Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Mick Philpot and his seventeen children.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 275 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 2 Apr 2013 22:22:07 BDT
Charlieost says:
Setting aside the horror of the crime that Philpot and his wife were convicted of today I became aware from the news that this man has fathered seventeen children.

Is there not a case for the tranquiliser dart and the vasectomy at some point in this monsters sexual rampage?

Put another way. Should there be a limit on the number of children that one man can father or one woman can be the biological mother of? And if so, what would be an appropriate limit?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Apr 2013 22:33:27 BDT
gille liath says:
Again the pot has a go at the kettle, Charlie.

Posted on 2 Apr 2013 23:12:59 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 3 Apr 2013 07:07:47 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 00:13:32 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 3 Apr 2013 07:17:31 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 00:19:31 BDT
Charlie,

If his benefits had been stopped early on in his <<sexual rampage>> he wouldn't have had 17 children, probably.

Maybe the gov could appoint you as official hitman, take out a contract on social misfits as they appear and let you loose.

Posted on 3 Apr 2013 08:40:08 BDT
easytiger says:
You see what happens when you put p ! keys in houses.

Posted on 3 Apr 2013 09:24:01 BDT
Dan Fante says:
Absolute manna from heaven for the Tories in the wake of their benefit reforms.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 09:35:28 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Apr 2013 09:35:40 BDT
A Smith Square black op eh?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 09:39:21 BDT
Dan Fante says:
That's not what I am suggesting. Perhaps you would agree that it helps them in the point they're trying to make though, especially with the timing of it.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 10:31:05 BDT
It's not a sexual rampage, it's an evolutionary strategy. Through the welfare system (plus a few other factors such as scarcity of property), society has been organized in a completely novel way that has no historical precedent. Pursuing traditional middle class family values is no longer the best way to ensure the success of one's lineage. On the contrary, it virtually guarantees extinction, since middle class couples are now having fewer than two children each. On the other hand, exploiting the welfare system to make others pay for the housing and upkeep of your children enables one to have as many children as one likes. If his descendants follow his example faithfully (each having 17 offspring), a Nick Philpot could (if they avoid in-breeding) have as many as 4,913 great-grandchildren and 83,521 great-great grandchildren. Nobody wants this to happen except Philpot and others like him. The way to prevent this from happening is to not give extra benefits to people who have children.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 10:33:29 BDT
David Groom says:
PlayerPianoPlayer,

'The way to prevent this from happening is to not give extra benefits to people who have children.'

Presumably the 26k cap on benefits will go some way to encouraging this?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 10:36:29 BDT
Perhaps I didn't say you were.

Perhaps they don't need to make the point...unlike you.

Perhaps most people agree with them.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 10:44:06 BDT
How far is <<some way>>?

Posted on 3 Apr 2013 10:47:37 BDT
Garscadden says:
If benefits were stopped, how would you decide? Let's say 4 kids is okay 5+ don't get benefit. What if all kids are by different mothers, and none are supported by the father? Is the mother of kids no. 5 and on just left with no support? What if the mothers don't know of the fathers philandering?

Why not restrict to just one child, and not have to worry about all the other possibilities?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 11:03:35 BDT
Dan Fante says:
Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. What point do I need to make?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 11:11:22 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 11:19:10 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Apr 2013 11:21:45 BDT
Dan Fante says:
"why did you need to make your point about this case being <<absolute manna from heaven for the Tories>>? "

I didn't need to make that point. I was expressing an opinion on the topic at hand.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 11:29:02 BDT
Dear Din Fonty....Beloved Gordon is a bit "tetchy"...low blood sugar perhaps?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 11:32:05 BDT
Exactly, I understood your opinion: the Tory welfare reforms needed help to get acceptance. Your implication being they would struggle for popular acceptance without as you say, the <<absolute manna from heaven>> this case provided.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 11:45:38 BDT
Dan Fante says:
What you have actually done is to ascribed an opinion to me which I have not expressed. Not sure why.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 11:47:59 BDT
Gordon had a proper breakfast no CoCo Pops or Pop-Tarts, blood sugar level OK.

Gordon never gets <<tetchy>> on here, that's for others.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 11:48:59 BDT
Apologies...

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 11:51:02 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 11:54:44 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Apr 2013 11:55:40 BDT
Dan Fante says:
My motive for writing it is that it's what I thought when I heard the news last night and then I saw this thread on the subject this morning. By all means say why you disagree with my point of view, if you do disagree that is (because I would hate to make any inferences based on my own prejudices).

Posted on 3 Apr 2013 11:57:25 BDT
easytiger says:
<A Smith Square black op> WTF is that?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next ›
[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