Vile product of Welfare UK

[Stephen]

Life should mean life.

15-17 years for their crimes I personally feel is not justice. So why is Jeremy Bamber still in prison after '28' years for a similar crime, albeit still denied!!

[Kendhni]

The Government is currently altering welfare payments by which some genuine claimants will be getting reduced benefits.

THat is the biggest problem and a side-effect that nobody wants to see ... sadly while the work shy hide behind the genuine claimants and are protected by the bleeding heart liberal do-gooders then those in genuine need will continue to suffer.

[Silver_Shiney]

I must admit I thought that Mairead had to be a "sandwich short of a loaf" and was expecting her ( when interviewed ) to come across as such but she didn't, she is/was not a simple person, or that isn't the impression I got, a stupid one maybe because I really can't understand how any woman could be so besotted with a man that she would let him dictate how she should live her life

DQ, it is not an unusual situation. I know a lady very well who is highly intelligent, who rose through the ranks of her chosen profession very quickly and, in addition, now runs her own consultancy for which she is highly paid and is in regular demand to speak through Europe and America. Yet her husband controls every last penny of her income. Her speaking fees are spent by him before she's even received the cheque.

He claims to be a busy, self-employed businessman but, in reality, he's a lazy sod who spends every afternoon in bed having a nap. He buys his clothes from John Lewis, she has to go to charity shops. Instead of saving up £2,000-odd to repair a hole in the roof, he's taken out a 10-year loan on a camper van, which now just sits in the driveway and will probably end up rotting like the previous one. Every time the house acquires some equity, he takes out another mortgage on it. They will never repay the home loan.

He "flipped" a few years ago and swallowed a bottle of pills, held the bottle out and said "look what you've made me do" - her father at the time said that the husband would hold this over her for the rest of her life.

Is she besotted with him, or is she too frightened to leave? I don't know.

At least there are no children involved.

[Andrea S]

If it isn't for life then it shouldn't be called a life.
I followed the Jeremy Bamber case as I had grown up in that area and it wasn't the normal happening in a sleepy part of Essex. I was never too sure about the verdict as I feel with the current Forensic Psychiatric Doctors if could have been shown that the sister had committed this crime but the evidence obviously wasn't enough. Sentencing years ago was more controlled than today.

[Dancing Queen]

I must admit I thought that Mairead had to be a "sandwich short of a loaf" and was expecting her ( when interviewed ) to come across as such but she didn't, she is/was not a simple person, or that isn't the impression I got, a stupid one maybe because I really can't understand how any woman could be so besotted with a man that she would let him dictate how she should live her life

DQ, it is not an unusual situation. I know a lady very well who is highly intelligent, who rose through the ranks of her chosen profession very quickly and, in addition, now runs her own consultancy for which she is highly paid and is in regular demand to speak through Europe and America. Yet her husband controls every last penny of her income. Her speaking fees are spent by him before she's even received the cheque.

He claims to be a busy, self-employed businessman but, in reality, he's a lazy sod who spends every afternoon in bed having a nap. He buys his clothes from John Lewis, she has to go to charity shops. Instead of saving up £2,000-odd to repair a hole in the roof, he's taken out a 10-year loan on a camper van, which now just sits in the driveway and will probably end up rotting like the previous one. Every time the house acquires some equity, he takes out another mortgage on it. They will never repay the home loan.

He "flipped" a few years ago and swallowed a bottle of pills, held the bottle out and said "look what you've made me do" - her father at the time said that the husband would hold this over her for the rest of her life.

Is she besotted with him, or is she too frightened to leave? I don't know.

At least there are no children involved.

I'm sure you are right SS and it isn't that unusual, it is just one I don't understand because I can't imagine ever being so besotted or afraid of someone that I personally wouldn't have "walked" but then I have never been in that sort of situation so who knows how one would react

[Silver_Shiney]

Ed Balls is quoted as saying: "George Osborne's calculated decision to use the shocking and vile crimes of Mick Philpott to advance a political argument is the cynical act of a desperate chancellor."

Osborne had previously said "Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation; the courts are responsible for sentencing him. But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had."

Wasn't it Labour who made the benefits system so generous and open to abuse?

For once, I'm with Osborne. I am sick to the back teeth of seeing my hard-earned taxes subsidising the feckless.

[noddy10]

Current rules means that with good behaviour the 2 that got 17yrs could be free in just over 8yrs as rules state you can be released on parole after 50% of sentence served.

[noddy10]

Sorry Silver_Shiney I dont think any party should be making political capital out of this case but bringing in a benefits system that is open to abuse does not make you evil and a killer of 6 innocent children.

[Manoverboard]

Mr Osborne responded to a question on the subject ... Labour have tried to make mileage out of it.

[Onelife]

I listened to the interview this morning and didn’t hear anything that left me with the impression it was a party political broadcast.

[noddy10]

I suppose at the end of the day everybody hears what they want to hear from politicians depending on there political persuasion.

[Onelife]

Hi Noddy10

I have no political allegiance to Osborne or his u-turn party but if you are referring to this interview then I’m still of the same opinion.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035

Regards

OL

[oldbluefox]

I agree entirely with Silver Shiney's point of view.

As for Osborne he was asked a question and he answered it. It's as simple as that. It is Ed Balls who is trying to create the political slant. And whatever Osborne said I applaud, as many of the population have been saying this for many years and successive politicians have always buried their heads in the sand and denied there was a problem. There is a definite problem with our benefit system, even excluding the Philpott factor, and the problem is detrimental not only to the working tax payer but to those who are genuinely in need and not just milking the system.

Regards

Foxy, the floating voter

[Manoverboard]

... blah, blah, blah ...

Regards

Foxy, the floating voter

If anybody twists those words to read " Foxy, the voting floater " ... I will slap a warning on them

[Dark Knight]

I fail to see the connection between a murderer and the benfits system
not all benefits cheats are murderers, not all murderers are on benefits

why are the two linked? when there is no link ,other than this man was on benefits, nothing more, I don't believe for one second the benefit system breeds murderers, lazy feckless, wasters, yes, but not killers

[oldbluefox]

There is no link. It's two separate issues. Somebody has tried to dispel the benefit argument by linking it with the Philpott murders. Philpott was a murderer who murdered his own children. He was also a benefit cheat who lived a very comfortable lifestyle (by his standards) by avoiding work and living off benefit. Nobody in their right minds could say that all benefit cheats are murderers.
It's always the same when anything like this occurs. Let's avoid the discussion by making unsustainable links.

[Silver_Shiney]

Sorry Silver_Shiney I dont think any party should be making political capital out of this case but bringing in a benefits system that is open to abuse does not make you evil and a killer of 6 innocent children.

I never said, or inferred, that it did, and I can't see anything in Osborne's statement to suggest that he thinks that either.

[Mo2013]

The judge accepted that Philpott did not INTEND to kill his children. He hatched a plot to frame his mistress who had left him, and the fire was set on the eve of a custody hearing. That is why he was charged with manslaughter and not murder and his sentence was in keeping with the charge. He didn't mean for the children to die, he was to 'save' them and appear a hero. Regarding the benefits he claimed and received, having a family member who lost their job with a wife and children to support, I have some idea of how many hoops one has to go through to obtain benefits which are paid on the proviso that you avail yourself for work, and accept a job offer if it comes along. I have to assume therefore that Philpott fulfilled the criteria necessary to obtain those benefits. Hatching a plot to frame a lover who has left you and involved in a child custody hearing is nothing to do with being on benefits.

[Delboy]

It matters not whether he intended to kill the children or not, he had no interests in the children's welfare, as he was prepared to subject them to the horrifying ordeal of waking up and finding their home on fire.
He did not give a second thought to the children's welfare, ignoring the toxic fumes and smoke these children would have subjected to, whilst waiting to be rescued.
This case has every thing do do with benefits, his girlfriend had walked out with her children, and as a result he had lost the benefits of his girlfriend and her children, benefits which were being paid into his account.
He started the fire in order to get custody of the children, in order to reclaim the benefits he had been loosing. To help him obtain those, he was prepared to to start a fire, blaim the children's motherboard (the girlfriend) for the fire, in order to take the children away from their mother, possibly for life. He had no interest in those children, other than the benefit money they were worth.

Mr Osborn has every right to raise the point re benefits, and having read his comments in no way has he accused those of being on benefits as being murderers. He has raised the question, and he is right when he says it is a question a lot of people are asking, of should the benefits system be used to support the lifestyles of people like Philpott. Should tax people's money be used to further the life's of those out to milk the system in this way, at the expense of those who genuinely need it.
I think the question needs discussing, and as far as I am concerned there should be a cap on the number of children in a family, who qualify for benefits. The benefits system definately needs addressing . If you are not going to raise the question on a case like this, when are you going to raise it.

[paultheeagle]

Osbourne should have distanced himself from the question or stated that Philpott's crimes was nothing to do with being on benefits...but he would rather try and score a political point....Shame on him and shame on anyone else who thinks these crimes have anything to do with being on benefits.

Philpott received benefits and yes like it or not, benefits to which he, his children and his women were entitled to...Benefits the state gave him.

Keeping him in jail for all these years is going to cost the tax payer a lot more than any benefits he received....It's about time the death penalty was brough back to deal with scum like Philpott.

[oldbluefox]

And a benefit system which needs reforming to eliminate the work shy, the feckless and the layabouts who have no intention of ever working, at the expense of those on minimum wage who struggle to make a living. Maybe then we can start providing financial incentives to those who do go out to work and putting funds into job creation.

[Delboy]

From what I have read of Mr Osborn's comments, in no way has he blamed these crimes of having anything to do with being on benefits.

He has raised the question of whether the benefits system, should be used to benefit the lifestyles of people like Philpott, and is it time they were reviewed, so they are paid to those genuinely in need.

[paultheeagle]

And a benefit system which needs reforming to eliminate the work shy, the feckless and the layabouts who have no intention of ever working, at the expense of those on minimum wage who struggle to make a living. Maybe then we can start providing financial incentives to those who do go out to work and putting funds into job creation.

ObF....Agreed and this Government is changing things and that (I can hardly believe what I am about to type) is to their credit....Everybody agrees the welfare state was allowed to get out of control ....What I don't agree with is the way they are trying to do it....

[Manoverboard]

Up until now nobody has had the balls to confront the growing problem ... the tide has turned and there's no going back or inventing an easier way for short term political gain.

As the Giant sometimes says " Make no mistake about that " !!!

The Welfare bubble, it seems, has finally burst and Mr Philpott has unwittingly facilitated an open and hopefully honest discussion on this delicate subject ... Benefit claims that it not man slaughter as for that there is NO excuse.

[Silver_Shiney]

In view of other comments, perhaps Philpott's heinous crime IS connected with the abuse of the welfare system and, as Moby said, the "man" has unwittingly opened up the whole subject for (hopefully) calm and reasoned debate.

As for whether his crime is murder or manslaughter... he says he didn't mean for this tragic turn of events to happen, which apparently downgrades it from murder to manslaughter. However, he did willingly put his children at risk. Didn't his mummy and daddy ever tell him you don't EVER play with fire?