Mr. Osborne's next sick move.

[TheLion]

This is seriously sick: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035

 

I'm worried now because I have kids and claim benefit. Guess that all benefit scrounging parents will have to be mentally evaluated, probably by Atos, to check if they have any pyromaniac inclinations.

 

Personally I think that it is seriously sick. Is there no level that the Tory' s will not stoop to just to rob the poor!!!

Edited April 4, 2013 by citizenB
edit word

[dasis16]

The man has absolutely no shame. What a .

Edited April 4, 2013 by citizenB

[Conniff]

You're taking this completely out of context - the Father is the one who killed his kids, he was bringing in over £100,000 per year. No taxpayer should be subsidising that amount.

Edited April 4, 2013 by citizenB

[dasis16]

I don't disagree with you. I just hate it when politicians draw similarities between criminals and regular claimants. It's exactly the same kind of spin as the skivers/strivers rubbish, just much more offensive!

[TheLion]

Conniff. I agree that the taxpayer should not be funding the amount you state but that Father killing his kids has nothing to do with benefits. This is being used as a weapon, not because of the crime. Would this be treated the same if it was a working family? No, it would not!!! Yes the appalling act would still have been committed but the government and the papers etcetera would not be trying to draw parallels between 'working' and 'murder'. The government are just trying to rally more support for their draconian benefit cuts by exploiting the sad loss of six lives.

Edited April 4, 2013 by citizenB

[jadeybags]

I still can't get over the Daily fail using those poor childrens deaths to slag off benefit claimants, again! That was one of the most disgusting bits of journalism I have seen since the phone hacking thing & the Suns lies about Hillsborough victims.

And it smarts a bit when jo public reads into this type of bull***t. I'm thinking my children should be feeling lucky I never harmed them because I grew up in a home with benefits. My mum was ace, still is, I wouldn't have wanted her to have been any different tbh! She didn't smoke or drink, & took us out places on the bus all the time. We weren't rich but we had a good upbringing!

[antone]

So, a year ago claimants were "skivers" rather than "strivers". Now they're child killers. Where do you go from here, Mr Osborne? Next year, I dunno - will they be responsible for genocide?

[TheLion]

Perhaps the government could have a debate with regard to the effect that working has on climate change. All those trips to and from work

[osdset]

So, a year ago claimants were "skivers" rather than "strivers". Now they're child killers. Where do you go from here, Mr Osborne? Next year, I dunno - will they be responsible for genocide?

 

+1

[osdset]

You're taking this completely out of context - the Father is the one who killed his kids, he was bringing in over £100,000 per year. No taxpayer should be subsidising that amount.

 

Well there are and , Philpott is a murderer, let's not lessen the crime by the label, how much he and his wife managed to get on benefits has nothing to do with his crime, unless you put benefits above life.

Proper the like of Grayling, IDS, Cameron, Hoban, McVey, Freud, the list goes on, will never be brought to face any kind of justice. And that's the injustice

Edited April 4, 2013 by citizenB
Unacceptable words

[dyfed]

Is it not the case that the majority of mass murderers were/are workers?

[antone]

Is it not the case that the majority of mass murderers were/are workers?

 

That's probably correct, but I'd love to see if anyone has done a study on this. And to be fair (and careful, legally) the folks in question were not convicted of murder, IIRC, but of manslaughter.

[Conniff]

There is a connection (according to what I've read or heard on the news), he lit the fire so his mistress who left with her 5 kids would be blamed and then he could get the 5 kids back and claim benefits for 5 more kids. I think he got angry not because she left him but because he lost the benefits attached to them.

[citizenB]

There is a connection (according to what I've read or heard on the news), he lit the fire so his mistress who left with her 5 kids would be blamed and then he could get the 5 kids back and claim benefits for 5 more kids. I think he got angry not because she left him but because he lost the benefits attached to them.

 

 

This was my understanding as well. He had wanted them all to be under the one roof as he had been campaigning for a larger property.

[flumps1976]

It is reported that he lost £2000 a month when his mistress left with their 5 children :o

[pitcher]

So, a year ago claimants were "skivers" rather than "strivers". Now they're child killers. Where do you go from here, Mr Osborne? Next year, I dunno - will they be responsible for genocide?

Hi Antone,

just when you think the little s*!t can't go any lower, Osborne proves us wrong yet again. Linking the death of those poor kids to benefits has to be an all time low, for any politician.

As soon as I heard his little speech on the radio, I wanted to vomit. He cannot be allowed to get away with this evil lie.

Of course I'll email my MP and sign any e-campain regarding this matter as most others will do. This has to be brought up in parliament and Osborne must be made to explain himself.

I want to say so much more but it will be mostly expletives so I'll stop.

God help us.

pitcher

[Conniff]

It was journalist that made the link -

 

Quote - After his conviction, debate has raged over claims by some commentators that Philpott was the product of an over-generous welfare state. - Unquote

 

Osborne remarked -

 

Quote - whether the state should pay for the lifestyles of people like Mick Philpott - Unquote

 

I don't see that as tarring all on benefits the same as the Philpotts.

[Nystagmite]

Phillpott is an exception. Many people on benefits don't receive that much.

[postggj]

Has anyone actually confirmed the amount he was getting in benefits besides the Daily Fail

 

From what official sources have these benefit figures been derived from

[jadeybags]

Phillpott is an exception. Many people on benefits don't receive that much.

 

An exception? 10's of thousands sounds like many to me...

'it also lifted the lid on the bleak and often grotesque world of the welfare benefit scroungers — of whom there are not dozens, not hundreds, but tens of thousands in our country'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2303071/Mick-Philpotts-story-shows-pervasiveness-evil-born-welfare-dependency.html

[postggj]

Its a shame the Daily Fail never releases where it gets its figures from in all of its rantings

 

There are Lies, Dam lies, and Daily Mail Statistics

[pitcher]

It was journalist that made the link -

 

Quote - After his conviction, debate has raged over claims by some commentators that Philpott was the product of an over-generous welfare state. - Unquote

 

Osborne remarked -

 

Quote - whether the state should pay for the lifestyles of people like Mick Philpott - Unquote

 

I don't see that as tarring all on benefits the same as the Philpotts.

If you wish to nitpick so be it. I know what I heard on the radio from Osborne. It was an indirect attack on all those who use the benefits system. Your opinion is your own but how come so many people are up in arms if your Interpretation is correct?

 

 

pitcher

[jadeybags]

If you wish to nitpick so be it. I know what I heard on the radio from Osborne. It was an indirect attack on all those who use the benefits system. Your opinion is your own but how come so many people are up in arms if your Interpretation is correct?

 

 

pitcher

 

Glad someone else has been thinking the same thing..

[estellyn]

There are two issues here. Firstly, it is appalling to exploit the deaths of children for political (Osbourne) or ideolgic and financial (the daily mail) gain. There should be hefty reprisals for doing this. Being a benefit claimant does not make a person a criminal, the correlation comes because criminals and sociopaths are much more likely to exploit the benefit system for their own gain - and there is no way of stopping that, whatever system we have.

 

A separate issue is the whole 'having kids for benefit gain' issue. I have come across it quite a few times with clients. I tell them their income support will stop due to their child's age and I get one of 3 responses 'I'd better get a job', 'How do I apply for incapacity, or 'I'd better have another kid'. To be frank the middle response was the more frequent, but I certainly heard the latter response more than a few times. Saying that, I came across few families with large numbers of children, but the ones I did could easily work minimum wage and not lose a penny of their child benefits or tax credits - however none of those I met did work (but I did see a biased sample) - with a large enough amount of money coming in, it is much easier to made ends meet, even with lots of children, than it is as a single person or childless couple on benefits. And although I expect there are plenty of large families with a parent who works, unless they are high earners, they undoubtedly still get a significant chunk of child benefits and tax credits. I must admit it was a topic we had many discussions about in the office - we saw a lot of childless people in dire straits, but those with children always were able to manage better because of the additional child benefits. We used to say that people got more benefits and a bigger house by adding a child to the household, than by adding an unemployed adult (who costs more than a child to keep). I think something needs to be done - but what? It would be unfair to already born children to limit the number of children that benefits can be paid for across the board. But then limiting the number of children that benefits can be claimed for at all smacks of social cleansing (even if limited to children yet to be born), with the rich able to have as large a family as they want, but the poor are limited. Then again, why should the state pay for a person's choice to have many children?

 

It is a complex issue that shouldn't be bound up with the actions of sociopaths, but should be debated sensibly, and without all the hatred and muck slinging.

[Nystagmite]

Has anyone actually confirmed the amount he was getting in benefits besides the Daily Fail

 

I've not really read any sources; but I do believe the Daily Fail are the only newspaper to mention the amount. I think one or two did mention something about them being on benefits; but nothing more.