Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Mick Philpot and his seventeen children.

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-250 of 275 posts in this discussion
Posted on 16 Apr 2013 15:26:38 BDT
easytiger says:
Would it be fair to say that the government for once is being pro-active? While working people are cutting their cloth, it seems right that something is being seen to be done about the seemingly bottomless benefits pits to prevent an outbreak of real strife against people on long term benefits, especially the millions who only came here in the last 10 years and have contributed nothing to the system.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2013 15:33:09 BDT
easytiger says:
Because there haven't been any marches demonstrations or riots since it was shown.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2013 15:35:29 BDT
Charlieost says:
I find it astonishing that you fail to understand that those folk in the big houses with second homes in France, a new car for each member of the family every year, a large boat in a private harbour Plus the de rigor offshore bank account and financial adviser and all the other trappings of "success" are actually buying all that stuff with your money PPP. Not some poor single mum in a grotty flat in Brixton. Her money is going back into the system and is recycled through whatever she buys and replaces. Her money stays in the country. She never gets enough to accumulate or sit on. C

Posted on 16 Apr 2013 15:39:30 BDT
Dan Fante says:
The lack of social housing is a joke. The report as much as acknowledged that as did the woman being interviewed. Most of her benefit was housing benefit which obviously ends up in a landlord's pocket.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2013 15:40:10 BDT
Charlieost says:
Hi easy. Why are you not at work if you don't mind me asking? There are poor people with begging bowls dependent on your taxes. :)

My excuse is that the next job on the list is scraping moss of the roofs of two German owned properties down by the lake and the roofs are steep and the wind is gusting. As I have previously found out. falling off roofs is not fun. C

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2013 15:43:30 BDT
Spin says:
Player: it is words such as "overgenerous" and "overburdening" which, when referring to the benefit system, indicates how out of touch with reality some folk are. Claimants are not handed a wad of cash to spend as they wish. Most benefits come in the form of Council tax rebates, rent rebates, tax credits, social funds, healthcare etc. The claimants do not even see a majority of the benefit they claim. The stereotype that a claimant gets more hard cash than the employed is a nonsense. If you want have more money than those on benefits sell your car, your house, cancel your private healthcare and pension contributions, and move to a council flat.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2013 15:55:07 BDT
easytiger says:
I am at work.There is a lull in finance on this project, so until it comes we find daft things to do and play on laptops. IT have blocked most things. Zon is one of the few I can access. I would much rather be watching utube to be honest. I'm off to the bar.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2013 16:32:33 BDT
I know how the benefit system works. You don't have to tell me. If someone knows that they can afford to have as many children as they like, and the benefit system will pay as many rooms as it deems their burgeoning family to need, even if they happen to live in a very expensive area (in the heart of London, say), with a possible "right to buy" dangling at the end of that, then that is a massive incentive to play the system, and the people who lose out are ordinary workers, first through the taxes that fund the benefit system, and second through the fact that this system puts upward pressure on rents.

Posted on 16 Apr 2013 16:34:22 BDT
Charlieost says:
I just found Warrior on the Edge of Time by Hawkwind on youtube so am listening to that while posting. Got it on disc with the shield sleave but not played it for ages cus no longer have a record player. Wind has dropped now but it is a bit late to get set up so will sit in the sun for a while with a cuppa. Maybe get the missus in a while and go for a walk in the woods, see if there are any bluebells out yet.

It's a hard life but someone has to live it. May as well be me. :)

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2013 16:43:41 BDT
I haven't suffered the unjustified loss of income.
She will however, suffer the loss of unjustified income.

It is not nonsense, where is the incentive to go out and work if you are better off staying on benefits.

And Easy yes she was white.
Dan I wouldn't really call it uprooting as only one of her children had just started nursery, the other was still underage. She can easily move elsewhere to little effect to herself or her children. I could understand her unwillingness to move if her children were school-aged, had been at x school for a few years and were settled/in exam years and maybe she had a part time job in that area. But she's a single jobless mum with two kids that aren't in education.

Posted on 16 Apr 2013 17:05:31 BDT
Charlieost says:
I think that everyone should have the opportunity to achieve their potential Kodokushi. Would cutting this womans benefits help to do that or condemn her to penuary or prostitution? Until there is a way found to share a nations wealth then there will always be an underclass. Pauperisng them just increases the chance of more of them ending up in prison and costing the system even more. Your goverment has reinterpreted the words mean and dispassionate and come out with the expression reform. If they had a single conscience amongst them they would feel shame.

They really are the anti-Christ. Shame on them. Ugly greedy fat pigs. C

Posted on 16 Apr 2013 17:09:53 BDT
Charlieost says:
Jaysus easy. I had forgotten that this album was so trippy. Ozric Tentacles session tonight methinks. :)

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2013 17:21:32 BDT
How will she achieve her potential when she is better off staying on benefits than in going to work ?
The kind of people which make a 'career' as it were of living on benefits I don't imagine are the type to be bothered with little things like achieving or striving for better.
I don't see anything wrong in her moving to a new location if she can't afford to remain in London - generally the second you leave a big city the cost of living goes down. I couldn't afford to live in London and as such haven't even thought about moving there; I have to move to where I can afford. So she could move out to a smaller town with children who won't be effected, she may be but how I couldn't say. She may have friends, but she can make new ones and it's not as if she'll have to find new work as she won't be leaving a job. It's not pauperising them when they earn more than those in employment.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2013 19:59:48 BDT
easytiger says:
And the wizard blew his horn.

Posted on 16 Apr 2013 20:03:27 BDT
easytiger says:
My Mrs ran away with the original drummer out of Hawkwind a couple of years ago. He got kicked out after In Search of Space. ha ha I thought. Now the b8stards getting royalties from the car advert. She's completely doollaly so I guess things even out.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2013 06:53:46 BDT
Spin says:
Player: what about those who could previously afford the luxury of a family, but now find that they are on the scrap-heap? They paid their taxes and insurance; They worked as you do, why should they be denied benefits to which they themselves have contributed? Or do you view all claimants as lazy, uneducated fraudsters? When you lose your job , lets see what your opinion is then...

Posted on 17 Apr 2013 08:23:23 BDT
Withnail says:
The problem is that you end up punishing the children for the decisions of the parent. Once a child is born in this country we have a collective responsibility for their welfare. Leaving them in poverty is not an option.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2013 09:01:24 BDT
Last edited by the author on 17 Apr 2013 10:32:33 BDT

Which seems to me a reasonable argument for removing them from 'parents' like Mick and his harem, whose children were sent
to bed in their clothes, fed on chips and white bread, were malnourished and left alone while they went dogging. They slept several to a bed, but Mick built himself a snooker room downstairs. Then there was his final despicable act.

Does you comment mean that people have the 'right' to have as many children as they wish and we have the responsibility to pay them to 'look after' them.

In Holland there's no state welfare for teenage mothers, their parents provide it, the Dutch are noted for their their lack of social responsibility however.

It seems to me that the system rewards bad behaviour.
There's evidence that it has created a seemingly never ending vicious circle of parents their children their grandchildren, unto the umpteenth generation, living their lives on Benefits.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2013 09:26:12 BDT
Dan Fante says:
I've seen them live a few times. Cosmic, baby ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2013 09:32:14 BDT
"The problem is that you end up punishing the children for the decisions of the parent." -- This is not correct. If people know in advance that they will not get any extra benefits to cover the costs of children, they will not have the children in the first place. This is exactly how working people behave: they put off having children if they feel they cannot afford them, and after they start having children, they limit the number to what they can support.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2013 09:47:45 BDT
"Once a child is born in this country we have a collective responsibility for their welfare." -- No, the parents do. If parents can't afford children, they shouldn't have them. If they don't want to look after children, they shouldn't have them.

"Leaving them in poverty is not an option." -- Poverty is not the problem. It's the type of parent. Some parents are simply too feckless, stupid and/or self-absorbed to look after their own children. These are the exact same parents who are most likely to have more children in order to get a better council house. Stop the policy that encourages these people to have children, and 90% of the problem will go away.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2013 09:57:41 BDT
What about divorcees with children ?
Or people who were working yet have since been made redundant who have children ?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2013 10:23:47 BDT
"What about divorcees with children ?" -- the parents between them should pay the cost of raising those children.

"Or people who were working yet have since been made redundant who have children ? " -- The contributions the parents made while they were working should be taken into account when considering whether, how much, and for how long they should receive state help in supporting the children.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Apr 2013 19:00:43 BDT
Charlieost says:
That's interesting easy. I did some work for an ex Hawkwind drummer, building a recording studio and accomodation for bands in Cornwall. He subsequently went into linking bands and solo artists up with products (like M. Jackson and Coke but I don't think he did that one). Nice guy but I lost touch with all the Devon/Cornwall crowd years ago. So easy to do before mobies and social media. How life has changed. Amazed that the original Hawkwind drummer is still alive though. C

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Apr 2013 10:16:47 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 16 Jul 2013 11:18:32 BDT]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  28
Total posts:  275
Initial post:  2 Apr 2013
Latest post:  24 Apr 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions