George Osborne,does he have a point ?

[simmo]

The judge also said:

"You so arranged your life and theirs so that everything was done for the pleasure of Michael Philpott."

Hare's Psychopathy Checklist includes:

2. GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart. Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human beings

The judge said

"You lied to the police and you lied to the jury. Ever since the fire your life has been a performance for the public and the police, and then in this court. Your conduct has been punctuated by collapses and shows of distress designed to evoke sympathy where none is merited, designed to manipulate emotion."

Hare's test says

4. PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.

5. CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS- the use of deceit and deception to cheat, con, or defraud others for personal gain; distinguished from Item #4 in the degree to which exploitation and callous ruthlessness is present, as reflected in a lack of concern for the feelings and suffering of one's victims.

QED

I don't get your point...are you trying to say that Philpott is mentally ill? Which is what you seemed to suggest to me, in the thread I replied to? His "previous" to me does not suggest this as he went to jail not a mental institution.

In respect of this case, as he was charged with manslaughter there was no intent to kill his kids, so the prosecution had to offer a reason why he did this and they offered following as possible motivations for him setting fire to his house.

1) he was involved in a battle with Lisa Willis over whom looked after their 6 kids and he wanted custody and 2) he wanted a bigger house (from the council) for his family which he had requested on numerous occasions previously.

It has been theorised by others (the press, but I don't think the prosecution) that in respect of point 1) one of the reasons (another to spite Lisa Willis) he wanted custody of the kids was not out of love for them (which seems totally consistent with what he actually did, i.e set fire to his house with them in) but because he wanted the child benefit that would be associated with gaining such custody.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I don't get your point...are you trying to say that Philpott is mentally ill? Which is what you seemed to suggest to me, in the thread I replied to? His "previous" to me does not suggest this as he went to jail not a mental institution.

In respect of this case, as he was charged with manslaughter there was no intent to kill his kids, so the prosecution had to offer a reason why he did this and they offered following as possible motivations for him setting fire to his house.

1) he was involved in a battle with Lisa Willis over whom looked after their 6 kids and he wanted custody and 2) he wanted a bigger house (from the council) for his family which he had requested on numerous occasions previously.

It has been theorised by others (the press, but I don't think the prosecution) that in respect of point 1) one of the reasons (another to spite Lisa Willis) he wanted custody of the kids was not out of love for them (which seems totally consistent with what he actually did, i.e set fire to his house with them in) but because he wanted the child benefit that would be associated with gaining such custody.

My point is that I said he killed his kids because he was a thick psycho. "Psycho" used in the common and pejorative sense rather than that he should have been sent to Broadmoor rather than nick. Nevertheless the judge's comments suggest both stupidity and psychopathic tendencies. I don't think that setting fire to your house with the kids inside whether to get more benefits or (for example) instead benefit from a will is in any way normal.

 

[simmo]

My point is that I said he killed his kids because he was a thick psycho. "Psycho" used in the common and pejorative sense rather than that he should have been sent to Broadmoor rather than nick. Nevertheless the judge's comments suggest both stupidity and psychopathic tendencies. I don't think that setting fire to your house with the kids inside whether to get more benefits or (for example) instead benefit from a will is in any way normal.

In my opinion, I think the judges comments suggested "bad rather than mad" and that their is nothing mad about Philpott (in fact amongst other things he is devious, but I agree with you very much in that he is thick, he reminds me of Karren Matthews, but worse of course).

I personally think Philpott had multiple motives and one (but not the overiding one, that was to spite his ex-lover) was to get a bigger house (from the council) and even the prosecution suggested this.

 

[Guinness Boy]

And, to veer slightly off topic, getting a large inheritance is actually quite a good counter example. What would people say if the Labour Party started questioning the morality of the wealthy leaving large wills in the wake of cases like Jeremy Bamber

 

[Twinkle Toes]

What a thoroughly dispicable & desperate bit of political opportunism. Hardly a great surprise mind - considering the smug, arrogant piece of crap who came out with it. I won't say what I'd like to do with him, but suffice to say it falls well short of pleasant. Disgrace.

 

[pork pie]

What a thoroughly dispicable & desperate bit of political opportunism. Hardly a great surprise mind - considering the smug, arrogant piece of crap who came out with it. I won't say what I'd like to do with him, but suffice to say it falls well short of pleasant. Disgrace.

So was he actually wrong, or just saying it at the wrong time for you?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Aside from the c**ty undertones of making that connection, especially on the day three child killers got sentenced - even if you thought it and believed it, any savvy politician should know that you're never getting away with that comment.

This.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

George Osborne should know all about such things. He understands low income people and those in despair. Having the best possible education and being an heir to a multi-million pound fortune is the best experience.

He also knows what it's like to have job insecurity being on a roving 5 year contract in one of the safest seats in the country.....

Actually, what's Martin Bell's number ?....

Now that is a good idea.

 

[drew]

So just because two of us do not accept the usuall NCS bleeding hearts part line, we are wind-up merchants? Why is that? Do you not realise that a town with a Green MP is the one out of step with the rest of the country? Like most people I know, I have a growing disgust that, when there are real problems within our country, the bleeding hearts cannot see the need to stop spending our childreans' and grand-childrens' money for them, and live within our means. Obviously, the scroungers wish to keep what Labour gave them, and try to play the system for even more. "New" Labour do not appear to have learned their lessons, or are happy to indulge in the irresponsible politics of the gutter.

I do not agree with what this Government is doing very often, but then need to cut welfare spending is a fact.

There is a great deal of unfairness in it. The main one being the fact that those who pay the most in when they are working, are the very ones who get the least out when they actually need help. Generally as a result of being made redundant because the Labour Government ruined our economy, and this Government is berift of ideas of how to stimulate grown beyond helping their mates in the City of London.

The reason is that virtually every single post you ever make on any thread shows that you haven't a single nanogram of compassion for anyone who has the misfortune to be less well off than you. You identify the main unfairness as being those that pay in the most dont' get the most out. Since when was the welfare state an investment plan? It seems you blame every redundacy on the labour governement. That is idiotic. Perhaps the majority might consider that, for example, a woman who is 25 and has kids but has the audacity to marry someone who arrogantly contracts terminal cancer and dies is the true victim. According to your rules, she hasn't paid enough into the system to get a support and therefore her kids either starve or are handed to strangers to bring up.

You are one sad and maybe lonely ****.

 

[Silk]

Yes he does. If I was him I'd say you can only claim 2 kids on benefits not 17, FFS. There are family's out there who'd love to have one child but can't as they can't afford it whereas these fecking vermin pump kids out like a production line as they know they'll reap the reawrds. Thanks Labour bunch of useless coccks.

Enough is enough.

I've got four kids, and have just lost my job after 30 years solid working. Are you really saying I should only be allowed to feed two of my kids? And what the hell has it got to do with Labour?

Have you any idea what you're talking about?

 

[Silk]

Yes there is a need to debate the welfare system. However it is only ever used to deflect attention away from the real issues affecting the country.

There is too much playing on people's preconceptions about the welfare state and very little in the way of progressive change or real debate about how the welfare state is managed.

Reading yesterday's evening standard I discovered that 47% of welfare benefits are paid to pensioners... Not the workshy layabouts or immigrants that have been the target of the debate for the last few weeks...

This isn't something anyone seems keen to debate on. Gideon doesn't want to take up BBC screen time or Daily Mail column inches debating whether pensioners should be means tested to see if they need the pension/benefits they receive. Much better to stir up some hatred and mistrust, than focus on where the money is being spent and a whether there is anything that could be done to make the whole system fairer.

The next largest group are people receiving working tax credits. In other words the individuals who can be arsed to get a job even though it doesn't pay them enough to live on without state assistance. This group would appear to be the stereotype that everyone agrees should be getting the help... However this is another group that will be negatively affected by the current "overhaul" of the welfare system.

I genuinely wish that the political parties would stop using the welfare state as an ideological playground.
The fact that the current changes are being pushed through by a coalition government and not just the nasty party is proof of how spineless all politicians are...

In opposition the Liberals would have been arguing against these policies much more vehemently than any of the labour MPs. The Lib party have well and truly sold their soul.... I can't see them coming back from this.

Oops, misread your post. Agree about Lib Dems. A whiff of power went to their heads.

 

[BadFish]

I've got four kids, and have just lost my job after 30 years solid working. Are you really saying I should only be allowed to feed two of my kids? And what the hell has it got to do with Labour?

Have you any idea what you're talking about?

There are too many on here who fail to realise that most people claiming benefits are deserving of help and genuinely in need of assistance. The scare mongering in the press has worked incredibly well to bring the hard of thinking to the conclusion that most people on benefits are cheating and system in some way.

It all works fantastically to divert attention from the people who are really cheating the system.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

There are too many on here who fail to realise that most people claiming benefits are deserving of help and genuinely in need of assistance. The scare mongering in the press has worked incredibly well to bring the hard of thinking to the conclusion that most people on benefits are cheating and system in some way.

It all works fantastically to divert attention from the people who are really cheating the system.

I agree.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I've got four kids, and have just lost my job after 30 years solid working. Are you really saying I should only be allowed to feed two of my kids? And what the hell has it got to do with Labour?

Have you any idea what you're talking about?

Good good post. And I hope things work out for you.

 

[m20gull]

It would help if they included in the article the question that the Chancellor was asked. Without the context it is easy to draw the wrong conclusion.

There is a valid debate about whether the state should support a lifestyle like the Philpotts', a debate which he made clear was nothing to do with the death of the children.

 

[abc]

It would help if they included in the article the question that the Chancellor was asked. Without the context it is easy to draw the wrong conclusion.

There is a valid debate about whether the state should support a lifestyle like the Philpotts', a debate which he made clear was nothing to do with the death of the children.

This. Those that are so 'horrified' simply don't want to have the welfare debate. Phippott had an income totally financed by the taxpayer (that's you and me) of over £100 000 and didn't do a days work and most importantly didn't want to. I think this is worthy of debate and I am glad the Tories are not trying to pander to the politically correct lobby by avoiding the issue.

Many man people need and deserve state support. But for their and everyone else's sake the ABUSE has to stop as we simply cannot afford it.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This. Those that are so 'horrified' simply don't want to have the welfare debate. Phippott had an income totally financed by the taxpayer (that's you and me) of over £100 000 and didn't do a days work and most importantly didn't want to. I think this is worthy of debate and I am glad the Tories are not trying to pander to the politically correct lobby by avoiding the issue.

Many man people need and deserve state support. But for their and everyone else's sake the ABUSE has to stop as we simply cannot afford it.

It's a pointless debate all the time there are no jobs for these alleged work-shy people to take. Osborne needs to spend his time getting the economy going; not trying to make cunty political gain from child deaths.

 

[pork pie]

It's a pointless debate all the time there are no jobs for these alleged work-shy people to take. Osborne needs to spend his time getting the economy going; not trying to make cunty political gain from child deaths.

There are jobs for people with low skills like him, they are being taken by eastern europeans because work-shy brits will not do them. They prefer to live off the state.

 

[glasfryn]

There are jobs for people with low skills like him, they are being taken by eastern europeans because work-shy brits will not do them. They prefer to live off the state.

employers using cheap labour more like
the osbourne statement was ill timed no more no less and it just proves to me and most others that the man is a cretin

 

[abc]

It's a pointless debate all the time there are no jobs for these alleged work-shy people to take. Osborne needs to spend his time getting the economy going; not trying to make cunty political gain from child deaths.

Funny how a politician is trying to make "cunty political gain" when he represents a view you don't agree with. Phillpot didn't want to work and he thus abused the welfare system which is there for those that genuinely need it. Why ignore that fact?