Support NeoGAF

[Miles Quaritch]

Unsurprisingly, the chancellor echoes the Daily Mail and attempts to make the murder of 6 kids about the welfare state.

Disgusting.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI7fudmO7FY&feature=player_detailpage

 

[Ravensmash]

Unsurprisingly, the chancellor echoes the Daily Mail and attempts to make the murder of 6 kids about the welfare state.

Disgusting.

It's really fucking me off, I'm fed up of all of these articles placing emphasis on the evils of welfare, as opposed to the sinister nature of a vile individual.

It's just building up hatred towards those who survive on benefits, unfortunately - the vast majority of whom are honest and merely disadvantaged.

 

[PJV3]

Unsurprisingly, the chancellor echoes the Daily Mail and attempts to make the murder of 6 kids about the welfare state.

Disgusting.

The booing at the paralympics turned him on, it's a conservative trait. He loves being hated.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Unsurprisingly, the chancellor echoes the Daily Mail and attempts to make the murder of 6 kids about the welfare state.

Disgusting.

I don't know man, I was reading the judgement this afternoon and it really does seem like he did what he did for the benefits money. Also because he is an evil cunt, but the benefits money were definitely a motivation. I'm not going to go as far as the Mail and blame the welfare state for the death of these children (and in doing so absolve the evil cunt of responsibility) but I don't think it can be denied that keeping benefits were definitely a chief motivation of his when burning down that house.

The booing at the paralympics turned him on, it's a conservative trait. He loves being hated.

He loves being punished.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI7fudmO7FY&feature=player_detailpage

Hehe. It's actually quite disturbing how much real life is mirroring that skit.

It's really fucking me off, I'm fed up of all of these articles placing emphasis on the evils of welfare, as opposed to the sinister nature of a vile individual.

It's just building up hatred towards those who survive on benefits, unfortunately - the vast majority of whom are honest and merely disadvantaged.

Indeed. This is my sole concern with attempting to link benefits/the welfare state with this man and his murdering of six children. Those who rely on state benefits are already seen as pariahs, parasites, etc thanks to this coalition and its very disturbing rhetoric, this will only make things worse.

The booing at the paralympics turned him on, it's a conservative trait. He loves being hated.

Wouldn't be surprised. I also wouldn't be surprised if he called up the editor of the Daily Mail and congratulated him personally for the headline.

 

[travisbickle]

He had the children because it was a way of controlling the women in his life. The man is a psychotic manipulative arsehole. Him living in a country that provides financial help for the poor and needy was purely coincidental in this man's grand scheme.

 

[PJV3]

I don't know man, I was reading the judgement this afternoon and it really does seem like he did what he did for the benefits money. Also because he is an evil cunt, but the benefits money were definitely a motivation. I'm not going to go as far as the Mail and blame the welfare state for the death of these children (and in doing so absolve the evil cunt of responsibility) but I don't think it can be denied that keeping benefits were definitely a chief motivation of his when burning down that house.

I don't think anybody denies he was after benefits, but if they didn't exist he'd he removing lead from church rooves, and ripping off old ladies. essentially he's an immoral cunt

And he would still create a load of children, he just wouldn't live with them.

He loves being punished.

I forgot about that rumour.

 

[cyberheater]

Unsurprisingly, the chancellor echoes the Daily Mail and attempts to make the murder of 6 kids about the welfare state.

Disgusting.

If the welfare state wasn't set up the way it was. This vile scum wouldn't have murdered his kids in the attempt to set up another woman so he could gain more kids and more welfare from the state.

You can't argue it any other way.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

I don't know man, I was reading the judgement this afternoon and it really does seem like he did what he did for the benefits money. Also because he is an evil cunt, but the benefits money were definitely a motivation. I'm not going to go as far as the Mail and blame the welfare state for the death of these children (and in doing so absolve the evil cunt of responsibility) but I don't think it can be denied that keeping benefits were definitely a chief motivation of his when burning down that house

I disagree. He set his house ablaze in an attempt to be moved to better accommodation. There was, of course, an attempt to keep the status quo, but his direct motivation was to move to better accommodation.

Essentially, it's both morally wrong and repugnant to use the death of six children and attempt to make a correlation that this is what our welfare state has created and that we're all complicit in some way for allowing it to happen by not addressing the issue before this tragedy.

It's a bare faced attempt to manipulate public outrage for political reasons and the fact that it isn't being challenged by anyone but Labour is worrying.

This man wrote letters to his friends talking about going to his children's graves and raping his wife. What of this? He's a horrendous individual, we shouldn't be attempting to link his actions to anything other than those of an immoral and baseless man who murdered his children.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

If the welfare state wasn't set up the way it was. This vile scum wouldn't have murdered his kids in the attempt to set up another woman so he could gain more kids and more welfare from the state.

You can't argue it any other way.

Absolutely disagree. It can argued quite easily that he's an amoral and baseless individual who lacks any emotion and only cares for himself.

You're falling into the trap the Daily Mail, etc have set for people just like you. Allowing your ignorance and emotions to get the better of you and believing that this happened because we have a generous welfare state.

You should feel ashamed for making the claim.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

People committing crimes for money is nothing new. I don't see people blaming insurance companies for the fraud that people commit against them.

 

[cyberheater]

Absolutely disagree. It can argued quite easily that he's an amoral and baseless individual who lacks any emotion and only cares for himself.

I totally agree. He is scum.

You're falling into the trap the Daily Mail, etc have set for people just like you. Allowing your ignorance and emotions to get the better of you and believing that this happened because we have a generous welfare state.

You should feel ashamed for making the claim.

No I'm not. There is no doubt that the sole motivation for committing this wicked act was to get back at his ex and to gain another £1200 a month from the welfare state.

If the welfare state didn't reward scum like this for producing dozens of kids, his main motivation for torching the house and having so many kids wouldn't be there.

The welfare system was put in place to protect the poor and vulnerable. Not to support a £100,000 a year lifestyle for scum like this.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

We need serious reform of the inheritance system in this country.

 

[PJV3]

HIS motivation

HIS actions

HIS responsibility

Anything else and we're entering an alternative universe of fucking stupid.

People being kind is to blame...GTFO.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

No I'm not. There is no doubt that the sole motivation for committing this wicked act was to get back at his ex and to gain another £1200 a month from the welfare state.

If the welfare state didn't reward scum like this for producing dozens of kids, his main motivation for torching the house and having so many kids wouldn't be there.

The welfare system was put in place to protect the poor and vulnerable. Not to support a £100,000 a year lifestyle for scum like this.

Yes, you are. You're clearly attributing his actions to how our current welfare state is set up and essentially claiming that he's only a product of said system and if we didn't have the system in place, he wouldn't have killed six children.

Not only are you indirectly washing him of his guilt, you're placing almost all the burden of this terrible murder onto the welfare state, when it clearly shouldn't be.

 

[cyberheater]

Yes, you are. You're clearly attributing his actions to how our current welfare state is set up and essentially claiming that he's only a product of said system and if we didn't have the system in place, he wouldn't have killed six children.

Not only are you indirectly washing him of his guilt, you're placing almost all the burden of this terrible murder onto the welfare state, when it clearly shouldn't be.

No I'm not. I'm clearly stating that the way our welfare system is set up allowed this scum to manipulate the system which gave him a motivation for committing this terrible crime.

I also believe he is a product of the welfare system. The welfare state enabled him to conduct his selfish life the way he wanted to.

I'm all for protecting vulnerable people but I don't want a penny of my tax going to scum like this. Folks like these are a cancer on our society. Don't bother sending them to prison. Just put a gun to his head and save the tax payer millions in the long run.

 

[Psychotext]

There is no meaningful difference between this and insurance fraud. That it's welfare providing "insurance"is a massive red herring, because at the end of the day it's all about greed and very little else.

I could see him doing exactly the same thing on a home insurance policy, with similar horrifying results. Scum is scum, nothing enabled this behaviour.

 

[kitch9]

Absolutely disagree. It can argued quite easily that he's an amoral and baseless individual who lacks any emotion and only cares for himself.

You're falling into the trap the Daily Mail, etc have set for people just like you. Allowing your ignorance and emotions to get the better of you and believing that this happened because we have a generous welfare state.

You should feel ashamed for making the claim.

He was a career benefits milker. I will not claim for one second that most on benefits are anything like him, but there are a lot of families who are either trapped on benefits or simply aspire to milk the system for all they can get because of how it's set up. The benefits system is creating freak large families like this because it simply pays more the more you breed....

The system is set up in the opposite scenario working families face because working families end up losing money for each child they have. I know, I've got twins on the way and it looks like my Mrs will have to stop work and we won't even qualify for child benefit due to the new rules.

Its gonna be rough.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

No I'm not. I'm clearly stating that the way our welfare system is set up allowed this scum to manipulate the system which gave him a motivation for committing this terrible crime.

I also believe he is a product of the welfare system. The welfare state enabled him to conduct his selfish life the way he wanted to.

I'm all for protecting vulnerable people but I don't want a penny of my tax going to scum like this. Folks like these are a cancer on our society. Don't bother sending them to prison. Just put a gun to his head and save the tax payer millions in the long run.

So you are essentially absolving him of his guilt and placing the entire burden of what he did on the welfare state.

You do realize that if hadn't been the welfare state, this man would have used other means to live the life he did. Fraud, Stealing, etc. He's an incredibly manipulative man, you only need to look at his actions to see this. You can't place the burden of his actions on the welfare state.

You also can't claim he's a product of the welfare state. He was a selfish and incredibly manipulative individual who took advantage of a system that was easily manipulated and a social services system that is both severely underfunded and poorly staffed.

You claim you're not attributing his actions to the state, but that's exactly what your posts suggest.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

He was a career benefits milker. I will not claim for one second that most on benefits are anything like him, but there are a lot of families who are either trapped on benefits or simply aspire to milk the system for all they can get because of how it's set up. The benefits system is creating freak large families like this because it simply pays more the more you breed....

The system is set up in the opposite scenario working families face because working families end up losing money for each child they have. I know, I've got twins on the way and it looks like my Mrs will have to stop work and we won't even qualify for child benefit due to the new rules.

Its gonna be rough.

Sure.

Correction: he was a career fraudster/manipulator who took advantage of a system. It could have been any system, it just so happened in this case to be the welfare system.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

The benefits system is creating freak large families like this because it simply pays more the more you breed....

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Don't bring facts into this. What are you thinking?

 

[cyberheater]

So you are essentially absolving him of his guilt and placing the entire burden of what he did on the welfare state.

You do realize that if hadn't been the welfare state, this man would have used other means to live the life he did. Fraud, Stealing, etc. He's an incredibly manipulative man, you only need to look at his actions to see this. You can't place the burden of his actions on the welfare state.

You also can't claim he's a product of the welfare state. He was a selfish and incredibly manipulative individual who took advantage of a system that was easily manipulated and a social services system that is both severely underfunded and poorly staffed.

You claim you're not attributing his actions to the state, but that's exactly what your posts suggest.

Why do you continue to misrepresent what I've said.

See if you can understand this. He is totally responsible for his actions. The welfare state gave him the environment and motive to commit this act.

I can't make it any simpler then that.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Why do you continue to misrepresent what I've said.

See if you can understand this. He is totally responsible for his actions. The welfare state gave him the environment and motive to commit this act.

I can't make it any simpler then that.

No, he used a system that was open to abuse. It could have any number of different systems.

I'm not misrepresenting anything you've said. You've said in a number of different ways that he's not to blame for what happened, that the welfare state is the reason he murdered his children and its the welfare state that should take the burden of guilt.

If you feel I've misrepresented your comments, I can only apologise and recommend perhaps being more clearer in your posts in future, because as it stands, your posts suggest the state is the blame for this tragedy.

 

[Psychotext]

The welfare state gave him the environment and motive to commit this act.

I can't make it any simpler then that.

Isn't that rather meaningless? It's like saying a post office gives a criminal the environment and motive to commit armed robbery.

 

[PJV3]

The ones who have large families, drug problems etc, make entertaining tv for middle class tv executives. it's a modern version of the stocks.

 

[nib95]

Pretty surprising. Further highlights the failures in the Conservative propaganda machine.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

If anyone wants to see why people so easily fall into whining about the welfare system and buy into the scroungers rhetoric, just look at how much media coverage of benefits stories is negative in nature.

Decades of concerted attacks on the system and people who rely on it by the press.

 

[slider]

Osborne's on the news right now chirping away. Ugh.

Philpott's other crime might be giving the ruling party (and I'm not gonna differentiate between them here), a hook to "shake things up" with regards to benefits.

Politicians gonna politic.

 

[PJV3]

If anyone wants to see why people so easily fall into whining about the welfare system and buy into the scroungers rhetoric, just look at how much media coverage of benefits stories is negative in nature.

Decades of concerted attacks on the system and people who rely on it by the press.

The media aren't interested in regular joe on benefits because-

A they are boring
B they have Zero purchasing power
C people might wake the fuck up, and start demanding stuff.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

If anyone wants to see why people so easily fall into whining about the welfare system and buy into the scroungers rhetoric, just look at how much media coverage of benefits stories is negative in nature.

Decades of concerted attacks on the system and people who rely on it by the press.

It's ramped up considerably since this coalition took power. It's been somewhat disturbing how negative the rhetoric has become over the past 2 years.

Shirkers, etc.

 

[Rourkey]

There are 40,000 families living on benefits with 5 or more children, seems a awful lot to me

 

[DeFiBkIlLeR]

It's ramped up considerably since this coalition took power. .

Politicians only tend to go where the public lead them.

As more and more people have moved up and into the comfortable 'middle class' group (which is now the vast majority of the population) from the 'working class' poor, they become less and less tolerant of those who remain working class poor and don't lift themselves up (by whatever means).

Austerity has little to do with the change in attitude,if the economy is booming, people say what excuse do they have for not having a job?, so the poor get the hate, if the economy is in the shit, people use the 'we can't afford to give you the money', so the poor get the hate.

The poor are the easiest people to blame because they have no voice, no power to fight back...nothing fundamentally will change in the UK and historically never has, until there's blood on the streets.

 

[BadTaste]

Currently on sick benefits getting £112 per fortnight..

 

[PJV3]

Currently on sick benefits getting £112 per fortnight..

Oh Yeah!! How many bedrooms have you got?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Currently on sick benefits getting £112 per fortnight..

How big is your PLASMA TELLY?

 

[BadTaste]

Oh Yeah!! How many bedrooms have you got?

Living with only my dad trying to get out of here.. 4 bedrooms

 

[PJV3]

Living with only my dad trying to get out of here.. 4 bedrooms

You evil bastard

 

[d'artagnan]

Yeah, the PIP has been delayed until late 2015 because they've fucked that one up massively.

EDIT: Sorry, it comes into effect on Monday 8th April.

Isn't that only the trial for PIP in a limited area for new claimants before it's rolled out for all new claims at a later date? According to the letter I got regarding my DLA they'll only start re-assessing live claims for DLA from late 2015 onwards. The irony of it is is that DLA is calculated as having the lowest fraud rate of any benefit as it takes a lot of work and paperwork from consultants etc to get it so it was the benefit least in need of reform.

I don't actually get paid my DLA at the moment as I'm currently in hospital (medium secure psychiatric unit where I've been a patient for two years due to my bipolar disorder getting me into some minor trouble with the law [I also have a formal diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome) allthough I get contribution-based ESA at £120 per week.

I'll get £71 per week Disability Living Allowance once I get out of hospital calculated as ~£20 per week mobility component at low rate and ~£50 per week care component at middle rate.

My DLA award was made for four years in the first instance last November so hopefully they won't bother re-assessing me for PIP and will just let my claim expire (I intend to be back in work or studying by then).

My Employment & Support Allowance claim was re-assessed in February and was re-authorised for another three years without even needing to go for a Work Capability Assessment interview.

When I get out of hospital I'll be in supported accomodation initially but I have priority status on my council's waiting list for a council flat and my housing benefit would probably cover about £300 per calendar month. So my total support from the benefits system would come out at about £13.5K per annum tax free, so I'd need to go back into work at about £15.5K per annum for work to pay (first £10K tax free due to uprating of personal allowance, next £5K taxed at 20% plus NI contirubtions).

I should be able to earn that no hassle if I can get job working back in IT support again but the problem is going to be my serious mental health problems and the fact that of the past four years I've spent three of them in a pyschiatric hospital and mostly in locked wards (although I currently have unlimited pass into the community) and when I get discharged from hospital I'll still initially be on a hospital-based treatment order allowing my psychiatrist to yank me back into hospital for something as petty as being five minutes late to an appointment which massively impacts on my ability to take work. I'm trying to get my treatment order varied to a community-based one via tribunal or revoked altogether as being on a treatment order will be a massive disincentive to an employer.

I might try going back into education for a couple of years as DLA gets paid regardless of work or study status once you've been awarded it. The only issue is that if I study full-time I'd lose my housing benefit so part-time study via the Open University or one of the local colleges evening classes would be the way to go.

 

[Psychotext]

That all sounds like a bit of a nightmare, especially when you're trying to deal with all of that and get better.

 

[cyberheater]

@ d'artagnan. I wish you the very best. Good luck to the future.

Does the £15.5k factor in travel expenses, clothes and other work related expenditure?

 

[CyclopsRock]

That all sounds like a bit of a nightmare, especially when you're trying to deal with all of that and get better.

Without meaning to sound rude to d'artagnan, what part of that sounds like a nightmare (aside from having health issues in the first place)? It sounds like he's getting the help he needs, and he has options for what to do in the future.

 

[Psychotext]

Without meaning to sound rude to d'artagnan, what part of that sounds like a nightmare (aside from having health issues in the first place)? It sounds like he's getting the help he needs, and he has options for what to do in the future.

when I get discharged from hospital I'll still initially be on a hospital-based treatment order allowing my psychiatrist to yank me back into hospital for something as petty as being five minutes late to an appointment which massively impacts on my ability to take work. I'm trying to get my treatment order varied to a community-based one via tribunal or revoked altogether as being on a treatment order will be a massive disincentive to an employer.

That not enough? That aside from wanting to study properly but not being able to as they'll lose their housing benefit.

 

[CyclopsRock]

That not enough? That aside from wanting to study properly but not being able to as they'll lose their housing benefit.

Genuinely missed that bit, thanks for pointing it out!

 

[kitch9]

Sure.

Correction: he was a career fraudster/manipulator who took advantage of a system. It could have been any system, it just so happened in this case to be the welfare system.

He didn't really fraud anything.

The system basically said have more kids and you'll get a bigger house and get paid.

That's what he did, then went nuts with some fire and stuff because he was a complete bellend.

He had a heated interview with Ann Widdecombe years back, he said then that milking the benefits system was all he was interested in on live TV.

Are you saying their aren't lazy scroungers on the benefits system other than Fuckpott? You need to get out more!

 

[PJV3]

In a way this is sort of positive, right wingers are starting to accept that outside factors such as poverty and money can cause criminal behaviour.

They wouldn't have a word of it in the old days.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

He didn't really fraud anything.

The system basically said have more kids and you'll get a bigger house and get paid.

That's what he did, then went nuts with some fire and stuff because he was a complete bellend.

He had a heated interview with Ann Widdecombe years back, he said then that milking the benefits system was all he was interested in on live TV.

Are you saying their aren't lazy scroungers on the benefits system other than Fuckpott? You need to get out more!

An extremely small minority. Not enough to label the entire welfare state as in need of dire reforms nor is it enough to attempt to politicize the death of six children at the hands of a horrendous individual.

Before you bombard me with your anecdotal evidence, remember that it's just that and not representative of what happens on a wider scale nor is your perception of what happens on a wider scale accurate.

Interesting breakdown on Channel 4 news about the benefits he received.

8k a year for his children, 38k a year in working tax credits and 7k a year in housing benefits. So much for the claim that he received 100k in benefits a year.

If we're going to address the real issue here it would seem working tax credits would be the benefit to address. Sadly, it won't be addressed as it's currently used as a loophole by the government and job centres around the country to force people off JSA and to become self employed. Which of course helps create the false [perception of lower benefits claimants, lower unemployment figures and record number of people employed.

Your suggestion I need to get out more is laughable. You're the one who seem to be out of touch with what's really happening based on your posts in this and various other threads.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

When it comes to people exploiting the benefit system, I'm pretty annoyed and repulsed. But it does rather feel like quibbling when there's a thread on the first page about 32 trillion dollars (with a 'tr') being hoarded in the British Virgin Isles and other offshore tax havens.

I know it's not an either or proposition but I can't help but feel we're concentrating disproportionately on the wrong end of the spectrum? I mean for all the penny pinching we're doing here we could fund the whole fucking NHS by going all Robin Hood on tax havens (yes, I have been reading the "Rich kids of Instagram thread" too).

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I know it's not an either or proposition but I can't help but feel we're concentrating disproportionately on the wrong end of the spectrum?

Now you're getting it.

Edit: this probably came off a lot more condescening than I meant it.