - we still see the Church's and left wing politicoes lambasting the proposed changes and the new limits set on the benefits as "harming the poor" - when the reality is that those scamming the benefit system will be the only ones that suffer whilst the "poor" that actually work will be better off by way of increased personal allowances AND a more effective benefit system for those in genuine need.

 

I fully support the benefit system - after all - their but for the grace of God etc............

 

But it has to be a Safety Net.

 

NOT a sodding Hammock! >:-( >:-( >:-(

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

We know personally of someone who has 13 kids 8-)............and they bred for benefits no other reason *-)............the kids have had a hard life........but they are now reaching working age.......and few have any intention of getting a job, as they know the system inside out *-)........

 

Another of Labours tricks......."Breeding for votes" coming home to roost >:-(

[Dave225]

You can maybe explain that to the BBC who are desperately trawling the country to find 'victims' of these 'draconian taxes'. Unfortunately, there will no doubt be some cases where things go wrong and people do get penalised, and these will be milked to the extreme.The fact that probably the vast majority of taxpayers may see a little benefit is of no consequence to the BBC/Guardian 'istas.

[Guest pelmetman]

Dave225 - 2013-04-03 7:05 PM

 

You can maybe explain that to the BBC who are desperately trawling the country to find 'victims' of these 'draconian taxes'. Unfortunately, there will no doubt be some cases where things go wrong and people do get penalised, and these will be milked to the extreme.The fact that probably the vast majority of taxpayers may see a little benefit is of no consequence to the BBC/Guardian 'istas.

 

When has the BBC ever been in touch with real life? 8-)............The Chattering A*se's haven't a clue *-) ........apart from a bit of nudge nudge wink wink when they have a pervert in their midst 8-)..............

[malc d]

Sounds like Philpott got a " life " sentence.

 

Any bets on how soon he will be out ?

 

 

:-(

[antony1969]

malc d - 2013-04-04 11:04 AM

 

Sounds like Philpott got a " life " sentence.

 

Any bets on how soon he will be out ?

 

 

:-(

 

Life with a minimum of fifteen years , so if he gets out then that's two and half years for each child , wonderful what a fantastic justice system we have .

I suppose for the rest of his life inside or out the taxpayer picks up the tab for this slimeball .

[RogerC]

Just heard the sentences handed down in this case and it clearly illustrates what is so very wrong with the criminal justice system in this country.  One gets 'life' and the other two get 17 years.  Philpott will serve a 'minimum' of 15 years and the other two will serve a 'minimum' of half of their 17 year term.

 

When will this country get 'real' and stop this madness of releasing convicts early.  I see no point in handing down a custodial sentence of (for example) 20 years and then saying the criminal will serve a minimum of 10 years.  They should serve the whole of the sentence.

 

[malc d]

double post

[malc d]

malc d - 2013-04-04 1:06 PM

 

What i object to is being told that someone is going to be jailed for seventeen years when everyone knows it's not true.

 

Why not just tell us that they got eight years, or whatever.

 

It's just the media trying to hype up their reporting.

 

 

 

A good example is when they report that a gang is sentenced to a " total of 20 years in prison "

 

Sounds a lot, but then you find out there are 20 people in the gang and they got a year each !

 

 

 

:-(

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

We have a Philpot clone right next door to us, more's the pity, never done a tap in his life, but equally I know of quite a few that are just the opposite trying to find work, or part time working because that's all there is, especially around here with seasonal work. But I do wish they would stop quoting this mythical figure of £25.000 a year in benefits, because what they omit for from the equation is this has come about since the private sector has become the main provider of "social" housing, the landlords of which charge a rent that they know will be funded by the state, as an example here in Gwynedd you will not find a single place to rent for less than £150 a week, and yet someone ( the majority here ) on minimum wage working full time take home around £210 a week, so it's a self fulfilling prophecy that those at the bottom of the heap lose hope.

And let's be perfectly clear the rate for a single person on jobseekers allowance is around £70 a week, hardly much more than half a tank of diesel. :-S

 

Let's make it clear I think Philpot and his Ilk should just receive their gonads cooked up and served to them as a last meal, but let's not make the mistake of as John47 would say, tarring all with the same brush when it comes to benefits, and those that receive them, they are not all Philpots.

 

And of course the buy to let boom was funded mainly on guaranteed rent payments from the state, a bit of an own goal, a pal of mine owns 9 flats, all apart from 1 HB claimants, or as he say's guaranteed money in the bank tenants.

[Dave225]

Some how I do not think he will receive the same treatment as Chris Huhne and get whisked off to a soft Open Prison within a few days. I suspect he will be incarcerated with the low life in Wandsworth or one of the other serious Nicks around the Uk and without feeling any sympathy, he will find out that life is going to get rather tough. A few scarrings will be coming his way. He may end up spending a lot of time on his own for his own safety, not a lot to look forward to.

 

Of course the low life may think he is a hero, you never know. One thing is for sure the bravado has now stopped. At least he has been a great advert for the BBC to try and defend cuts in benefits. I have not heard Milliband saying too much in his defence such as he was treated badly by the system and actually needs more benefits. Where is Harriet the Harpy when you need her?? or that haridan from H..l, Polly Toynbee??? After all, this is what they wish to continue and expand isn't it???

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

One thing that seems not to have been given full coverage is the fact that the two woman he effectively controlled worked and received working tax credits, that of course opens another can of worms, should the taxpayer effectively subsidise poor wages, and or part time workers. (!)

 

The thing that really rattles my cage is this loss of life has been turned into political advantage to ram home the idea that everyone on benefits is a clone of Philpot and his evil ways, who is quite obviously completely mad, benefits or no benefits.

[Tracker]

Meanwhile the remaining women and children carry on getting benefits and free housing etc and it costs the taxpayer even more than his 'lost' benefits to keep the evil greedy bar steward alive in jail.

 

At least hopefully he is now fully aware of his responsibilities as well as his rights and he has the time to ponder them.

 

 

 

 

[Dave225]

I think everyone recognises that there are indeed people for whom the system is a safety net. But as Bevin admirably stated when he came up with it, it is a safety net and should never be used as a substitute for work. Far too many have now made it a career move and frankly the costs are totally unsustainable. If no realignment is done then the whole house of cards will come tumbling down and then those that do need the help will get absolutely nothing.

 

Brown used it as a means to trap people into always voting Labour as he scared them into believing anything else would lose them their benefits. He knew turkeys rarely vote for Christmas. Now we all have to pick up the pieces of that mess.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

I can only agree with the manner Labour dealt with the jobless, give them just enough money to exist with a life on benefits, some took the bait instead of taking to the streets. But the one question that remains unanswered is we'll never have full employment in the country again, so what's to be done, shoot them all, or let them starve to death, mmmmm :-S

[George Collings]

VPU -Vulnerable Prisoners Unit.

 

A prison within a prison because the prison service has a duty of care to all its inmates.

 

Justice?

 

[nightrider]

1footinthegrave - 2013-04-04 10:07 PM

 

I can only agree with the manner Labour dealt with the jobless, give them just enough money to exist with a life on benefits, some took the bait instead of taking to the streets. But the one question that remains unanswered is we'll never have full employment in the country again, so what's to be done, shoot them all, or let them starve to death, mmmmm :-S

They are already doing that on the Liverpool Care Pathway. If our government are quite content to give billions of our money away to all and sundry and let our NHS be raped by foreigners who come here as health tourists, then i for one have no complaints of our own people diving into welfare benefits.

[Archiesgrandad]

As you say, we will never have full employment, and we will always need, and I hope want, a safety net for those who can't manage. There will always be those left behind by bereavement with young children who will need support for some period of time, and those who are deserted by a partner who refuses to provide for their family. There are also those, usually young women, who start a family by accident, and find that the father goes missing and leaves them with no means of support.We cannot ignore them. We can, and should, however, make it clear that having arrived at the situationin which they need our help, they must not make their situation any worse. To cap benefits at £26000 is actually rather generous, that may be the level of average earnings but as any statistician will tell you, most families will earn less than that. Similar common sense responses are needed to cope with those out of work, those renting properties in the private sector, and that should include dealing with profiteering landlords, and so on. Working people with families usually live in a modest 3 bedroom house in the not very expensive part of a not very expensive town, why should those who cannot pay their way expect anything better.

AGD

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

I say again, the £26000 cap is based on a very few claimants exploited in their position by landlords charging rents at a level the local authorities have to pay, hundreds of pounds a week for a very modest place in London for example is common place. To my mind rent controls should be put in place, but the Tories would never go for that, as most of their ilk are the very people that benefit from these rental incomes paid by the tax payer. >:-(

[BGD]

"...........To my mind rent controls should be put in place, but the Tories would never go for that, as most of their ilk are the very people that benefit from these rental incomes paid by the tax payer. "

 

 

 

...........................You seem to have conveniently ignored the enormous logic-flaw in your post: the fact that "most of their ilk" are in reality mainly the ones who actually have to earn/generate/create the money/wealth upon which the taxes are then "paid by the tax payer" in order to fund those State Benefit handouts.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

BGD - 2013-04-05 11:24 AM

 

"...........To my mind rent controls should be put in place, but the Tories would never go for that, as most of their ilk are the very people that benefit from these rental incomes paid by the tax payer. "

 

 

 

...........................You seem to have conveniently ignored the enormous logic-flaw in your post: the fact that "most of their ilk" are in reality mainly the ones who actually have to earn/generate/create the money/wealth upon which the taxes are then "paid by the tax payer" in order to fund those State Benefit handouts.

 

Well the acknowledged reality is the largest share of taxation in percentage terms comes from folk at the bottom of the heap, Starbucks, Amazon and then like manage to avoid most of it, and off shore tax havens are well exploited by those with a few bob.

And of course the creators of wealth like the UK banking sector has been doing a wonderful job in recent years haven't they :-S And of course the UK has a huge balance of payments surplus, from all that wealth creation.

 

The explosion of "buy to let" has been funded by the taxpayer the likes of me, by baling out the banks, so ensuring the "buy to let" landlord didn't lose their shirt, and their guaranteed tax payer funded housing benefit rental incomes, the income of which pays for their "but to let" property and a little earner on top for effectively doing nothing, >:-( Quite funny really, they could almost be described as benefit scroungers. :D Although my pal with 9 flats funded by DHSS payments on "buy to let" mortgages wouldn't see it that way. ;-)

[Guest Had Enough]

1footinthegrave - 2013-04-05 11:58 AM

 

BGD - 2013-04-05 11:24 AM

 

"...........To my mind rent controls should be put in place, but the Tories would never go for that, as most of their ilk are the very people that benefit from these rental incomes paid by the tax payer. "

 

 

 

...........................You seem to have conveniently ignored the enormous logic-flaw in your post: the fact that "most of their ilk" are in reality mainly the ones who actually have to earn/generate/create the money/wealth upon which the taxes are then "paid by the tax payer" in order to fund those State Benefit handouts.

 

Well the acknowledged reality is the largest share of taxation in percentage terms comes from folk at the bottom of the heap, Starbucks, Amazon and then like manage to avoid most of it, and off shore tax havens are well exploited by those with a few bob.

And of course the creators of wealth like the UK banking sector has been doing a wonderful job in recent years haven't they :-S

 

I see that nothing has changed since I was here last. You are still spouting the usual uniformed and untrue garbage.

 

The top 1% of earners contribute 37% of all income tax. 90% of all income tax is paid by the highest-earning 50% of tax payers. The lowest 50% of taxpayers contribute less than the annual housing benefit bill! The figures are easily checkable but knowing your propensity for not wishing to know about anything that dispels your silly prejudices I've no doubt that you won't bother!

 

You should be very grateful to rich and successful people as, without them, the low earners would have to pay a lot more income tax. And whilst some people do avoid tax using offshore trusts and moving to Monaco, the vast majority of high earners living and working in the UK cannot avoid income tax. Setting up a company and paying the lower rate of corporation tax only only delays tax and allows people to spread their income over several years to iron out highs and lows. as soon as they pay themselves from that company they have to pay the personal income tax.

 

But what really illustrates your unthinking and very silly arguments is the one about capping rents in London. If you had a modest house in certain parts of the city it may well be worth a million pounds. If the free market rental rate on that is, let's say £50K a year, and you decide to rent it but the government has decided that the maximum it will pay you is £15K what would you do?

 

Would you say, "Oh, that's OK, I'm happy with £15K return on my £1 million investment." Or would you say "Sod that, I can get £50K in the private sector so there's no way I'm renting my house to benefit claimants."

 

And if the government capped all rental payments, private or public, what would you do then? You'd sell the damn thing!

 

Your ludicrous proposal would result in only one thing - no more houses to rent in London!

 

The answer is for the government to refuse to pay the London market rate. Benefit claimants should be forced to move to Luton or Basildon, or somewhere where our money (mine, not yours from what I can gather about you) is not being spent on rents that they couldn't possibly afford to pay if they were working.

 

Personally I'm getting fed up of paying lots of income tax to fund the Philpotts of this world. I don't object to one penny of my money going to the genuinely deserving but I do object to people having lifestyles that they could not possibly enjoy if they have the kind of job that their usually low intellect allows.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Erm, sorry did I say income tax, I certainly did not, I said in percentage terms folk at the bottom of the heap pay a larger share of taxation. (!)

 

If you do not provide housing at reasonable cost in major cities I'm not sure how your local street cleaner and the folk on minimum wage that do all the essential services can sustain living there to do those vital functions. >:-(

 

By your logic they can be shipped out to Bradford or the outer Hebrides, and commute to London daily to clean the streets. :-S

 

As for people on benefits in housing they cannot afford, or people at work, I'm not sure how many parts of the UK have affordable rents given that here a modest one bed flat costs £150 a week, where many subsist on minimum wage of £210

 

Oh and thanks for the non antagonistic tone of your post.

[pepe63xnotuse]

Had Enough - 2013-04-05 12:26 PM

 

Personally I'm getting fed up of paying lots of income tax to fund the Philpotts of this world. I don't object to one penny of my money going to the genuinely deserving but I do object to people having lifestyles that they could not possibly enjoy if they have the kind of job that their usually low intellect allows.

 

 

Fair comments HE..We're all fed up with it..but what is the answer? Do we just let young kids starve?..reintroduce "workhouses".?...or maybe we should conduct IQ tests,to ascertain their "intellect" and then pay benefits accordingly?. 8-)

(..possibly sterilising those who don't reach a certain level? *-) )

 

To my mind it's no more ridiculous than comparatively well off pensioners receiving such things as the *Winter fuel payments and bus passes, free prescriptions etc

(..*only to be spent on French/Spainish diesel as they trundle around the continent...;-) )

 

..and I dare say some may well have a "portfolio" of "Buy to Lets",which are being "propped" up by Housing Benefit anyway....

 

But it's odd how when someone further up the ladder receives/takes advantage of "the system" ,there are seen as "shrewd"...but do it at the bottom and you're scrounging....

 

I've been seeing a figure of 220billion being thrown about for the benefits bill....109 billion of which goes to pensioners..But the "pensioner" portion always seems off limits(..as with this "spare room levy",which doesn't apply to "pensioners")..

 

Oops! Sorry 1foot'..I missed your post..

In the main, I'm tending to agree with you on this.... ;-)