# This Morning: Carole Malone, Philpott family, claiming big benefits led to fire...



## treelover (May 14, 2012)

Just watched This Morning, well the newspaper section, and was shocked and rather chilled to hear the hard right columnist and commentator Carol Malone assert that the possible reason for the terrible fire in which the Philpot family have lost six children is that there was a lot of animosity towards them on the estate because of the number of children they and that they were claiming benefits, had a big council house, etc.…

I watched it again to ensure I heard right, she clearly wasn’t condoning the action but imo, appeared to explain (and in this light understand it) in terms that they had a big family and like other big families “who took advantage” of benefits and were ‘high profile’ was a problem and other people who "were struggling in the economic climate'' were bitter and that they ‘were an “accident waiting to happen” and had a direct causal link to the terrible events.

This is appalling, I know Malone is a another Liddle, but this should be taken seriously: she doesn’t yet know if it was a deliberate act, she doesn’t live on the estate and can’t know the general feeling, her prejudices were showing and she appeared to equate being on benefits with expectations of reactions from neighbours, etc .It is clear though that the constant barrage of anti-welfare stories and propaganda is having an effect.

I have recorded it, I could edit it and send it to other urbanites to put on sites like You Tube(I’m not on it) if they PM me..


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2012)

just rang TM to make feelings known,


----------



## weepiper (May 14, 2012)

that's horrible. 'Keep your heads down if you're a large family on benefits or the mob will burn you out, and well, what did you expect?'


----------



## _angel_ (May 14, 2012)

She's a professional vile bitch. She wrote for the Mirror for a bit because she was too thick to realise they didn't actually agree with her barking mad views.
Probably wants to be the next Liz Jones or something. Tabloid land likes these mental cases.


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2012)

I have got the recording, anyone want it to put on YT, etc..


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2012)

that's terrible.


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> She's a professional vile bitch. She wrote for the Mirror for a bit because she was too thick to realise they didn't actually agree with her barking mad views.
> Probably wants to be the next Liz Jones or something. Tabloid land likes these mental cases.


 
I know, but I really had to watch it again to ensure she had said it, it is though all of a piece with wider state/media language and attitudes on benefits..

btw, i would like to change end of title to "taking advantage of benefits led to fire''


----------



## _angel_ (May 14, 2012)

To be honest the best thing you can do is ignore people like her.


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2012)

But Angel, people are accepting what these 'commentators' like her and Nick Ferrari and saying, it is also refracted into public policy.


----------



## dylanredefined (May 14, 2012)

Sounds logical some people are evil dicks .Though just getting on TV or having a bit about you in the newspaper can trigger hatred.
 And those sort of people are probably stupid enough to think a little fire would be annoying rather than lethal.
       Don't think being on benefits has anything particular to do with it.


----------



## _angel_ (May 14, 2012)

treelover said:


> But Angel, people are accepting what these 'commentators' like her and Nick Ferrari and saying, it is also refracted into public policy.


Look she wants to be noticed and thinks that saying something vile is the best way to do it. Honestly the best thing to do would just be to go "oh well" and ignore her.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 14, 2012)

treelover said:


> But Angel, people are accepting what these 'commentators' like her and Nick Ferrari and saying, it is also refracted into public policy.


i suppose you're using 'refracted' in its usual meaning of 'bending of light as it passes from one substance to another'. in other words, what these commentators say does not pass into policy unchanged.


----------



## Greebo (May 14, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> To be honest the best thing you can do is ignore people like her.


Or, failing that, make jokes about her and the poison she tries to spread.


----------



## hunnie (May 14, 2012)

shocking how anyone could say such a thing this family are going through so much loseing 6 beautifull children  put it on you tube treelover!


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2012)

I've copied it to a DVD, anyone want to put it on YT, have personal reasons why I'm not registered..


----------



## trashpony (May 14, 2012)

I was really unimpressed by the reporting of this story on PM on Radio 4 on Friday evening. I don't see how it's relevant that he's got 17 children, been on Jeremy Kyle or appeared in a programme with Ann Widdecombe. His children had been killed, less than 24 hours previously. It all seemed really prurient and distasteful.

Oh and incidentally - they had a 3 bedroom house which is not very big *at all* if there's six kids or more living there


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2012)

Apparently according to Malone, they 'were demanding' a bigger house and ''this led to resentment''


----------



## dylanredefined (May 14, 2012)

hunnie said:


> shocking how anyone could say such a thing this family are going through so much loseing 6 beautifull children  put it on you tube treelover!


        People want to know why things happened.The idea that there was some evil dickhead who resented the family for living on benefits so decided to burn them out is understandable.And their can be a witch hunt and someone can be punished.If it was just an accident who can you hate?


----------



## hunnie (May 14, 2012)

treelover said:


> I've copied it to a DVD, anyone want to put it on YT, have personal reasons why I'm not registered..


i will!


----------



## Quartz (May 14, 2012)

treelover said:


> Just watched This Morning, well the newspaper section, and was shocked and rather chilled to hear the hard right columnist and commentator Carol Malone assert that the possible reason for the terrible fire in which the Philpot family have lost six children is that there was a lot of animosity towards them on the estate because of the number of children they and that they were claiming benefits, had a big council house, etc.…


 
That's horrible. A horrible thing to say, and even more horrible in the unlikely event it's true.

And well done for complaining.


----------



## souljacker (May 14, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I was really unimpressed by the reporting of this story on PM on Radio 4 on Friday evening. I don't see how it's relevant that he's got 17 children, been on Jeremy Kyle or appeared in a programme with Ann Widdecombe. His children had been killed, less than 24 hours previously. It all seemed really prurient and distasteful.
> 
> Oh and incidentally - they had a 3 bedroom house which is not very big *at all* if there's six kids or more living there


 
Pretty poor show in general by the UK media on this one. Carol Malone is an evil witch but she's only saying what the reporting has implied.


----------



## trashpony (May 14, 2012)

souljacker said:


> Pretty poor show in general by the UK media on this one. Carol Malone is an evil witch but she's only saying what the reporting has implied.


I've only listened to R4 but they tend to err on the non-sensational so I'm glad I didn't read any print media/watch TV news


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2012)

hunnie said:


> i will!


 
will PM you, can I post it or can it be sent electronically

anyone know a cloud site for free?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 14, 2012)

treelover said:


> Apparently according to Malone, they 'were demanding' a bigger house and ''this led to resentment''


 
If you want it putting online send it to me I'll stick it up somewhere and link it to this thread.

Edit: just seen hunnie's post - offer still stands if you want though.


----------



## hunnie (May 14, 2012)

treelover said:


> will PM you, can I post it or can it be sent electronically
> 
> anyone know a cloud site for free?


can you email it me?


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2012)

I will edit it and see how many MB's it is


----------



## hunnie (May 14, 2012)

treelover said:


> I will edit it and see how many MB's it is


ok let me no when done !


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2012)

I've converted it to WMV file, 13.4Mb will that be oK?


----------



## hunnie (May 14, 2012)

treelover said:


> I've converted it to WMV file, 13.4Mb will that be oK?


i can try


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2012)

just read YT take files upto 100 Mb


----------



## 8115 (May 14, 2012)

Well, what she said could quite easily be rephrased as, current rhetoric about benefits leads to fire, so basically, she's a dick, and not very tactful one, at that.  Bit of a misjudgement on the part of This Morning.


----------



## sim667 (May 15, 2012)

YT linky?


----------



## treelover (May 15, 2012)

in progress..


----------



## plugsocket (May 16, 2012)

Is there a YT vid yet? This woman is disgraceful  and TM are equally as bad, blocking anyone wanting to discuss the issue on their site...yes TM and Milone, you can bury your heads in the sand but we all have big spades!


----------



## treelover (May 16, 2012)

its coming, Spiney on the case, do spread widely...


----------



## treelover (May 16, 2012)

btw, my friend who is an 'ordinary' person, not an activist, when i told her about it, said that CM ''makes her skin crawl'' she is not usually someone to come out with such comments..


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 16, 2012)

Here you go:


----------



## treelover (May 16, 2012)

nice one, tx...


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 16, 2012)

um

delivered nicy nicey but CMs inferences regarridng dole scroungery and resentment are at best, ill times, at worst, utterly deplorable


----------



## salem (May 16, 2012)

What an utter hateful woman (nothing new there of course). There is no doubt about what she meant and yes it did seem as though she was almost justifying the arsonist.

Phillip seemed a bit shocked by what she said too and did challenge her.


----------



## treelover (May 16, 2012)

2000 views just on here, spread it widely, twitter, etc...

mods, can you change the title as requested, thanks


----------



## youngian (May 16, 2012)

Got that one Twittered.

I remember seeing on her spitting nails on the Wright Stuff after car race organiser Max Mosely won his privacy case, outraged at the attack on her god given rights to peek through our curtains on a Friday night to check we are in the missionary position. Part of a Puritan Stasi that make up the gutter press.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 16, 2012)

treelover said:


> 2000 views just on here, spread it widely, twitter, etc...
> 
> mods, can you change the title as requested, thanks


Sorry. Only just seen this. I've checked the feedback forum and skim-read the thread but I can't see a request. Did you PM one of the mods?


----------



## crustychick (May 16, 2012)

wow, just wow.... justifying arson which leads to murder becuase the family was large and on benefits and had been targetted in the past by media... really? good grief.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 16, 2012)

crustychick said:


> wow, just wow.... justifying arson which leads to murder becuase the family was large and on benefits and had been targetted in the past by media... really? good grief.


...in her words, "an accident waiting to happen". I'm really shocked at her attitude.


----------



## frogwoman (May 16, 2012)

What an absolute cunt. What is the matter with people?


----------



## stethoscope (May 16, 2012)

Malone's got form for all manner of this sort of shit.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 16, 2012)

salem said:


> Phillip seemed a bit shocked by what she said too and did challenge her.


 
Yeah, fair play to him


----------



## crustychick (May 16, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ...in her words, "an accident waiting to happen". I'm really shocked at her attitude.


spouting drivvel like that should be an "accident waiting to happen". I hope she's pitchforked into an apology at the very least. The man has just lost six kids ffs. utterly inhuman. is she some kind of sick twisted robot engineered by the loony right? she kind of looks like she might be.


----------



## plugsocket (May 16, 2012)

An absolute disgrace, the woman obviously has no sympathy, thanks for the vid shall post and spread!


----------



## Nylock (May 16, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Here you go:



What a thoroughly vile specimen she is... Straight from the mad mel school of nasty fuckwittery


----------



## KeeperofDragons (May 16, 2012)

Oh ...king hell the poor family have just lost 6 kids, what has the fact they were trying to get a larger place & on benifits got to do with anything. It's a tradgedy, not a platform for spiteful drivel.

On a note it has seem to become respectable in the media to have a pop at people on benefits or those with larger families - it's ...king nasty.


----------



## treelover (May 16, 2012)

I'm glad people agree with my interpretation of her comments, I took some time to ensure I had correctly understood what she said...


----------



## martinb7 (May 16, 2012)

One of the most shocking things I have heard on tv. This is not controversial this is damn right nasty. This was the the day after that poor family had switched of the life support of their son. Hang your head in shame you stupid woman.


----------



## Geri (May 16, 2012)

A lot of people have been saying similar things on other websites. I ended up reporting a post on MSE because it was so vile. I just don't understand the mentality of some people.


----------



## treelover (May 16, 2012)

Is it on twitter yet? a storms abrewing...


----------



## Balbi (May 16, 2012)

Just retweeted it, and DM'd it to a few people who have big follow lists.

And just like that, Owen Jones has just retweeted it and is talking to someone else about it. Ah, internets.


----------



## salem (May 16, 2012)

Probably just a temporary blip, but this thread comes up on the first page of results when googling _Carol Malone_!

I'm not sure how big a backlash will follow though, as she's pretty much a nobody bar her attention whoring and she hasn't actually said anything here with a particularly quotable sound bite.


----------



## Balbi (May 16, 2012)

I think blaming dead children for their social circumstances might be a bit too far.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 16, 2012)

It's vile what they've been saying.  Just watched an interview with the parents on Central News, they look absolutely broken, like shells of people.  God knows how you get through the death of all six of your children.  Just awful. 

Fire service said the fire started through petrol being poured through and around the letter box which caused thick acrid smoke.  All the children died from smoke inhalation.  What a desperately sad tragedy.


----------



## treelover (May 16, 2012)

salem said:


> Probably just a temporary blip, but his thread comes up on the first page of results when googling _Carol Malone_!
> 
> I'm not sure how big a backlash will follow though, as she's pretty much a nobody bar her attention whoring and she hasn't actually said anything here with a particularly quotable sound bite.


 
It did the same for a while with the Tesco Workfare affair...


----------



## treelover (May 16, 2012)

anti welfare/benefits bile seems acceptable, imagine saying the above in terms of race, etc..


----------



## KeeperofDragons (May 16, 2012)

treelover said:


> anti welfare/benefits bile seems acceptable, imagine saying the above in terms of race, etc..


Very true


----------



## Balbi (May 16, 2012)

Carole Malone now trending in the UK. Well done urbs.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 16, 2012)

Is it the video I posted that people like Jones are tweeting? Only according to youtube it's only had 305 views


----------



## Balbi (May 16, 2012)

It should be, I linked to it in the tweets I sent to him and Ellie Mae O'Hagan. Maybe the counters jammed?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 16, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Is it the video I posted that people like Jones are tweeting? Only according to youtube it's only had 305 views


 
Comments have started appearing. There were none there the last time I looked. Nice to see they're not full of the type of bile that's directed at the family on other videos, just Carol Malone


----------



## treelover (May 16, 2012)

wow, power of the net...


----------



## rekil (May 16, 2012)

If you want any more tags added for the vid, put them here and we'll stick them in.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 16, 2012)

Shouldn't joke on a thread like this really but I can't resist. It's not the power of the net - it's the power of proletarian democracy, the only true vanguard of the proletarian movement.


----------



## salem (May 16, 2012)

salem said:


> Probably just a temporary blip, but this thread comes up on the first page of results when googling _Carol Malone_!


 
And is 4th place when her names spelt right


----------



## weepiper (May 16, 2012)

She is not fit to lick the shit off Mick Philpott's shoes, coming out with this the day after his 6th child died


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 16, 2012)

I don't use twitter so maybe it's normal, but what on earth are the bizarre nonsensical tweets mentioning the sour faced witch with links to insurance companies? Is it just corporate spamming or something?

Like this one:

*Katrina Mason* ‏@*KatrinaMason7* 
*Carole* *Malone* .Outcome of Patin, NOO mother.... Move forward relax and watch: http://is.gd/yoxehi?x?rrmUBE


----------



## harpo (May 16, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Carole Malone now trending in the UK. Well done urbs.


 
Yeah this thread is now second on a google search of the vile mer.


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't use twitter so maybe it's normal, but what on earth are the bizarre nonsensical tweets mentioning the sour faced witch with links to insurance companies? Is it just corporate spamming or something?
> 
> Like this one:
> 
> ...


Spambots


----------



## Gingerman (May 16, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenda_Slagg
Just another tabloid 'Glenda Slagg',horrible hateful woman


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

Malone doesn't even have the excuse of being a self-obsessed right-wing arse like the likes of Delingpole, this is just compassionless "blame the victim" cuntery.


----------



## pesh (May 16, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Is it the video I posted that people like Jones are tweeting? Only according to youtube it's only had 305 views


youtube viewing numbers don't update in realtime so expect a big jump sometime soon. still 305 views isn't bad, it's almost 10 times the number of fans she has on her Facebook page


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 16, 2012)

.


----------



## killer b (May 16, 2012)

bit crass spiney.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 16, 2012)

yeah you're right. Forgot the gravity of the topic and went into pd mode for a sec - apologies (I've apologised three times today, must be going soft)


----------



## trevhagl (May 16, 2012)

treelover said:


> Just watched This Morning, well the newspaper section, and was shocked and rather chilled to hear the hard right columnist and commentator Carol Malone assert that the possible reason for the terrible fire in which the Philpot family have lost six children is that there was a lot of animosity towards them on the estate because of the number of children they and that they were claiming benefits, had a big council house, etc.…
> 
> I watched it again to ensure I heard right, she clearly wasn’t condoning the action but imo, appeared to explain (and in this light understand it) in terms that they had a big family and like other big families “who took advantage” of benefits and were ‘high profile’ was a problem and other people who "were struggling in the economic climate'' were bitter and that they ‘were an “accident waiting to happen” and had a direct causal link to the terrible events.
> 
> ...


 

she's absolutely mental that woman , she's that barking if she lost her job not even ATOS would find her fit for work


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 16, 2012)

trevhagl said:


> she's absolutely mental that woman , she's that barking if she lost her job not even ATOS would find her fit for work


 
Daily Mail?

Wiki page



> In May 2012, she went on ITV1 programme This Morning and said that a recent house fire in Derby which killed 6 children was 'an accident waiting to happen', as the household was receiving state benefits and therefore bound to have made 'enemies'. This started a backlash that caused her to become a national trend on Twitter as thousands posted online to register their disgust.


----------



## twentythreedom (May 16, 2012)

Has the snide bitch got a twitter account?


----------



## weepiper (May 16, 2012)

ITV's website said:
			
		

> If you have any queries or comments about an *ITV show*, you can email us at viewerservices@itv.com


----------



## trashpony (May 16, 2012)

And once again there is fuck all teeth against journalists making disgusting and disgraceful statement. Six children have died, victims of a crazed person who decided to put a petrol bomb through their front door. Malone is an apologist for child murder. The NUJ should revoke her membership for this kind of shit.


----------



## weepiper (May 16, 2012)

I just sent them this



> Dear comments bod
> I'm writing after watching a clip of an appearance by Carol Malone on This Morning from earlier this week, where she describes the very recent murder of six innocent children as 'an accident waiting to happen' - because the family had many children and lived on benefits, and because they had previously talked to the media about it - she said 'they bring attention to themselves'. This is as good as blaming the parents for the murder of their children, their children who are possibly not even in their graves yet. It is an unspeakable statement to make and she should be ashamed, and This Morning should be ashamed for giving her the platform to say it so publicly. She is an apologist for child murderers and people like her making statements like this are feeding the culture of benefits-bashing which has been growing over the last few years. ITV and This Morning should make a public statement disassociating themselves from this vile hateful person.
> Yours disgustedly, me


----------



## purenarcotic (May 16, 2012)

Well said, weeps!


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 16, 2012)

weepiper said:


> I just sent them this


 
That's a fine rant. Nice one.


----------



## oryx (May 16, 2012)

Just seen the YouTube clip now, after watching Mick & Mairead Philpott on the news earlier. 

I thought I was fairly unshockable but even I'm shocked that someone can say that about the death of six kids. 

And she said it so casually as well.


----------



## weepiper (May 16, 2012)

I'm fuming, the horrible evil bag, how _dare_ she say that. 'Those feckless promiscuous benefit thieves brought this on themselves'. Absolutely despicable.


----------



## frogwoman (May 16, 2012)

I don't get how someone can say that shit. The guy has just lost his kids. Have some respect.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 16, 2012)

tabloid watch ( 3rd one down on the google ranking ) has another CM expose, youve probabaly seen it though

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/carole-malone-and-bnp.html

Doesnt do her any favours


----------



## frogwoman (May 16, 2012)

_'so repugnant in print you want to climb inside the page and vomit ink down her eye sockets'​_,​


----------



## martinb7 (May 16, 2012)

What strikes me personally was that her comments were completely premeditated and she could not wait to get those vile words out.


----------



## youngian (May 16, 2012)

Although unlikely to have a baby thought I would signup to mumsnet to post the link.
Ms Malone is not getting a lot of support from mums so far.


----------



## frogwoman (May 16, 2012)

youngian said:


> Although unlikely to have a baby thought I would signup to mumsnet to post the link.
> Ms Malone is not getting a lot of support from mums so far.


 
That's it now  

Well done urban


----------



## weepiper (May 16, 2012)

This thread is now the second Google hit for 'Carol Malone'


----------



## Balbi (May 16, 2012)

Twitterstorm seems over - at one point worldwide trend. The Youtube counter's due one hell of a bump. And Malone's probably unaware.


----------



## trashpony (May 16, 2012)

youngian said:


> Although unlikely to have a baby thought I would signup to mumsnet to post the link.
> Ms Malone is not getting a lot of support from mums so far.


They don't take kindly to children being murdered. You'll get a lot of support


----------



## two sheds (May 16, 2012)

Malone's an accident waiting to happen going on the media and making comments like that.


----------



## Celt (May 16, 2012)

cannot believe she said this, or that normal people think it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 16, 2012)

Good work treelover - it's a bit disappointing that none of the media monitoring groups highlighted this. Might never have come to peoples' attention if he'd not recorded it.


----------



## frogwoman (May 16, 2012)

Celt said:


> cannot believe she said this, or that normal people think it.


 
Normal people don't think it.


----------



## frogwoman (May 16, 2012)

I know there's been a lot of discussion of this topic in the last few days but if fascism ever rose to power in the UK people like this woman are the ones who would be the cheerleaders for it, she's got exactly the sort of sickening, smug self righteousness needed and which was so typical of the "liberal" supporters of Germany and Italy in the 30s. The way she just sits there coldly offering a "rationale" for it all, you can just feel the contempt and hatred dripping off of her. Accident waiting to happen eh.


----------



## Celt (May 16, 2012)

true froggy, i was mistaking her for real person.


----------



## frogwoman (May 17, 2012)

Where's phildwyer?


----------



## Belushi (May 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I know there's been a lot of discussion of this topic in the last few days but if fascism ever rose to power in the UK people like this woman are the ones who would be the cheerleaders for it, she's got exactly the sort of sickening, smug self righteousness needed and which was so typical of the "liberal" supporters of Germany and Italy in the 30s. The way she just sits there coldly offering a "rationale" for it all, you can just feel the contempt and hatred dripping off of her. Accident waiting to happen eh.


 
On a more positive note if Bolsheviks ever seize power she's getting shoved up against a wall sharpish.


----------



## frogwoman (May 17, 2012)

Belushi said:


> On a more positive note if Bolsheviks ever seize power she's getting shoved up against a wall sharpish.


 
Well yeah, goes without saying


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 17, 2012)

Well, if we're talking about anachronisms, the Bolsheviks also had plenty of time-servers in their ranks, though, cynical people who knew which way the wind was blowing and changed their attitudes accordingly, for personal safety and social advancement.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 17, 2012)

Yeah but the only true bolshevik force in the world today is pd and we'd be able to see through her act and identify her as the petty-bourgeois swamp dweller that she is.


----------



## Belushi (May 17, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Well, if we're talking about anachronisms, the Bolsheviks also had plenty of time-servers in their ranks, though, cynical people who knew which way the wind was blowing and changed their attitudes accordingly, for personal safety and social advancement.


 
That's what purges are for


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 17, 2012)

Perversely, it's the time-servers that directed the purging.


----------



## agricola (May 17, 2012)

Please do not confuse this post as in any way supporting what Malone said, but she does (albeit accidentally) have a point.

The Philpott family _*did*_ end up being notorious because of their alleged abuse of the benefits system. The reason that they became notorious was because a large part of the national media - including at least two national TV outlets, and numerous articles in the national and local print media - portrayed them (especially the dad) as feckless, benefit cheats, spongers taking us all for a ride etc etc. Of course its too early to say whether this reporting (some examples of which are below) led to them being targetted (resulting in this horrible incident) but the responsible parts of the media (who of course Malone is an exemplar of) really do need to take a good long look at what they might well have done.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-416624/Father-15-moaned-council-house-dad--u-twice-u.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ages-war-liberal-tyranny-ruining-Britain.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1534303/Jobless-and-shameless.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/71488/More-babies-for-a-sponger-dad.html?print=yes
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/41233/Dad-of-14-sick-of-Britain.html



I apologise if this point has been made already.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 17, 2012)

It is a fair point, and of course if it was this that motivated an arsonist then this venomous witch is as responsible as anyone.

Still only showing 305 views by the way, that's quite some lag on youtube.


----------



## Ld222 (May 17, 2012)

Great work Treelover for highlighting this, Carole Malone is beyond vile.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (May 17, 2012)

anybody got the witches twitter link?
Im gettin:




> *Account suspended*
> 
> The profile you are trying to view has been suspended.


 

as it goes theres a heap of pissed global folk want a piece


----------



## DownwardDog (May 17, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> It is a fair point, and of course if it was this that motivated an arsonist then this venomous witch is as responsible as anyone.


 
If that were the motivation (which I don't believe is likely) then wouldn't it just mean that CM's comments were factually correct if not sensitively timed?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 17, 2012)

DownwardDog said:


> If that were the motivation (which I don't believe is likely) then wouldn't it just mean that CM's comments were factually correct if not sensitively timed?


 
It would mean that yes. But it would also mean what I said it meant, as she's as responsible as anyone for the "scrounger" rhetoric and whipping up the anti-claimant hysteria.

I don't think it was either (though I'm not basing this on any actual evidence) and so she's instead guilty of using the tragic death of 6 children as an excuse to spread her poisonous message.

Either way she's a fucking nasty piece of work.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> Please do not confuse this post as in any way supporting what Malone said, but she does (albeit accidentally) have a point.
> 
> The Philpott family _*did*_ end up being notorious because of their alleged abuse of the benefits system. The reason that they became notorious was because a large part of the national media - including at least two national TV outlets, and numerous articles in the national and local print media - portrayed them (especially the dad) as feckless, benefit cheats, spongers taking us all for a ride etc etc. Of course its too early to say whether this reporting (some examples of which are below) led to them being targetted (resulting in this horrible incident) but the responsible parts of the media (who of course Malone is an exemplar of) really do need to take a good long look at what they might well have done.
> 
> ...




God, I hate Jeremy Kyle.


----------



## Balbi (May 17, 2012)

8000 views.


----------



## youngian (May 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> Please do not confuse this post as in any way supporting what Malone said, but she does (albeit accidentally) have a point.
> 
> The Philpott family _*did*_ end up being notorious because of their alleged abuse of the benefits system. The reason that they became notorious was because a large part of the national media - including at least two national TV outlets, and numerous articles in the national and local print media - portrayed them (especially the dad) as feckless, benefit cheats, spongers taking us all for a ride etc etc. Of course its too early to say whether this reporting (some examples of which are below) led to them being targetted (resulting in this horrible incident) but the responsible parts of the media (who of course Malone is an exemplar of) really do need to take a good long look at what they might well have done.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ages-war-liberal-tyranny-ruining-Britain.html


 
Little off topic but a apargraph above inteview with Anne Widdecombe amused me-

"She is at a loss to see how other Catholics, such as Cabinet minister Ruth Kelly and the soon-to-be-converted Tony Blair, can square their actions with their consciences."

Go on Anne sock it to them over Iraq, but no-

"If I had been Ruth, I would have resigned over the Catholic gay adoption issue. And I don't understand Blair's actions and his faith," she says.


----------



## mrs quoad (May 17, 2012)

The hypocrisy-free DM's picked the story up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ccident-waiting-happen.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 17, 2012)

Balbi said:


> 8000 views.


 15,000 now!


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 17, 2012)

well done for getting this vile shit up there on google chaps - this awful hateful harridan needs as much bad publicity as possible


----------



## mrs quoad (May 17, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> The hypocrisy-free DM's picked the story up.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ccident-waiting-happen.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


The fuck? They've taken it down again 

It only went up at 9:06, and it's still one of google news's first hits for Philpott!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 17, 2012)

I saw it before they pulled it.


----------



## mrs quoad (May 17, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I saw it before they pulled it.


Hopefully pointed a few more hits toward the video! Main reason I re-checked it on my desktop was to see if the Youtube url was the same one hosted earlier on here (couldn't do it on my iPad this morning).

I guess an editor or sub-editor saw it, twigged that it'd conflict with something else they're bringing out later (or with their readership more generally), and spiked it sharpish. Looks like it didn't last half an hour!


----------



## JimW (May 17, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I saw it before they pulled it.


I can still see it.


----------



## mrs quoad (May 17, 2012)

It's back! Now timed 09:44.

I wonder what's changed!


----------



## gabi (May 17, 2012)

Still there for me


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 17, 2012)

It did definitely disappear for a while though. I could be wrong but in the interim they seem to have added a photo of CM.


----------



## rekil (May 17, 2012)

Proletarian Democracy in the Mail. I took the 'communism will win' channel tagline down at some point yesterday, since one or two pricks in the comments were going on about it too much. I kinda wish I hadn't now.


----------



## mrs quoad (May 17, 2012)

copliker said:


> Proletarian Democracy in the Mail. I took the 'communism will win' channel tagline down at some point yesterday, since one or two pricks in the comments were going on about it too much. I kinda wish I hadn't now.


You and treelover and spineynorman have created a Daily Mail story


----------



## rekil (May 17, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> You and treelover have created a Daily Mail story


Treelover and spineynorman. The channel was already there.


----------



## agricola (May 17, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> You and treelover have created a Daily Mail story


 
Doesnt this make PD the most successful leftist group of the past forty years?  I mean they got Boris elected, they influenced government spin-doctors into holding a press conference at a tractor factory, and now they have infiltrated the Mail.


----------



## mrs quoad (May 17, 2012)

copliker said:


> Treelover and spineynorman. The channel was already there.


Multiple people have access to one channel? My understanding of youtube has just been devastated!

I've edited the post accordingly, mind


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> Doesnt this make PD the most successful leftist group of the past forty years? I mean they got Boris elected, they influenced government spin-doctors into holding a press conference at a tractor factory, and now they have infiltrated the Mail.


 
Such is the power of the information super highway when proletarian hands are at the wheel.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 17, 2012)

The Daily Mail is the propaganda organ of the international proletarian movement.


----------



## treelover (May 17, 2012)

'Hundreds of people are to join hands in a mile-long human chain to help pay for the children's funerals. The fund-raiser will see 1,600 people each pay £1 for the funerals, which are due to take place at Derby Cathedral on a date yet to be fixed.The funerals were originally due to be held at a local Roman Catholic church, but have been moved to the cathedral because of the large number of people who want to pay their respects'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2145681/Carole-Malone-says-Philpott-deaths-accident-waiting-happen.html#ixzz1v7bVifQx

The thing is, CM wasn't just horrible in her comments, though the fire may have been started by some prick who is taken in by the propaganda, she is plain wrong: the wider public are appalled and moved by the events as noted above. This may be a watershed moment, the mass media just can't keep smearing the poor, etc without some sort of backlash, I hope it comes from the communities themselves, not the liberal establishment...

and yes,. the D/M, home of hypocrisy...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> You and treelover and spineynorman have created a Daily Mail story


 
The shame


----------



## treelover (May 17, 2012)

ITV have blocked it on YT...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

Total lack of comments on Daily Mail story.  Maybe they're all busy reining in their hatred of the scum


----------



## frogwoman (May 17, 2012)

Maybe the comments are all being moderated and they don't know what to do and which ones to publish.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> ITV have blocked it on YT...


Pity, but it's a bit late...it's out there. I've seen it mentioned as copied in a couple of places. I'll see if I can find it elsewhere....


----------



## rekil (May 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> ITV have blocked it on YT...


Yeah, bollocks. Any way we could've avoided that?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Maybe the comments are all being moderated and they don't know what to do and which ones to publish.


 
Looking at past ones from a few days ago, they do all seem rather sympathetic (unless the nasty ones have been removed)


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 17, 2012)

Daily Mail have not got the video any more, either.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

So, the video disappears from YouTube



> "This Morning: Carole Malone..."
> This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by ITV.com


 
So how come this is still up?




How's that work then?  

Or is "copyright claim" just the term they use when they want anything taken down?


----------



## rekil (May 17, 2012)

I suppose we could reupload it to another account, (eg. People’s Commission for the Bright Dawn of Proletarian Democracy) and add a note acknowledging the copyright, and see how long that'd last.


----------



## stethoscope (May 17, 2012)

I suspect that 'copyright claim' is the easiest/quickest method for ITV to use for 'damage limitation'.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 17, 2012)

There's LOADS of stuff from 'This Morning' on youtube, with and without CM. Maybe people should email them and ask why just that particular clip has gone.


----------



## rekil (May 17, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> So how come this is still up?


That's ITV's channel minnie...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

copliker said:


> That's ITV's channel minnie...


 


Ok, so why haven't they got that clip of her up then?  Do they only put up clips that are nice and fluffy and unlikely to cause controversy (which of course that Samantha one didn't... )


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> There's LOADS of stuff from 'This Morning' on youtube, with and without CM. Maybe people should email them and ask why just that particular clip has gone.





steph said:


> I suspect that 'copyright claim' is the easiest/quickest method for ITV to use for 'damage limitation'.


 
Understandable, but I don't think it's right that they decide what should be put up and what shouldn't even if it is damage limitation.

It's not like the presenters themselves agreed with CM


----------



## stethoscope (May 17, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Understandable, but I don't think it's right that they decide what should be put up and what shouldn't even if it is damage limitation.


 
Well, nor do I, but that's how the media like any business work - anything that might 'implicate' or 'smear' the 'brand' by association, etc.


----------



## agricola (May 17, 2012)

copliker said:


> I suppose we could reupload it to another account, (eg. People’s Commission for the Bright Dawn of Proletarian Democracy) and add a note acknowledging the copyright, and see how long that'd last.


 
_"All copyright is theft, so we nicked this off ITV"_


----------



## grit (May 17, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> So, the video disappears from YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I dont know who the other female guest is, but she is great at putting that silly cow in her place!


----------



## stethoscope (May 17, 2012)

steph said:


> Well, nor do I, but that's how the media like any business work - anything that might 'implicate' or 'smear' the 'brand' by association, etc.


 
*unless its the Daily Fail of course, in which case, it's 'revel in us being terribly controversial' like they did with Moro - turn widespread outrage into drawing more people into their website to increase hits, advertising, perhaps even gain readership.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

steph said:


> Well, nor do I, but that's how the media like any business work - anything that might 'implicate' the brand, etc.


 
Well you could see Phillip Schofield seemed a bit shocked with her comments, but then I suppose at the same time, This Morning must know she's a vile bitch and so to give her a platform to air her views, then surely they would have known her comments would be controversial, so why have her on at all?


----------



## stethoscope (May 17, 2012)

Well, fine line between exploiting ad revenue from people watching (especially if some controversial gobshites are on), and then suddenly if what was shown starts to work against you.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

grit said:


> I dont know who the other female guest is, but she is great at putting that silly cow in her place!


 
Some psychologist


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

steph said:


> Well, fine line between ad revenue from people watching (especially if controversial gobshites are on), and then suddenly it works against you.


 
Oh right. I don't really know or think about how these things work 

but isn't bad publicity sometimes good publicity (in that it gets more people watching)?


----------



## stethoscope (May 17, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Oh right. I don't really know or think about how these things work
> 
> but isn't bad publicity sometimes good publicity (in that it gets more people watching)?


 
Yes, see Daily Fail comment above.


----------



## rekil (May 17, 2012)

There's an appeal process.


> An international counter-notification must include the following specific elements:
> 
> Identification of the specific URLs of material that YouTube has removed or to which YouTube has disabled access.
> 
> ...


Fuck that. We demand that the people may have access to the video.


----------



## Badgers (May 17, 2012)

Will she use the 'Diana defence' again? 

http://marinahyde.posterous.com/carole-malones-reverse-ferret-on-diana


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Will she use the 'Diana defence' again?
> 
> http://marinahyde.posterous.com/carole-malones-reverse-ferret-on-diana


 
Couldn't be arsed to read half of that, but 



> If I've learned a lesson this week, it is about taking responsibility for a few badly-timed words, so powerful and so awful, that they will haunt me for the rest of my life. In this whole wretched week - that is MY truth.


----------



## Balbi (May 17, 2012)

This will last a bit longer, reckon Malone might ignore it - if she comes out with something it'll carry on a bit further. Big dent and some paint chipped off her battered reputation though.


----------



## Badgers (May 17, 2012)

copliker said:
			
		

> Fuck that. We demand that the people may have access to the video.



Recall the 'Newport State of Mind' video being up and down. I think at the time the record company trying to stop it made more people want to see it and more people just kept posting it up.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 17, 2012)

Right - here's what we do. I'll set up another channel and upload it to that. Then I'll post a link to it on here. Once I've done that I want everyone with a youtube channel to mirror it on theirs and to ask your friends to do the same. Let's get it on so many channels it's not worth them even trying.

I'll also put it on vimeo cos they're not as strict over copyright claims.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 17, 2012)

steph said:


> I suspect that 'copyright claim' is the easiest/quickest method for ITV to use for 'damage limitation'.


 
This.


----------



## frogwoman (May 17, 2012)

Put it on dailymotion as well.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

What's the betting This Morning allows Carole Malone back on to defend herself?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Put it on dailymotion as well.


 
Or LiveLeak.  Remember when posh Labour MP Helen Clark had her drunken posho meltdown in a hotel bar back in 2008, abusing staff?


----------



## frogwoman (May 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> Please do not confuse this post as in any way supporting what Malone said, but she does (albeit accidentally) have a point.
> 
> The Philpott family _*did*_ end up being notorious because of their alleged abuse of the benefits system. The reason that they became notorious was because a large part of the national media - including at least two national TV outlets, and numerous articles in the national and local print media - portrayed them (especially the dad) as feckless, benefit cheats, spongers taking us all for a ride etc etc. Of course its too early to say whether this reporting (some examples of which are below) led to them being targetted (resulting in this horrible incident) but the responsible parts of the media (who of course Malone is an exemplar of) really do need to take a good long look at what they might well have done.
> 
> ...




He makes JK look to be a complete twat. Not that he didn't look like that already.


----------



## frogwoman (May 17, 2012)

I quite like the fact that he says that a man has the right to look after the children.


----------



## plugsocket (May 17, 2012)

There is now an open group on Facebook, sack carole malone​


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

plugsocket said:


> There is now an open group on Facebook, sack carole malone​


 
Who's she employed by anyway?


----------



## plugsocket (May 17, 2012)

Throughout M's career it is evident she has lacked tactful diplomacy , I am hoping this will make her realise what  an inconsiderate foolish woman she is...as a friend had said though...the teflon maybe double coated!?!-hence the removal of the YT vid.


----------



## plugsocket (May 17, 2012)

Well I can only assume, whoever created the group means, from TM.??


----------



## plugsocket (May 17, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Who's she employed by anyway?


Well I can only assume, whoever created the group means, from TM.??


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

plugsocket said:


> Well I can only assume, whoever created the group means, from TM.??


 
Is she a regular on there then?


----------



## plugsocket (May 17, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Is she a regular on there then?


  Do you watch it as much as me then?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 17, 2012)

plugsocket said:


> There is now an open group on Facebook, sack carole malone​


 
You got a link for that? I'll put the vid there too - just had some people come round so I haven't had the chance to do it yet but I'm on it now.


----------



## plugsocket (May 17, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> You got a link for that? I'll put the vid there too - just had some people come round so I haven't had the chance to do it yet but I'm on it now.


http://www.facebook.com/groups/237916526313701/ Hope this works, let me know


----------



## plugsocket (May 17, 2012)

Yes, a link would be appreciated, there are a few it seems, reading through the comments, that have joined...that are not actually aware of not only who she is but what she has said


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 17, 2012)

Mirror it. Get your friends to mirror it. Then share it.


----------



## frogwoman (May 17, 2012)

How do you mirror it?


----------



## plugsocket (May 17, 2012)

I have just shared it, so for those who have not seen, shall do. Then hopefully a few more complaints to ITV. I have not got the software to copy it


----------



## shaman75 (May 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> ITV have blocked it on YT...


 
I'd have thought it was in the public interest.



> Beyond non-commercial research, private study, and incidental copying, another common exception to copyright is for criticism, review, or news reporting. Fair dealing for the purposes of criticism or review only applies with a sufficient acknowledgement, and provided the work being criticised or reviewed has been made available to the public. For news reporting fair dealing does not extend to photographs, and an acknowledgement is only required where reasons of practicality do not rule this out.


 
It's news isn't it?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 17, 2012)

I'm uploading it to facebook to but it's fecking slow.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 17, 2012)

plugsocket said:


> I have just shared it, so for those who have not seen, shall do. Then hopefully a few more complaints to ITV. I have not got the software to copy it


 
Have you got firefox? If so go to the add ons menu from the firefox dropdown menu and download easy youtube video downloader - it puts a button under the video and you just click on it and it does it all for you.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 17, 2012)

I've got loads of work to do so I'm afraid I won't be able to upload it anywhere else today. Can anyone else do it for me? Otherwise I'm afraid it will have to wait. Sorry.


----------



## shaman75 (May 17, 2012)

download this and upload it to your account. 

http://www.sendspace.com/file/py2o27


----------



## plugsocket (May 17, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've got loads of work to do so I'm afraid I won't be able to upload it anywhere else today. Can anyone else do it for me? Otherwise I'm afraid it will have to wait. Sorry.


----------



## plugsocket (May 17, 2012)

Will try later, I too should be doing some work


----------



## shaman75 (May 17, 2012)




----------



## OneStrike (May 17, 2012)

What a nob.  Are ITV really getting the clips taken down?


----------



## frogwoman (May 17, 2012)




----------



## SpineyNorman (May 17, 2012)

OneStrike said:


> What a nob. Are ITV really getting the clips taken down?


 
Yes. Took the original one down off the proletarian democracy channel.

Edit: I really must do some work now! If I post on here again before tea time can a mod please give me a temp ban for a day or 2?


----------



## tufty79 (May 17, 2012)

you can also complain to OFCOM here: https://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/tell-us/specific-programme-epg
(sorry if that's already been mentioned)


----------



## mrs quoad (May 17, 2012)

Currently the DM's 4th most popular story.


----------



## frogwoman (May 17, 2012)

http://www.tntmagazine.com/news/uk/...arson-killings-was-accident-waiting-to-happen


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

plugsocket said:


> Do you watch it as much as me then?


 
You mean never?  

Only catch stuff when I'm channel hopping looking for something to watch


----------



## geminisnake (May 17, 2012)

souljacker said:


> Pretty poor show in general by the UK media on this one. Carol Malone is an evil witch but she's only saying what the reporting has implied.


 
Haven't got time to read whole thread but how does Malone et al get away with spouting this kind of shite when young lads on the internet get jailed?


----------



## Badgers (May 17, 2012)

geminisnake said:
			
		

> Haven't got time to read whole thread but how does Malone et al get away with spouting this kind of shite when young lads on the internet get jailed?



A sage question. Perhaps it should be asked to the correct authorities by lots of us?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

geminisnake said:


> Haven't got time to read whole thread but how does Malone et al get away with spouting this kind of shite when young lads on the internet get jailed?


 
Good question, but one I can't answer.


----------



## grit (May 17, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Good question, but one I can't answer.


 
Because her hatred is more subtle, it can be spun in such a way to try and explain that it isint offensive.

The stuff the young lads post on the internet is blatant.


----------



## frogwoman (May 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> He makes JK look to be a complete twat. Not that he didn't look like that already.


 
what kind of people get to go on jeremy kyle shows (as part of the audience) anyway? Is there a selection process? Seemed a right bunch of cunts in the audience in that one.


----------



## frogwoman (May 17, 2012)

If the family are all happy like that and they are not hurting themselves and their kids wtf business is it of Jeremy Kyle's or anyone else's I mean "the both work " ffs! surely people have a right to have family/living arrangements how they wish as long as they're not hurting themselves/the children (who looked like they were all really well loved)


----------



## grit (May 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> what kind of people get to go on jeremy kyle shows (as part of the audience) anyway? Is there a selection process? Seemed a right bunch of cunts in the audience in that one.


 
I dont think that audience is in anyway unique for a JK audience tbh. The dad was fucking excellent at responding to his attacks, the only guest I've seen who has held his own.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> what kind of people get to go on jeremy kyle shows (as part of the audience) anyway? Is there a selection process? Seemed a right bunch of cunts in the audience in that one.


 
and he's got an American version as well.  Why?  Aren't there enough talk show hosts over there?    I really wish someone would spike the security guards' tea so someone can headbutt him for being such an obnoxious twat.  Bet he wouldn't be as brave if he didn't have security to back him up.


----------



## frogwoman (May 17, 2012)

grit said:


> I dont think that audience is in anyway unique for a JK audience tbh. The dad was fucking excellent at responding to his attacks, the only guest I've seen who has held his own.


 
He was great at it, made him look a complete fool.Why did he agree to go on the show?


----------



## grit (May 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> He was great at it, made him look a complete fool.Why did he agree to go on the show?


 
All expenses paid trip to London?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> He was great at it, made him look a complete fool.Why did he agree to go on the show?


 
I don't understand why *anyone *would want to go on the show or to even watch it


----------



## purenarcotic (May 17, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I don't understand why *anyone *would want to go on the show or to even watch it


 
Free DNA tests, 15 minutes of fame, god knows.  A lot of clearly damaged and sad people.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Free DNA tests, 15 minutes of fame, god knows. A lot of clearly damaged and sad people.


 
I come across it when channel hopping and normally have to turn over within seconds because people are screaming and shouting and giving me brainache


----------



## frogwoman (May 17, 2012)

grit said:


> I dont think that audience is in anyway unique for a JK audience tbh. The dad was fucking excellent at responding to his attacks, the only guest I've seen who has held his own.


 
Is there a selection process for the people in the audience though? what a bunch of vile baying cunts


----------



## purenarcotic (May 17, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I come across it when channel hopping and normally have to turn over within seconds because people are screaming and shouting and giving me brainache


 
Yeah there's a lot of shouting.  A fair bit of it encouraged by him tbh, he likes to deliberately wind people up.  Especially anybody who comes out regarding DV.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Yeah there's a lot of shouting. A fair bit of it encouraged by him tbh, he likes to deliberately wind people up. Especially anybody who comes out regarding DV.


 
dv?


----------



## tufty79 (May 17, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Free DNA tests, 15 minutes of fame, god knows. A lot of clearly damaged and sad people.


my mum wanted me to go on it with her so jezza could shout at me about what a terrible daughter i am


----------



## purenarcotic (May 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Is there a selection process for the people in the audience though? what a bunch of vile baying cunts


 
No, it's like any of these shows.  You apply and you get free tickets.  I dunno if it's a ballot process but I'd expect so.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

tufty79 said:


> my mum wanted me to go on it with her so jezza could shout at me about what a terrible daughter i am


----------



## purenarcotic (May 17, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> dv?


 
Domestic violence.


----------



## tufty79 (May 17, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


>


we no longer speak to each other (my call)


----------



## purenarcotic (May 17, 2012)

tufty79 said:


> my mum wanted me to go on it with her so jezza could shout at me about what a terrible daughter i am


 
Seriously?  Omg.


----------



## frogwoman (May 17, 2012)

tufty79 said:


> my mum wanted me to go on it with her so jezza could shout at me about what a terrible daughter i am


 
no way


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Domestic violence.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

tufty79 said:


> we no longer speak to each other (my call)


 
Perfectly understandable


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

I don't understand why some people prefer 15 minutes of fame over a bit of dignity.

I caught a few minutes of a show a few weeks ago where there was a girl who had two guys who weren't sure who the father was. She was adamant it was one of theirs. Not sure if they thought it was theirs or not as I was jumping around channel

Turned out neither was the father 

Why would you put yourself through that?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

Just to confirm my feelings on Jeremy Kyle, I decided to have a look to see if he's on at the moment, and sure enough he is, on ITV2+1, and guess what, everyon'es screaming and shouting at each other


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 17, 2012)

geminisnake said:


> Haven't got time to read whole thread but how does Malone et al get away with spouting this kind of shite when young lads on the internet get jailed?


 
Because "the establishment" (of which Malone and her ilk are part) know that what Malone is doing is playing a hoary old journo game: Provoke the proles by couching "the establishment's" opinion as a kind of "well, it would be understandable if...".
Those lads were doing something far more understandable and normal than Malone's shilling for the chattering classes, which was to react to current events and have a bit of a laugh about them, but you can't threaten "the establishment", so away they had to go.

Fucked-up world, isn't it?


----------



## plugsocket (May 17, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've got loads of work to do so I'm afraid I won't be able to upload it anywhere else today. Can anyone else do it for me? Otherwise I'm afraid it will have to wait. Sorry.


Thanks for the vid..its gone far and wide now


----------



## plugsocket (May 17, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Just to confirm my feelings on Jeremy Kyle, I decided to have a look to see if he's on at the moment, and sure enough he is, on ITV2+1, and guess what, everyon'es screaming and shouting at each other


No change there then! Bloody shite and we pay our TV license for that- hence the reason I didnt for some time  I do now though


----------



## frogwoman (May 17, 2012)

nice one people  Welcome to the boards plugsocket.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

plugsocket said:


> No change there then! Bloody shite and we pay our TV license for that- hence the reason I didnt for some time  I do now though


 
Naughty naughty plugsocket. You don't pay your licence for watching (or not watching) shite like that as it's not on BBC 

Welcome btw


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 17, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I don't understand why some people prefer 15 minutes of fame over a bit of dignity.........
> ........Why would you put yourself through that?


Feeling voiceless and wanting your say?


----------



## plugsocket (May 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> nice one people  Welcome to the boards plugsocket.


Thank you


----------



## IC3D (May 17, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Feeling voiceless and wanting your say?


I feel empathy towards those people I've got to say, somewhere in there is a person overwhelmed by life that is looking for air or a voice in the world and I reckon it's probably amazingly cathartic and I wonder how much of their problems are other people judging them anyway, its a perfect way to say fuck off I'm a living being. The audience are by far the ugliest thing on this show


----------



## plugsocket (May 17, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Naughty naughty plugsocket. You don't pay your licence for watching (or not watching) shite like that as it's not on BBC
> 
> Welcome btw


 Ah yes


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Feeling voiceless and wanting your say?


 
Well yeah, as much as I want my say, I'd rather not do it in front of millions of people (if JK has that large an audience member)

I've got no problem with chat shows, but I just think that Jeremy Kyle is a twat and I don't like the way he goads people which I doubt he'd dare do if he didn't have the protection of a couple of security guys


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 17, 2012)

IC3D said:


> I feel empathy towards those people I've got to say, somewhere in there is a person overwhelmed by life that is looking for air or a voice in the world and I reckon it's probably amazingly cathartic and I wonder how much of their problems are other people judging them anyway, its a perfect way to say fuck off I'm a living being. The audience are by far the ugliest thing on this show


 
I also agree with that, I just don't like the way the whole thing is done.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2012)

"Having made such crass & vile statements on national television, Ms. Malone accepted that her kicking was an accident waiting to happen."


----------



## Nylock (May 17, 2012)

Jeremy kyle is an odious, obnoxious, shouty, hypocritical little man. That shabby opportunist ought to hang his head in shame at how he has managed to massively enrich himself off the back of others' misfortune and misery...


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 18, 2012)

Threads like this are what makes urban great IMO


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 18, 2012)

Just a snapshot of what you started, treelover and beautiful assistants.....Fair play to youse

Owen Jones got the Carole Malone tweet because of this thread and here's an article in today's Indie as a result. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...ts-is-dangerously-out-of-control-7763793.html


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 18, 2012)

Nice find Mrs M


----------



## two sheds (May 18, 2012)

yes good article and nicely done people


----------



## frogwoman (May 18, 2012)

Nylock said:


> Jeremy kyle is an odious, obnoxious, shouty, hypocritical little man. That shabby opportunist ought to hang his head in shame at how he has managed to massively enrich himself off the back of others' misfortune and misery...


 
i was more disgusted by the audience tbh.

has anyone here ever been on the show or know somebody who has? i know people who know people, but nobody directly


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 18, 2012)

I think some in the audience are studes being 'ironic,' as studes who aren't as clever as they think they are, do.


----------



## frogwoman (May 18, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I think some in the audience are studes being 'ironic,' as studes who aren't as clever as they think they are, do.


 
if anyone i knew did that to be "ironic" i'd disown them


----------



## frogwoman (May 18, 2012)

And yeah you're right, a lot of students seem to like jeremy kyle for some reason  Maybe because it's on in the daytime and they are bored?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i was more disgusted by the audience tbh.
> 
> has anyone here ever been on the show or know somebody who has? i know people who know people, but nobody directly


 
I think someone on here's been on a chat show, but don't know which one


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> And yeah you're right, a lot of students seem to like jeremy kyle for some reason  Maybe because it's on in the daytime and they are bored?


But they aren't _into it_, like the chavs. They're only 'into it' in an ironic way, because they're clever studes.


----------



## weepiper (May 18, 2012)

I had a polite reply to my email saying they'd forwarded it to This Morning, btw. As did several of my fb friends who also complained.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 18, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> But they aren't _into it_, like the chavs. They're only 'into it' in an ironic way, because they're clever studes.


 
They're all psychology students


----------



## savoloysam (May 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i was more disgusted by the audience tbh.
> 
> has anyone here ever been on the show or know somebody who has? i know people who know people, but nobody directly


 
I know a girl who went on the show due to her bf watching too much porn online and not paying her enough attention. She was naive i think to believe to think the show would help her. She wasn't the vain type that would do anything to get on tv.


----------



## frogwoman (May 18, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> But they aren't _into it_, like the chavs. They're only 'into it' in an ironic way, because they're clever studes.


 
my sister's a student (or actually just finished) she loves all those programmes about overweight people, anorexic people and the like (tho not jeremy kyle) i cant understand it meself but she isn't being ironic lol she really loves them and makes no secret of the fact  can't understand it myself but each to their own!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 18, 2012)

I do watch some of them myself (very rarely) when I can't find anything else to watch


----------



## frogwoman (May 18, 2012)

if someone likes something why can't they just say so instead of hiding behind a veneer of fake sarcasm eh?  im going to bed now


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> if someone likes something why can't they just say so instead of hiding behind a veneer of fake sarcasm eh?  im going to bed now


 
I don't really like watching them.  I think they're sad


----------



## frogwoman (May 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I don't really like watching them. I think they're sad


i know you don't m8 i just mean in general with the "ironic" students etc.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> my sister's a student (or actually just finished) she loves all those programmes about overweight people, anorexic people and the like (tho not jeremy kyle) i cant understand it meself but she isn't being ironic lol she really loves them and makes no secret of the fact  can't understand it myself but each to their own!


 
Don't contradict me.


----------



## Belushi (May 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I think someone on here's been on a chat show, but don't know which one


 
I was on Wogan.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 18, 2012)

Belushi said:


> I was on Wogan.


 
What were you doing on Wogan?


----------



## DexterTCN (May 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Well yeah, as much as I want my say, I'd rather not do it in front of millions of people (if JK has that large an audience member)
> 
> I've got no problem with chat shows, but I just think that Jeremy Kyle is a twat and I don't like the way he goads people which I doubt he'd dare do if he didn't have the protection of a couple of security guys


He doesn't need them, the people on the show don't get paid if they lay so much as a drop of spittle on him.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> What were you doing on Wogan?


 
Laughing and applauding.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 18, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> He doesn't need them, the people on the show don't get paid if they lay so much as a drop of spittle on him.


 
They get paid!  How much do they get paid?


----------



## Belushi (May 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> What were you doing on Wogan?


 
Nothing, its a lie 

If I've ever told you I was a member of the Why Don't You gang that was also a drunken fabrication


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 18, 2012)

Belushi said:


> Nothing, its a lie
> 
> If I've ever told you I was a member of the Why Don't You gang that was also a drunken fabrication


 
I remember Why Don't You

Well actually I don't.  I just remember the song (if you can call it a song).


----------



## DexterTCN (May 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> They get paid! How much do they get paid?


The ones across the street from me, a mother and daughter who are loud-mouthed motherfuckers with dirty curtains and windows, got £10k - that's what they said and that's kinda how they spent money for a while too.


----------



## Nylock (May 18, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> He doesn't need them, the people on the show don't get paid if they lay so much as a drop of spittle on him.


Surely anyone who chinned Jeremy Kyle on live TV would earn far more from selling their story than what that lot pay for an appearance on the show...


----------



## crustychick (May 18, 2012)

Better late than never but finally shared this vid..... still can't get over the utter vileness of some people... urgh.


----------



## Peanutter (May 18, 2012)

Just found this forum, and have signed up. Seemed like a nice place full of nice people. Hope 'nice' isn't an insult around here....


----------



## weepiper (May 18, 2012)

welcome to the various newbies that seem to have found U75 through a mutual hatred of Carol Malone


----------



## DexterTCN (May 18, 2012)

Peanutter said:


> Just found this forum, and have signed up. Seemed like a nice place full of nice people. Hope 'nice' isn't an insult around here....


Welcome.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 18, 2012)

Greetings Peanutter


----------



## Streathamite (May 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> what kind of people get to go on jeremy kyle shows (as part of the audience) anyway? Is there a selection process? Seemed a right bunch of cunts in the audience in that one.


 For my money, if you want to be part of the live audience on a show like that - watching such a demeaning, soulless and generally unedifying train-wreck spectacle close-up - yours has to be a fairly unpleasant, distasteful personality and nature


----------



## Streathamite (May 18, 2012)

tufty79 said:


> so jezza could shout at me about what a terrible daughter i am


ahem.
refer to him as 'Kyle' please; not all jezzas are that repugnant


----------



## pinkmonkey (May 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I also agree with that, I just don't like the way the whole thing is done.


 
I hate his attitude towards addiction.  I watched it once when he bellowed, 'JUST STOP TAKING DRUGS, OK? ' at an addict.  It's the equivalent of telling someone who is depressed to snap out of it. It's just so crass.  I can't watch him, he's such an arrogant prick, he comes across as bad as the people he's trying to belittle.


----------



## Badgers (May 18, 2012)

Has she apologised or even made a comment?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 18, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Has she apologised or even made a comment?


I'm hoping she's fled the country under a cloud of shame.


----------



## Balbi (May 18, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> ahem.
> refer to him as 'Kyle' please; not all jezzas are that repugnant



Agreed, that Jeremy Vine's great!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 18, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I'm hoping she's fled the country under a cloud of shame.


 
Her comments have been burned and buried by Olympic flame hysteria probably


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 18, 2012)

Maybe she's just hiding in her walk-in wardrobe till the fuss dies down.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 18, 2012)

Looks like she is hiding out in Mid Germany


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 18, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Looks like she is hiding out in Mid Germany


Mit wem?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 18, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Looks like she is hiding out in Mid Germany


 
Samantha Brick should have offered her refuge in France


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 18, 2012)

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/europe-gone-too-far.293567/


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 18, 2012)

Bad Hersfeld?


----------



## 8115 (May 19, 2012)

That indy article,

Sunday Times article...quoted a Whitehall official on benefit recipients: "If we want them to tap dance, then they will tap dance."

Sure that's one person off the record presumably, but it worries me that's the prevailing attitude in whitehall towards people who claim benefits.  Personally I've always stayed away from them as much as possible (I have claimed but only sporadically and done everything I can to avoid it).  I don't tap dance for any motherfucker.


----------



## Frances Lengel (May 19, 2012)

hunnie said:


> shocking how anyone could say such a thing this family are going through so much loseing 6 beautifull children  put it on you tube treelover!


 

well maybe not put it on youtube, don't get me wrong, I'm as disgusted with Malone as you are, but it's one family's private tragedy - maybe not milk it to make political points without the consent of at least one family member.


----------



## Frances Lengel (May 19, 2012)

8115 said:


> That indy article,
> 
> Sunday Times article...quoted a Whitehall official on benefit recipients: "If we want them to tap dance, then they will tap dance."
> 
> Sure that's one person off the record presumably, but it worries me that's the prevailing attitude in whitehall towards people who claim benefits. Personally I've always stayed away from them as much as possible (I have claimed but only sporadically and done everything I can to avoid it). I don't tap dance for any motherfucker.


 
If we want them to tap dance they will tap dance - Who's them and who's we? And how can _anyone_ think it's alright to make people jump through stupid hoops just to get money to live in a world that isn't of their own making?


----------



## 8115 (May 19, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> If we want them to tap dance they will tap dance - Who's them and who's we? And how can _anyone_ think it's alright to make people jump through stupid hoops just to get money to live in a world that isn't of their own making?


 
Innit.  I don't mind jumping through hoops, but tap dancing?  Fuck off


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 19, 2012)

I blame the Lionel Blairites


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 19, 2012)

> The person who did this can only be a psychopath, with motivations far outside the general run of human understanding. Those who claim to see logic behind this heinous crime, however warped, do nothing but shame and degrade themselves.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/19/mick-mairead-philpott-derby-fire


----------



## treelover (May 19, 2012)

That article seems rather truncated...


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 19, 2012)

treelover said:


> Thats article seems rather truncated...


 
You mean it looks almost like there might have been another paragraph, talking about how, by whom and where it was "suggested that this act of immense barbarism was in response to Mick Philpott's perverse "celebrity status"" that has been edited out?

I'm sure I have no idea what you mean


----------



## Gingerman (May 19, 2012)

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...ts-is-dangerously-out-of-control-7763793.html
Malone's got previous.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 21, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...ts-is-dangerously-out-of-control-7763793.html
> Malone's got previous.


 I was going to link to that article but I can see you've already beaten me to it. There's parts of Jones I'm not comfortable with, but that article is great.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 21, 2012)

Peanutter said:


> Just found this forum, and have signed up. Seemed like a nice place full of nice people. Hope 'nice' isn't an insult around here....



You're obviously reading the wrong threads.


----------



## Nylock (May 21, 2012)

lol


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2012)

Would you like to buy a copy of Workers' Girder, Peanutter?


----------



## Nylock (May 21, 2012)

"The Worker's Girder" -infiltrating the dialectic of the left one thread at a time...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 25, 2012)

This has come up on the BBC
*Derby fire deaths: Police plea over 'rumours and speculation'*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-18202992


and in other news.....the Carole Malone wikipedia page seems to have been heavily edited...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 29, 2012)

BBC breaking news. A man and woman arrested on suspicion of murder.....


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 29, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> BBC breaking news. A man and woman arrested on suspicion of murder.....


I think it could be the parents....same ages, anyway
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-18250397


----------



## madzone (May 29, 2012)

Jesus


----------



## weepiper (May 29, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I think it could be the parents....same ages, anyway
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-18250397


 
I wondered that and went and checked but the other news articles I'd seen said Mick Philpott is 53, not 55. I really really hope it's not


----------



## trashpony (May 29, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I think it could be the parents....same ages, anyway
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-18250397


That's what they're reporting in other news sources.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ldren-killed-Derby-house-arrested-murder.html (apols for Fail link)


----------



## gabi (May 29, 2012)

The Mail's reporting that it is them


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 29, 2012)

I've seen his age as 53, 54 and 55. 
I hope it's not the parents too. The two people originally arrested then released were part of the family too. It may just be the case that in murder you look at family and then if you can eliminate them, you move outwards.


----------



## trashpony (May 29, 2012)

My friend reminded me that there was something similar a few years' ago - when a bloke set fire to his house for insurance or something and thought he'd be able to get the kids out and failed.

I dunno - I think I'd prefer it if it was an attempt to burn your house down that went badly wrong rather than a psycho deliberately trying to kill a load of little kids


----------



## spliff (May 29, 2012)

gabi said:


> The Mail's reporting that it is them


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ldren-killed-Derby-house-arrested-murder.html


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 29, 2012)

Just on BBC news


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 29, 2012)

If it does turn out to be the parents I wonder if Carole Malone will claim it's a result of an appalling shortage of affordable housing...........


----------



## DownwardDog (May 29, 2012)

Didn't Philpott get a bit stabby with his previous girlfriend?


----------



## yardbird (May 29, 2012)

DownwardDog said:


> Didn't Philpott get a bit stabby with his previous girlfriend?


 
*BENEFIT SCROUNGERS*
*Page **1** | **2** | **3**| **4**| **5**| **6**| **7*







Unemployed father of 14, Mick Philpott claims that his four-bedroom council house in Allenton is far too cramped for him to share with his wife, girlfriend and eight of their children. The city council has told him that it is unable to help at the moment, but Mr Philpott said, "They always come up with the same excuses. They're just not good enough. I love my country, but at the moment I feel ashamed of it. I think the country is going down the pan."

Mr Philpott's girlfriend, Lisa Willis, is expecting his 15th child, and he claims that when two more of his children visit at weekends he has to sleep in a tent. Mr Philpott lives with his wife, Mairead. The family live on £508 per week benefits, which are awarded to the two women, along with income from Mrs Philpott's part-time job as a domestic assistant. Mick Philpott admitted he was jailed for seven years at Nottingham crown court in 1978 for the attempted murder of a woman he had been living with. He said, "That's one of the reasons no one will give me a job today."


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2012)

spliff said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ldren-killed-Derby-house-arrested-murder.html


 
Arrested on *suspicion* of murder, whereas the _Fail_ is, in it's inimitably class-prejudiced way, attempting to make this sound as if they've already been *charged* with murder.


----------



## madzone (May 29, 2012)

£500 a week for 16 of them is fuck all. I would have thought they were getting more than that


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I think it could be the parents....same ages, anyway
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-18250397


 
Oh my God.


----------



## grit (May 29, 2012)

Its them according to the BBC.


----------



## trashpony (May 29, 2012)

madzone said:


> £500 a week for 16 of them is fuck all. I would have thought they were getting more than that


I saw that. Fucking peanuts


----------



## barney_pig (May 29, 2012)

doesn't matter if they are ever even charged, they are already tried, judged and banged to rights as far the grand tribunal of public opinion is concerned


----------



## Kippa (May 29, 2012)

So far as predjudice and discrimination is concerned do you think the UK can and/or will get much much worse?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> doesn't matter if they are ever even charged, they are already tried, judged and banged to rights as far the grand tribunal of public opinion is concerned


 
Yup. Mud sticks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2012)

Kippa said:


> So far as predjudice and discrimination is concerned do you think the UK can and/or will get much much worse?


 
It can and will (not least because of the media's love for setting up binary oppositions) get much worse, especially as the economy drags. Much easier to look for spurious scapegoats than to attack the real source of the problem.


----------



## marty21 (May 29, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> If it does turn out to be the parents I wonder if Carole Malone will claim it's a result of an appalling shortage of affordable housing...........


 she might well do, but housing a family of 15 kids is only possible if you build a place big enough - and imagine the stink by the tabloids if a council built an enormous house for a huge family like that. I know of some 10 bed houses that were built for large families by Housing Associations - usually they are instructed by the Local Authority to do so - I don't know if Derby were planning this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2012)

marty21 said:


> she might well do, but housing a family of 15 kids is only possible if you build a place big enough - and imagine the stink by the tabloids if a council built an enormous house for a huge family like that. I know of some 10 bed houses that were built for large families by Housing Associations - usually they are instructed by the Local Authority to do so - I don't know if Derby were planning this.


 
Don't need to imagine the stink, marty. Those of us in our middle years can probably all remember several cases of similar that the nationals and the broadcast media went to town on. Easy stories, you see.


----------



## Geri (May 29, 2012)

Oh Christ, the benefit bashers on MSE are going to love this.


----------



## elbows (May 29, 2012)

Geri said:


> Oh Christ, the benefit bashers on MSE are going to love this.


 
They may, although at the same time their case is subtly undermined by these events because they further demonstrate that the family in question here are far from typical. I don't expect them to notice.


----------



## Nylock (May 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Arrested on *suspicion* of murder, whereas the _Fail_ is, in it's inimitably class-prejudiced way, attempting to make this sound as if they've already been *charged* with murder.


Not only that but note the screaming CAPSLOCK on the word MURDER to draw your attention straight to that, thus somewhat obfuscating the second line of the heading that includes the word 'Suspicion'...

I hope to god it ain't them and that the police are just following leads and such... If it does turn out to be them, right-wing trolls like malone et al will be fucking unbearable and an already toxic public discourse regarding benefit claimants will go from general low-level nastiness and snide-ness* to out and out victimisation and vilification 

*E2A: in comparison to what will happen if it IS them


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2012)

Nylock said:


> Not only that but note the screaming CAPSLOCK on the word MURDER to draw your attention straight to that, thus somewhat obfuscating the second line of the heading that includes the word 'Suspicion'...
> 
> I hope to god it ain't them and that the police are just following leads and such... If it does turn out to be them, right-wing trolls like malone et al will be fucking unbearable and an already toxic public discourse regarding benefit claimants will go from general low-level nastiness and snide-ness* to out and out victimisation and vilification
> 
> *E2A: in comparison to what will happen if it IS them


 
I totally agree.


----------



## agricola (May 29, 2012)

The front of tomorrow's _Sun_ is - according to the BBC News papers preview - a big picture of Mick and Mairead Philpott weeping at the press conference.

With the words "YOU'RE NICKED" underneath.



edit:  and here it is


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2012)

agricola said:


> The front of tomorrow's _Sun_ is - according to the BBC News papers preview - a big picture of Mick and Mairead Philpott weeping at the press conference.
> 
> With the words "YOU'RE NICKED" underneath.


oh dear


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2012)

And again the implication that they've been charged.


----------



## Nylock (May 29, 2012)

agricola said:


> The front of tomorrow's _Sun_ is - according to the BBC News papers preview - a big picture of Mick and Mairead Philpott weeping at the press conference.
> 
> With the words "YOU'RE NICKED" underneath.
> 
> ...


And here we go.... This is going to get so ugly...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 29, 2012)

Also on the Sun's front page: fat people cost "us" millions, the royals are great, woo olympics!


----------



## albionism (May 30, 2012)

Biggest selling newspaper in the U.K 
I really fucking despair.


----------



## colette (May 30, 2012)

If and only IF it is proven to be them and people like Carole Malone and her ilk try to say that it is indicative of everyone on benefits perhaps it should be insisted that Harold Shipman must be indicative of all the middle classes then!


----------



## Ld222 (May 30, 2012)

Seen this on Facebook, thought it was a bit crude to say the least.

https://www.facebook.com/#!/paul.burgman


----------



## Gingerman (May 30, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-18261680
Tabloids are going to have a fucking collective orgasm  if they're convicted


----------



## agricola (May 30, 2012)

The Guardian are reporting that the parents have been charged with these murders.


----------



## Fedayn (May 30, 2012)

agricola said:


> The Guardian are reporting that the parents have been charged with these murders.


 
As are the BBC.


----------



## moomoo (May 30, 2012)

Oh, God, no!


----------



## weepiper (May 30, 2012)

Fucking hell.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 30, 2012)




----------



## elbows (May 30, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-18261680
> Tabloids are going to have a fucking collective orgasm if they're convicted


 
Yes but as I probably already suggested, the wider propaganda aims of the tabloids are at least partially limed by the fact that any horrific acts perpetrated by someone from this family will further demonstrate that they are not typical of a wider section of society. I know peoples opinions are not always neatly arranged along such logical paths, and the worst examples get used to soil the reputation of a wider group, but when you get a case that makes people shout 'monster' I do think some of the unpleasant politics of class etc at least ceases to be the most important aspect of the story in many peoples minds.

Does a case such as this generate new hate that spills over and targets others, or does it absorb existing hate that would otherwise have been pointed elsewhere?


----------



## elbows (May 30, 2012)

And I suspect we will find out how much horrific twisted political mileage the tabloid get out of it only when the time comes where the question of motive rises to the fore. Im not going to start speculating on that, but the point I was trying to make in my previous post would likely be more relevant if, for example, the motives have nothing to do with benefits or financial status but matters of the heart or head that cannot easily be claimed are prevalent amongst a whole section of the great unwashed.


----------



## moomoo (May 30, 2012)

What motive could there possibly be?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 30, 2012)

That Sun headline...cocksure it was....do you think they were tipped off before charges were brought?


----------



## OneStrike (May 30, 2012)

moomoo said:


> What motive could there possibly be?



The father is on record as wanting a larger property and frustrated at the council for not obliging.  I suppose some think the idea was to burn the house down but it went so terribly wrong with such tragic consequences.  I know no more than anyone else about what really happened.


----------



## Geri (May 30, 2012)

moomoo said:


> What motive could there possibly be?


 
Well - *if *they did it, I'm kind of hoping it was something that went horribly wrong, e.g. an insurance fraud, because I just can't believe that someone who is by all accounts a very good father, would want to deliberately hurt his own kids.


----------



## Quartz (May 30, 2012)

I do wish the press would remember that presumption of innocence applies.


----------



## bi0boy (May 30, 2012)

Geri said:


> Well - *if *they did it, I'm kind of hoping it was something that went horribly wrong, e.g. an insurance fraud, because I just can't believe that someone who is by all accounts a very good father, would want to deliberately hurt his own kids.


 
They've been charged with murder. Not reckless arson or whatever.


----------



## Nylock (May 30, 2012)

After copping some grief for her prior nastiness regarding this family, a vindicated carole malone is going to be fucking impossible on this matter. This is going to get very nasty from some quarters. Very nasty indeed...


----------



## agricola (May 30, 2012)

Quartz said:


> I do wish the press would remember that presumption of innocence applies.


 
Only to them, it seems.


----------



## agricola (May 30, 2012)

Nylock said:


> After copping some grief for her prior nastiness regarding this family, a vindicated carole malone is going to be fucking impossible on this matter. This is going to get very nasty from some quarters. Very nasty indeed...


 
Thats the thing though, she was still wrong - indeed she is even more wrong than she was initially.


----------



## Quartz (May 30, 2012)

Words just fail me; this is such a sad affair. My nephew and niece are going to get thoroughly spoiled this weekend.


----------



## krtek a houby (May 30, 2012)

Talking to people at my so-called "bleeding heart liberal" workplace about this. The response is uniformly, without dissent, the same. "Knew it".



And not just work, heard it on the bus and in the local. Awful, awful, awful.


----------



## Gingerman (May 30, 2012)

Nylock said:


> After copping some grief for her prior nastiness regarding this family, a vindicated carole malone is going to be fucking impossible on this matter. This is going to get very nasty from some quarters. Very nasty indeed...


 Irrespective of how this awful situation plays out Malone is still a horrible,reprehensible,ignorant gobshite,that'll never change.


----------



## Nylock (May 31, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> Irrespective of how this awful situation plays out Malone is still a horrible,reprehensible,ignorant gobshite,that'll never change.


True enough.. I should have put the 'vindicated' in my OP in speech marks to make it clear that i don't believe that this vindicates her at all (or gets her off the hook). Unfortunately i didn't bother to proofread before posting so i hope i haven't given any wrong impression there...


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 31, 2012)

I would usually be the first at the front of the queue to pull the metaphorical trigger on people who commit this sort of crime but if, and I cannot imagine it really being a deliberate act to kill those poor children, this was some stupid fucked up stunt designed to push them up the housing ladder then I struggle to imagine what sort of punishment could be imposed on these moronic, ignorant fucks beyond what they already have to put up with every time they look in the mirror in the morning.

If guilty then they have to be locked up for a long long time probably for their own protection but its a crime that just makes me want to weep buckets because the sheer scale of waste of human life, on all sorts of levels, is a modern horror story that is almost beyond comprehension.


----------



## yardbird (May 31, 2012)

This whole business is so, so sad 
It does however, draw attention to the dreaded press conference scenario with the tears and anguish put out there for all to see.
Did I read that _they asked_ for the press conference?
Made me wonder.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2012)

i'm afraid after all the weepy press conferences in which the weeper consequently gets arrested, whenever i see a weepy press conference begging for help, my eyebrows leap into my hairline in cynicism...,

with this case, sadly there were only ever two realistic outcomes - that it had been a hate crime against 'scroungers', or some tragic consequence of dynamics/issues within the family/wider family.

the concensus of opinion in my circle was the latter, with a misguided and frighteningly ignorant attempt to gain sympathy and a bigger home as the front runner. bloody tragic.


----------



## Greebo (May 31, 2012)

Whatever comes out at the trial, IMHO that family have been very badly let down.  There should have been enough support and help in place to prevent whatever led to this.

If they set fire to their own home (which remains to be proved), I very much doubt that they intended any of their children to die.  Destroying where you live is one thing, killing your own flesh and blood is another, and I don't think many parents could do it deliberately and while thinking straight.

Even if they did it deliberately and knew that some of their children might be killed by the fire, they must have been under unimaginable pressure to even think it looked like a good idea, let alone act on it.


----------



## Streathamite (May 31, 2012)

I really don't think we should be leaping tgo conclusions or judgement quite yet. as we all know, OB are very, very far from infallible


----------



## Streathamite (May 31, 2012)

agricola said:


> Only to them, it seems.


nice one.


----------



## paulhackett (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> i'm afraid after all the weepy press conferences in which the weeper consequently gets arrested, whenever i see a weepy press conference begging for help, my eyebrows leap into my hairline in cynicism...,


 
There was a programme that mentioned police putting John Tanner up in a press conference for police to see how he reacted (he was later convicted). There are lots of other examples where it's used (when Shannon? went missing and the mother was later jailed).

Even then it's always hard to believe.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Whatever comes out at the trial, IMHO that family have been very badly let down. There should have been enough support and help in place to prevent whatever led to this....


 
i don't know, i think thats a let off - the Father, certainly is a lucid, articulate man. he does not give the impression of someone who needs 'help' making decisions, he just seems to have made lots of bad ones all on his own.

you can argue that the Children have been let down, but if you read the thread you can see that there'd be no shortage of people condemning Social Services for getting involved just because the family are, to use a lovely phrase, 'Kyle-fodder'. you can't argue that someone has the right to make their own decisions about their lifestyle but doesn't have to take responsibility for the consequences of those decisions - _he_ decided to have far more kids than he could possibly look after, _he_ decided that somehow it would be a good idea to move his Girlfriend in with his Wife, and _he_ decided to seek publicity for his 'cause' by going on TV and didn't for one second consider that some people might not be ecstatic at the concept of buying a wife-beater who doesn't appear to have worked a day in his life a new house because he doesn't like condoms.

before this happened they were great - sticking it to 'the man' and his Daily Mail reading wife - now its all gone tits up its suddenly Social Services fault...


----------



## Greebo (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> i don't know, i think thats a let off - the Father, certainly is a lucid, articulate man. he does not give the impression of someone who needs 'help' making decisions, he just seems to have made lots of bad ones all on his own.
> <snip>
> before this happened they were great - sticking it to 'the man' and his Daily Mail reading wife - now its all gone tits up its suddenly Social Services fault...


Did I mention social services even once?  FWIW presenting as lucid and articulate is no proof of an individual who won't snap and act on impulse, given the right set of circumstances.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Did I mention social services even once? FWIW presenting as lucid and articulate is no proof of an individual who won't snap and act on impulse, given the right set of circumstances.


 
you were the one wo mentioned 'help and support' - who else but Social Services was going to be the agency providing that, MI6?


----------



## Greebo (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> you were the one wo mentioned 'help and support' - who else but Social Services was going to be the agency providing that, MI6?


Since when should agencies be the only support for large families?  What happened to the community around them, or friends and family?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 31, 2012)

...and I think they got a lot of support from the church.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 31, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Did I mention social services even once? FWIW presenting as lucid and articulate is no proof of an individual who won't snap and act on impulse, given the right set of circumstances.


 

Houses did not get set on fire by way of petrol being poured through letter boxes by way of an 'impluse'. It is by nature, and hence why arson attracts the sentences it does, a deliberate and calulated act on the part of the person doing this.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Since when should agencies be the only support for large families? What happened to the community around them, or friends and family?


 
they appear to have alienated their community - and even if they hadn't, why is it always someone elses job to provide 'support'?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> they appear to have alienated their community - and even if they hadn't, why is it always someone elses job to provide 'support'?


I don't think it is, but the secret of a happy life is mutual support and meaningful interaction with the people around you.


----------



## Greebo (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> they appear to have alienated their community - and even if they hadn't, why is it always someone elses job to provide 'support'?


Because IMHO nobody is born to make such bad choices.  Nobody was flawed beyond hope right from the beginning.  But even if you refuse to accept that, it's still the joint responsibility of society as a whole (including the government and what remains of the welfare state).  Why?  Because it's easier to spread the burden rather than leave it to a few to deal with in isolation.  Never mind about the father's criminal record and his inclination to not use contraception, what about the wife and the previous girlfriend?


----------



## Blagsta (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> they appear to have alienated their community - and even if they hadn't, why is it always someone elses job to provide 'support'?


There's this thing called "society", you see. Maybe you don't.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I don't think it is, but the secret of a happy life is mutual support and meaningful interaction with the people around you.


 
i'd agree with that - but one of the fundamentals of achieving that is not to alienate those around you, which this family appear to have done with some aplomb. its also woth noting that 'neighbourly-ness' means i'll take in parcels for you, or trim your side of the hedge while i'm doing mine, or that i'll find some made-up reason to ring next doors doorbell to make sure they're ok without letting them know that i think they're getting a bit frail to be living on their own - what it doesn't mean is you parking your extranious children in my spare room.


----------



## Blagsta (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> what it doesn't mean is you parking your extranious children in my spare room.



Who has done that? That's awful!


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2012)

Greebo said:


> ...what about the wife and the previous girlfriend?


 
being blunt, does being thick as soup no longer carry a penalty?

'hmm, i've just met this bloke down the pub - he'd thirty years older than me, got ten kids, never had a job and did 5 years for stabbing a woman: i think he's a keeper...'


----------



## Greebo (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> being blunt, does being thick as soup no longer carry a penalty?
> 
> 'hmm, i've just met this bloke down the pub - he'd thirty years older than me, got ten kids, never had a job and did 5 years for stabbing a woman: i think he's a keeper...'


Being equally blunt, who raised those individuals to be "thick as soup"?  Who had a hand in making the wife's other options so unappealing by comparison?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> what it doesn't mean is you parking your extranious children in my spare room.


Well, sometimes it does. I've taken in other people's kids in an emergency. Two over Christmas/New Year once when their house caught fire (not arson).


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, sometimes it does. I've taken in other people's kids in an emergency. Two over Christmas/New Year once when their house caught fire (not arson).


 
i've done something similar - and i'm very pleased to say that someones did it for me: what neither you, nor i, nor the woman who had me over to stay when my brother went into hospital did was to give their spare rooms to people who couldn't stop having children they had no room for.

isn't that what is really meant by 'help and support' - they were completely over-crowded and needed more room, so their community should have helped alleviate that over-crowding by taking in this blokes children?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 31, 2012)

Well, actually replacing social housing that got sold under right-to-buy might be a good thing. Then we wouldn't be in this housing mess in the first place. My family had to wait five years to get rehoused to somewhere suitable for a guide dog, and we were near the top of the emergency waiting list. In the end we had to give up a council tenancy and move over to Housing Association because so much social housing became privately owned.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, actually replacing social housing that got sold under right-to-buy might be a good thing. Then we wouldn't be in this housing mess in the first place. My family had to wait five years to get rehoused to somewhere suitable for a guide dog, and we were near the top of the emergency waiting list. In the end we had to give up a council tenancy and move over to Housing Association because so much social housing became privately owned.


 
you'll not find me defending 'right-to-buy', or the failure to use the money from it to build new social housing - conversely, how many of the homes that should have been built would been suitable for a family of 3 adults and 10+ kids, and perhaps more controversially, why should any of them have been suitable for such a family?


----------



## Blagsta (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> i've done something similar - and i'm very pleased to say that someones did it for me: what neither you, nor i, nor the woman who had me over to stay when my brother went into hospital did was to give their spare rooms to people who couldn't stop having children they had no room for.
> 
> isn't that what is really meant by 'help and support' - they were completely over-crowded and needed more room, so their community should have helped alleviate that over-crowding by taking in this blokes children?



So what happens to the kids?


----------



## Blagsta (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> you'll not find me defending 'right-to-buy', or the failure to use the money from it to build new social housing - conversely, how many of the homes that should have been built would been suitable for a family of 3 adults and 10+ kids, and perhaps more controversially, why should any of them have been suitable for such a family?


Why should any be suitable? This is a joke question, right?


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Why should any be suitable? This is a joke question, right?


 
why is it a joke - does the community/society/state that 'helps and supports' have an unending duty to pay for the choices of others?

10 kids, 20 kids, 30 kids, 40 kids - at what point do you have the right to say 'they're your problem'?


----------



## Blagsta (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> why is it a joke - does the community/society/state that 'helps and supports' have an unending duty to pay for the choices of others?
> 
> 10 kids, 20 kids, 30 kids, 40 kids - at what point do you have the right to say 'they're your problem'?



You don't. Kids are people, people who need looking after, people who will grow up damaged if they're not. Damage that will probably cost much more in the long run.

You make having kids sound like choosing wallpaper. Yes, some parents are irresponsible. Society picks up the pieces. What else do you propose?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 31, 2012)

Some people like large families. My eldest daughter has six kids. My other two kids don't want kids at all and that's fine too. I don't want to see forced abortions, hysterectomies (eg China, Khazakstan) or on the other hand, making people have children when they don't want them (eg Romania).


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Some people like large families....


 
i like lots of things, but i either can't afford afford them, so can't have them, or can afford them but they're bad for me - like pizzas and kebabs - so i don't eat them. much.

i'm not that keen on forced abortions either, but fortunately i saw a thing in the paper the other day about this new thing - it was, like, clingfilm that you put on your cock, you could buy them in shops (or even get them free from your doctor), and it stops you making babies. it turns out theres something similar for women - they take a pill or something. obviously its not had time to catch on yet...

we want another baby, but because my wife as just changed jobs she wouldn't get paid maternity leave - so we have to wait, knowing that if we wait the chances of her concieving reduce. so, amazingly, we make our own decisions about whether to have another baby, and we get to live with, and be responsible for, the consequences of that decision. so why is it that because we both work, and try to work if we aren't working, and we try to get decisions about our family right, we have to make sacrifices while those who make no effort to get those decisions right, and make no effort to manage the consequences of those decisions, have to make no sacrifices as a result of their decisions?


----------



## rover07 (May 31, 2012)

Don't worry, kebabking, i'll pay for their kids.

(Im not paying for your wife's maternity leave or your child benefit though. Someone else can do that.)


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> i like lots of things, but i either can't afford afford them, so can't have them, or can afford them but they're bad for me - like pizzas and kebabs - so i don't eat them. much.
> 
> i'm not that keen on forced abortions either, but fortunately i saw a thing in the paper the other day about this new thing - it was, like, clingfilm that you put on your cock, you could buy them in shops (or even get them free from your doctor), and it stops you making babies. it turns out theres something similar for women - they take a pill or something. obviously its not had time to catch on yet...
> 
> we want another baby, but because my wife as just changed jobs she wouldn't get paid maternity leave - so we have to wait, knowing that if we wait the chances of her concieving reduce. so, amazingly, we make our own decisions about whether to have another baby, and we get to live with, and be responsible for, the consequences of that decision. so why is it that because we both work, and try to work if we aren't working, and we try to get decisions about our family right, we have to make sacrifices while those who make no effort to get those decisions right, and make no effort to manage the consequences of those decisions, have to make no sacrifices as a result of their decisions?


 
None of which addresses the point about what we (as a society) should do to help the children; helping them not be born is no answer.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Belushi (May 31, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You don't. Kids are people, people who need looking after, people who will grow up damaged if they're not. Damage that will probably cost much more in the long run.
> 
> You make having kids sound like choosing wallpaper. Yes, some parents are irresponsible. Society picks up the pieces. What else do you propose?


 
This, kids are people not property.


----------



## Blagsta (May 31, 2012)

So kebabking, what do you propose would happen to these kids? You've been curiously quiet on the issue.


----------



## Streathamite (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> i like lots of things, but i either can't afford afford them, so can't have them, or can afford them but they're bad for me - like pizzas and kebabs - so i don't eat them. much.


ye gods. Children are NOT directly comparable witrh bloody pizzas!


> i'm not that keen on forced abortions either, but fortunately i saw a thing in the paper the other day about this new thing - it was, like, clingfilm that you put on your cock, you could buy them in shops (or even get them free from your doctor), and it stops you making babies. it turns out theres something similar for women - they take a pill or something. obviously its not had time to catch on yet...


yes, and these can and do fail, and sometimes people simply get, well, over-excited


----------



## Zabo (May 31, 2012)

There are some on here who get so far up their own arses in looking for every ludicrous psycho-socio-economic reason to explain or even mitigate what was a truly an evil act - setting fire to a house and destroying the lives of innocent children while asleep is precisely that - evil.

As Stoat Boy says: "Houses did not get set on fire by way of petrol being poured through letter boxes by way of an 'impluse'. It is by nature, and hence why arson attracts the sentences it does, a deliberate and calculated act on the part of the person doing this." 

If what he says is accurate then let the sentence fit the crimes  on whoever committed this act. Like it or not it will be your peers or fellow citizens who will make the final decision as to guilt or innocence.


----------



## Blagsta (May 31, 2012)

Zabo said:


> There are some on here who get so far up their own arses in looking for every ludicrous psycho-socio-economic reason to explain or even mitigate what was a truly an evil act


Name names!


----------



## Greebo (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> i like lots of things, but i either can't afford afford them, so can't have them,<snip>why is it that because we both work, and try to work if we aren't working, and we try to get decisions about our family right, we have to make sacrifices while those who make no effort to get those decisions right, and make no effort to manage the consequences of those decisions, have to make no sacrifices as a result of their decisions?


Sweetie, your arguements are increasingly fatuous.

Nobody knows for certain what the future holds - what if the first few children were conceived when it still looked as though there was a chance of being able to get a job which would support the entire family? What if the parents had had it drummed into them from an early age that abortion is murder and every child (even if an accident) is a blessing? What if contraception just doesn't work for you?

I know one woman who ended up having more children than she'd intended because several different types of contraception (including condoms) failed, she was refused a sterilisation every time that she requested it (until her final child, when they offered it as part of the caesarian) and she and her husband believed abortion was wrong.

You wonder where's your reward for doing the right and responsible thing as you understand it? IMHO your prize is a somewhat easier life than you'd otherwise have at this point. You had the luck to be raised and nurtured with the ability to make sensible choices; in other circumstances you could have become like Mr Philpott.


----------



## smokedout (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> we want another baby, but because my wife as just changed jobs she wouldn't get paid maternity leave - so we have to wait, knowing that if we wait the chances of her concieving reduce. so, amazingly, we make our own decisions about whether to have another baby, and we get to live with, and be responsible for, the consequences of that decision. so why is it that because we both work, and try to work if we aren't working, and we try to get decisions about our family right, we have to make sacrifices while those who make no effort to get those decisions right, and make no effort to manage the consequences of those decisions, have to make no sacrifices as a result of their decisions?


 
I take it you have never once in your life had unprotected sex then?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 31, 2012)

Greebo said:


> she was refused a sterilisation every time that she requested it


That happened to me too. They felt I didn't realise the implications  so we saved up and I had it done at Marie Stopes. Best £300 I ever spent (probably more now, this was 22 years ago).


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> wdoes the community/society/state that 'helps and supports' have an unending duty to pay for the choices of others?


Quadriplegic with neck broken in motorbike accident? Remove the breathing tube, it was his choice!


----------



## Nylock (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> i like lots of things, but i either can't afford afford them, so can't have them, or can afford them but they're bad for me - like pizzas and kebabs - so i don't eat them. much.
> 
> i'm not that keen on forced abortions either, but fortunately i saw a thing in the paper the other day about this new thing - it was, like, clingfilm that you put on your cock, you could buy them in shops (or even get them free from your doctor), and it stops you making babies. it turns out theres something similar for women - they take a pill or something. obviously its not had time to catch on yet...
> 
> we want another baby, but because my wife as just changed jobs she wouldn't get paid maternity leave - so we have to wait, knowing that if we wait the chances of her concieving reduce. so, amazingly, we make our own decisions about whether to have another baby, and we get to live with, and be responsible for, the consequences of that decision. so why is it that because we both work, and try to work if we aren't working, and we try to get decisions about our family right, we have to make sacrifices while those who make no effort to get those decisions right, and make no effort to manage the consequences of those decisions, have to make no sacrifices as a result of their decisions?


The sarcasm in this post makes you come across as a bit of a cock tbh...


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Quadriplegic with neck broken in motorbike accident? Remove the breathing tube, it was his choice!


 
accident.

15 kids is not an accident. 1 is an accident - our first was - 15 is willfull indifference.


----------



## Blagsta (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> accident.
> 
> 15 kids is not an accident. 1 is an accident - our first was - 15 is willfull indifference.


So what happens to the kids in your preferred world? Come on, you must have an idea.


----------



## stuff_it (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> accident.
> 
> 15 kids is not an accident. 1 is an accident - our first was - 15 is willfull indifference.


Or religion plus a half decent sex life.


----------



## Streathamite (May 31, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> That happened to me too. They felt I didn't realise the implications  so we saved up and I had it done at Marie Stopes. Best £300 I ever spent (probably more now, this was 22 years ago).


your lad is over 22 now? 
fuck that makes me feel old


----------



## Citizen66 (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:
			
		

> accident.
> 
> 15 kids is not an accident. 1 is an accident - our first was - 15 is willfull indifference.



Large families should only be enjoyed by the wealthy.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 31, 2012)

@ streathamite
My eldest is nearly 38


----------



## purenarcotic (May 31, 2012)

I actually don't know where I stand on anybody having 15 kids, regardless of their wealth.  Not because of society picking up the pieces or owt like that, but because of the effect that potentially has on the children; I wonder how on earth 15 kids can receive enough attention from their parents and also on the extent to which older siblings need to take on 'parental' roles in order to help look after the younger siblings.  Certainly I've seen a few docus on large families where the older siblings (some only 12 or 13) become the 'go to' for comfort or other needs that the younger siblings wanted; it was something totally recognised by the mother that her slightly older kids were semi-parenting the younger ones.  It struck me that from a very early age these kids were having to take on far more responsibility than they should have had to IMO. 

But if that's what people want to do, that's what they want to do innit.  Perhaps I'm being overly prejudiced about it. I certainly don't think you should only be allowed a large family if you're wealthy, that's all bullshit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2012)

Stoat Boy said:


> Houses did not get set on fire by way of petrol being poured through letter boxes by way of an 'impluse'. It is by nature, and hence why arson attracts the sentences it does, a deliberate and calulated act on the part of the person doing this.


 
So it was part of someone's "nature" to commit arson, some inborn, inescapable genetic inheritance?

You ignorant dickwipe. You genetic-determinist, socio-biology-loving shitpipe.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> they appear to have alienated their community - and even if they hadn't, why is it always someone elses job to provide 'support'?


 
It isn't, but that's what "community" is about - you know, people doing right by one another?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> you'll not find me defending 'right-to-buy', or the failure to use the money from it to build new social housing - conversely, how many of the homes that should have been built would been suitable for a family of 3 adults and 10+ kids, and perhaps more controversially, why should any of them have been suitable for such a family?


 
"Such a family"? Who the fuck are you (or I) to make moral judgements? So you don't approve of them, well boo-fucking-hoo!


----------



## bi0boy (May 31, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> So it was part of someone's "nature" to commit arson, some inborn, inescapable genetic inheritance?
> 
> You ignorant dickwipe. You genetic-determinist, socio-biology-loving shitpipe.


 
I think he said "It is by nature....a deliberate and calculated act", meaning you can't accidentally it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2012)

kebabking said:


> why is it a joke - does the community/society/state that 'helps and supports' have an unending duty to pay for the choices of others?


 
In any decent society the majority don't mind *too much* paying for the choices of a tiny minority. It's known as tolerance.



> 10 kids, 20 kids, 30 kids, 40 kids - at what point do you have the right to say 'they're your problem'?


 
You can say it whenever you like. You're entitled to your opinion. That's one of the benefits of living in a tolerant(ish) society.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2012)

bi0boy said:


> I think he said "It is by nature....a deliberate and calculated act", meaning you can't accidentally it.


 
No, he didn't say "...a deliberate and calculated act", just the first bit, hence my reply. That *may* have been what he *meant*, but it wasn't what he *said*.


----------



## _angel_ (May 31, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I actually don't know where I stand on anybody having 15 kids, regardless of their wealth. Not because of society picking up the pieces or owt like that, but because of the effect that potentially has on the children; I wonder how on earth 15 kids can receive enough attention from their parents and also on the extent to which older siblings need to take on 'parental' roles in order to help look after the younger siblings. Certainly I've seen a few docus on large families where the older siblings (some only 12 or 13) become the 'go to' for comfort or other needs that the younger siblings wanted; it was something totally recognised by the mother that her slightly older kids were semi-parenting the younger ones. It struck me that from a very early age these kids were having to take on far more responsibility than they should have had to IMO.
> 
> But if that's what people want to do, that's what they want to do innit. Perhaps I'm being overly prejudiced about it. I certainly don't think you should only be allowed a large family if you're wealthy, that's all bullshit.


Was fairly common once upon a time. My Grandma was one of thirteen.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Quadriplegic with neck broken in motorbike accident? Remove the breathing tube, it was his choice!


 
And of course once you indulge in that kind of proto-utilitarian thinking once, where do you stop? Removal of children at birth from "problem families" and "over-breeders"? Harvesting organs from that quadriplegic before you remove his breathing tube? Forcing abortions on people with hereditary genetic problems?


----------



## marty21 (May 31, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Was fairly common once upon a time. My Grandma was one of thirteen.


 my dad was one of 14, my mum was one of 10


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> your lad is over 22 now?
> fuck that makes me feel old


 
I get that feeling every time I see any of my nephews, nieces or G-dchildren.


----------



## paulhackett (May 31, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> And of course once you indulge in that kind of proto-utilitarian thinking once, where do you stop? Removal of children at birth from "problem families" and "over-breeders"?


 
That happens in the UK doesn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2012)

paulhackett said:


> That happens in the UK doesn't it?


 
Yes, but in a contextually-different situation to what I'm suggesting. Currently it's a practice in (thankfully) isolated use by social services depts. What I'm saying is - where do you stop? Do you set people a quota of kids, then snatch any kids they produce that are "over-quota"?


----------



## purenarcotic (May 31, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Was fairly common once upon a time. My Grandma was one of thirteen.


 
Aye, likewise a few of my great something or another's were one of 12.  One was one of 18 I think but several died early on sadly. 

I'm not saying it fucks them up awfully or anything like that, but there are undoubtably going to be some challenges for the kids.  I think it would be naive to suggest otherwise tbh.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 31, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Aye, likewise a few of my great something or another's were one of 12. One was one of 18 I think but several died early on sadly.
> 
> I'm not saying it fucks them up awfully or anything like that, but there are undoubtably going to be some challenges for the kids. I think it would be naive to suggest otherwise tbh.


Well, there are challenges for only children, or families with big gaps (eg my eldest is 11 years older than the middle sibling and 15 years older than the youngest). As long as it's a loving family, that's all that matters.


----------



## _angel_ (May 31, 2012)

Why does everyone keep on going about the size of the family. I don't care about that. I don't care about them being on benefits but I do care about whether their parents burned their kids house down and killed them all. They've been charged now apparently, the news was going to say something about it but had to cut to the oh so more important media spectacle of Leveson inquiry.
I really hope they didn't do it but if they did they need to be removed from life for as long as humanely possible.
What sort of idiot thinks pouring petrol thru a door will somehow be okay. If they really did do it, why not wait until everyone was out at least?


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

Its not possible to discuss that properly without speculating about motive. I have thoughts on that, but I will resist sharing them till the trial.


----------



## Giles (May 31, 2012)

People also shouldn't read anything into the fact that they have been charged with murder, as opposed to arson, manslaughter or anything else. They generally seem to start with the most serious offence possible, and then move down the scale later. Isn't there some legal reason behind this? I seem to remember that there is.

Giles..


----------



## trashpony (May 31, 2012)

Giles said:


> People also shouldn't read anything into the fact that they have been charged with murder, as opposed to arson, manslaughter or anything else. They generally seem to start with the most serious offence possible, and then move down the scale later. Isn't there some legal reason behind this? I seem to remember that there is.
> 
> Giles..


I think that if you start a fire deliberately and you know there are people in the house and they die, you're charged with murder. That's pretty much my understanding of the law anyway.


----------



## twentythreedom (May 31, 2012)

Has there been any comment from that hatchet-faced bitch Malone re the arrests and charges?


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, he didn't say "...a deliberate and calculated act", just the first bit, hence my reply. That *may* have been what he *meant*, but it wasn't what he *said*.


 
It is, fwiw. Just been reading the thread, noticed your response VP, so just thought I'd point out that bi0boy was correct. hth....

That is all. As you were!


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2013)

The trial has begun, and the alleged motives are a mix of both the head/heart/control/revenge stuff I hinted at, but also gain that the tabloids may try to have a field day with. I suspect they won't be able to make the most sick political mileage out of it though because there aren't many people who'd hae that mix of motives and carry out such a plan as a result. As the trial is ongoing I am still being somewhat careful about what I'm saying.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-21387791


----------



## trashpony (Feb 12, 2013)

The tabloids absolutely are going to have a field day with this.


----------



## Nylock (Feb 13, 2013)

trashpony said:


> The tabloids absolutely are going to have a field day with this.


As will the bottom-feeders that populate their comments sections...


----------



## Giles (Feb 13, 2013)

Nylock said:


> As will the bottom-feeders that populate their comments sections...


 
They probably won't allow "reader comments" at all while there is a trial taking place - too much risk of people saying things that are against the legal rules.

They'll have to wait until they are convicted, assuming that they are, of course.

Giles..


----------



## likesfish (Feb 13, 2013)

The bloke was a control freak who kept all the cash apprantly the woman who left was astonished at how much money she was actually entitled too hardly a fortune to bring up 5 kids but way way more than she had been getting.

Violent control freak loses control of woman and cash


----------



## yardbird (Mar 27, 2013)

The jury's out.


----------



## agricola (Apr 2, 2013)

yardbird said:


> The jury's out.


 
Mick Philpott guilty of manslaughter (edit: unanimous) of all kids. Waiting for the rest of the verdicts.

edit: Mairead guilty as well on all counts, 10-2 majority.
edit2:  Moseley guilty as well.


----------



## treelover (Apr 2, 2013)

Well, I was wrong, but Malone would have said that even if there had been no grounds for suspicion...


----------



## Geri (Apr 2, 2013)

It appears that Mick Philpott has a previous conviction for attempted murder - he stabbed an ex-girlfriend 13 times as she lay in bed, then turned on her mother.

The bloke is a fucking psychopath.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 2, 2013)

> Before leaving the dock, Mick Philpott was heard to say: "It's not over yet."


 
That's true. Your life sentence is only just beginning you scumbag.


----------



## Giles (Apr 2, 2013)

Hmmmm ...... murdered his six children.

He will be popular in prison!

He sounds like a complete control freak maniac, since he was young.

Giles..


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 2, 2013)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/02/mick-philpott-violent-control-freak
Sounds like an utter and total cunt


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2013)

Giles said:


> Hmmmm ...... murdered his six children.
> 
> He will be popular in prison!
> 
> ...


He didn't murder them.
He caused their deaths.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 2, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> He didn't murder them.
> He caused their deaths.


 
i'm sure his fellow prisoners will be sure to make that distinction - prison being known as a place where a fine grasp of legal technicality and moral nuance is commonplace...

he poured petrol through his letterbox then lit it while his children were inside the house - while i fully accept that he did not set out to kill his children, such actions take the definition of manslaughter well beyond the standard 'we had a fight, the man fell after being punched and hit his head on the pavement and this caused his death' understanding of the difference between manslaughter and murder.


----------



## BlackArab (Apr 2, 2013)

Sadly you're both right


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2013)

what a fucking sorry tale.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2013)

kebabking said:


> i'm sure his fellow prisoners will be sure to make that distinction - prison being known as a place where a fine grasp of legal technicality and moral nuance is commonplace...
> 
> he poured petrol through his letterbox then lit it while his children were inside the house - while i fully accept that he did not set out to kill his children, such actions take the definition of manslaughter well beyond the standard 'we had a fight, the man fell after being punched and hit his head on the pavement and this caused his death' understanding of the difference between manslaughter and murder.


Why do people keep mentioning his fellow prisoners? What have they got to do with it?


----------



## kebabking (Apr 2, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Why do people keep mentioning his fellow prisoners? What have they got to do with it?


 
he will, at some stage, have some interaction with other prisoners, even if (for his own protection) its on the nonce wing. attacks on child killers by other prisoners are not unknown, and someone like Phillpot, a 'spectacular' child-killer, and also something of a 'big man' with a long history of violence and intimidation, will make a particularly juicy target for any prisoner looking to make a reputation for himself.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2013)

kebabking said:


> he will, at some stage, have some interaction with other prisoners, even if (for his own protection) its on the nonce wing. attacks on child killers by other prisoners are not unknown, and someone like Phillpot, a 'spectacular' child-killer, and also something of a 'big man' with a long history of violence and intimidation, will make a particularly juicy target for any prisoner looking to make a reputation for himself.


Have you got a hard on?


----------



## kebabking (Apr 2, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Have you got a hard on?


 
no, oddly i don't find the somewhat bizaare codes of 'honour' among the criminal classes much of a turn on - or of any real interest - but then i'm a bit odd that way.

why, are you tumescient?


----------



## agricola (Apr 2, 2013)

Apologies for reposting this from the £53 thread, but in case anyone hasnt seen it already:


----------



## idumea (Apr 2, 2013)

I thought I couldn't be surprised by the depths the Mail sunk to but then I saw their front page tomorrow. I actually despair. 'Bred'?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 2, 2013)

The Daily Mail is a vile product of welfare UK


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2013)

kebabking said:


> no, oddly i don't find the somewhat bizaare codes of 'honour' among the criminal classes much of a turn on - or of any real interest - but then i'm a bit odd that way.
> 
> why, are you tumescient?


Then why are you dwelling on what the lags are going to do to Philpott?


----------



## agricola (Apr 2, 2013)

idumea said:


> I thought I couldn't be surprised by the depths the Mail sunk to but then I saw their front page tomorrow. I actually despair. 'Bred'?


 
I suppose it could have been worse - after all, they could be praising him for saving thousands of pounds in welfare payments as the result of his actions.


----------



## Giles (Apr 2, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> He didn't murder them.
> He caused their deaths.


 
I know he did not get done for murder.

But that's a bit like saying "I swung an axe at his head, I didn't mean to kill him though, his head just .... fell off".

If you set a house on fire, deliberately, with petrol, knowing there's people (children!) sleeping upstairs, you either meant to kill them, or at least didn't give a shit if you did or not.

Giles..


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2013)

Not really.
It's also possible to be so daft that you don't think anyone is going to get killed.


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 2, 2013)

Hour long special on the box here, i'm assuming it is only showing in the midlands? The guy is a prick, I can understand how the original rumours of local vigilantes starting the fire came about at the time.


edit:  that is a real Mail copy?  ffs, i'd seen it on twitter and thought it wasn't too far a stretch.


----------



## Plumdaff (Apr 2, 2013)

It truly beggars belief that the Mail has printed a picture of those children below that headline. The whole thing is bad enough anyway, but jesus, to actually make that decision to use them....it's fucking despicable, what mentality justifies that?


----------



## shygirl (Apr 2, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> It truly beggars belief that the Mail has printed a picture of those children below that headline. The whole thing is bad enough anyway, but jesus, to actually make that decision to use them....it's fucking despicable, what mentality justifies that?


 
This.


----------



## fogbat (Apr 2, 2013)

Funnily enough, I know of a young man who tried to burn down a house with a pregnant woman and her parents inside.

He was an upper middle class boy, though, so it's understandable that the Mail missed that one.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 2, 2013)

Oh, but he was surely of good character previous to this, er, incident...

As for Philpott, he was nothing but a psychopathic, narcissistic bastard. Didn't give a crap about anyone but himself. Its hard to know what to think of his wife in all of this. She was clearly totally dominated and oppressed by him, perhaps she'd lost all sense of her own being and will? She didn't even spend time with her dying son....that is just so, so sad.


----------



## treelover (Apr 2, 2013)

agricola said:


> I suppose it could have been worse - after all, they could be praising him for saving thousands of pounds in welfare payments as the result of his actions.


 

if only all cops were as humane as you...


----------



## agricola (Apr 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> if only all cops were as humane as you...


 
Hey, I was just suggesting what the Mail might have said.


----------



## Thora (Apr 3, 2013)

shygirl said:


> Its hard to know what to think of his wife in all of this. She was clearly totally dominated and oppressed by him, perhaps she'd lost all sense of her own being and will? She didn't even spend time with her dying son....that is just so, so sad.


Both the women were in their mid-teens when they met him, single mothers, no family, survivors of child abuse, rape and domestic violence already - he certainly knew his "type".


----------



## salem (Apr 3, 2013)

shygirl said:


> As for Philpott, he was nothing but a psychopathic, narcissistic bastard. Didn't give a crap about anyone but himself. Its hard to know what to think of his wife in all of this. She was clearly totally dominated and oppressed by him, perhaps she'd lost all sense of her own being and will? She didn't even spend time with her dying son....that is just so, so sad.


From what I've heard of her (and 'his' other women) she is certainly a victim of him. However she was still an active participant who potentially could have done something to stop this happening, she lacked the moral fibre and guts to do so. That fact and how she stuck by him even after the fire shows just how damaged she is and for that I have a lot of sympathy for her. I guess she'll get a shorter sentence then him (although will have to live with her actions which will be worse than any prison sentence).

Mick, well he's one of life's fuckups. A nasty piece of work and no doubt the product of a fucked up past himself but somehow I find it harder to feel any sympathy for him. It's just a shame society allowed him to thrive for so long.


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 3, 2013)

Thora said:


> Both the women were in their mid-teens when they met him, single mothers, no family, survivors of child abuse, rape and domestic violence already - he certainly knew his "type".


 
I couldn't possibly like your post, given the nature of it.  Take this as a sickened agreement.


----------



## agricola (Apr 3, 2013)

salem said:


> From what I've heard of her (and 'his' other women) she is certainly a victim of him. However she was still an active participant who potentially could have done something to stop this happening, she lacked the moral fibre and guts to do so. That fact and how she stuck by him even after the fire shows just how damaged she is and for that I have a lot of sympathy for her. I guess she'll get a shorter sentence then him (although will have to live with her actions which will be worse than any prison sentence).


 
Perhaps, though battered people - especially if its bad abuse inflicted on repeated occasions over a long period of time - can often act in ways that are very far removed from logical courses of action.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 3, 2013)

There's a new petition doing the rounds



> *The IPCC and the British Public: Boycott the Daily Mail for Blaming the Philpott Killings on Welfare State*
> 
> https://www.change.org/en-GB/petiti...laming-the-philpott-killings-on-welfare-state


----------



## Balbi (Apr 3, 2013)

VILE PRODUCT OF MEDICAL SCHOOL: HAROLD SHIPMAN

VILE PRODUCT OF CHRISTIAN VALUES: OLIVER CROMWELL

VILE PRODUCT OF GREENGROCERS: LADY THATCHER

VILE POST HOC: ERGO PROPTER HOC


----------



## two sheds (Apr 3, 2013)

VILE PRODUCT OF SEX OBSESSED MIDDLE ENGLAND: THE DAILY MAIL


----------



## Balbi (Apr 3, 2013)

VILE PRODUCT OF CATHOLICISM: TONY BLAIR

Working for the mail's a piece of piss.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 3, 2013)

weird how philpott and mosley look the same: 
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4871008/mick-philpott-stabbed-me-27-times-says-ex.html


----------



## Geri (Apr 3, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> There's a new petition doing the rounds


 
What's the point of that? No right minded person buys it anyway.


----------



## seeformiles (Apr 3, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> weird how philpott and mosley look the same:
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4871008/mick-philpott-stabbed-me-27-times-says-ex.html


 
I noticed that - long lost brother or something?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 3, 2013)

Geri said:


> What's the point of that? No right minded person buys it anyway.


 
no idea 

Thought someone might be interested though.  It's not a very successful campaign though


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 3, 2013)

Geri said:


> What's the point of that? No right minded person buys it anyway.


 
There's a fuck load of wrong headed folk then. Over 2 million a day buy the fucker.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 3, 2013)

Balbi said:
			
		

> VILE PRODUCT OF MEDICAL SCHOOL: HAROLD SHIPMAN
> 
> VILE PRODUCT OF CHRISTIAN VALUES: OLIVER CROMWELL
> 
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## Geri (Apr 3, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> There's a fuck load of wrong headed folk then. Over 2 million a day buy the fucker.


 
Well, yes. Even more buy The Sun.


----------



## treelover (Apr 3, 2013)

agricola said:


> Hey, I was just suggesting what the Mail might have said.


 

Hey up, it was a compliment...


----------



## treelover (Apr 3, 2013)

> VILE PRODUCT OF MEDICAL SCHOOL: HAROLD SHIPMAN
> 
> VILE PRODUCT OF CHRISTIAN VALUES: OLIVER CROMWELL
> 
> ...


 
Gove will understand the last one..


----------



## Falcon (Apr 3, 2013)

agricola said:


> Apologies for reposting this from the £53 thread, but in case anyone hasnt seen it already:


 
Is that reference to £60,000 annual benefit income likely to be plausible?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 3, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Is that reference to £60,000 annual benefit income likely to be plausible?


 
The Sun reckons he was getting £4000 a month, which makes £48,000 a year. Bearing in mind it's being split among how many, twenty people? It's not that much.


----------



## Maltin (Apr 3, 2013)

weepiper said:


> The Sun reckons he was getting £4000 a month, which makes £48,000 a year. Bearing in mind it's being split among how many, twenty people? It's not that much.


It says £4000 from the two women. Presumably he got some benefits of his own.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 3, 2013)

Maltin said:


> It says £4000 from the two women. Presumably he got some benefits of his own.


 
I doubt he'd be eligible for anything. Maybe JSA but that only accounts for £3692 a year. You can only get housing benefit once per address iyswim and the same applies to tax credits for the kids


----------



## Falcon (Apr 3, 2013)

weepiper said:


> I doubt he'd be eligible for anything. Maybe JSA but that only accounts for £3692 a year. You can only get housing benefit once per address iyswim and the same applies to tax credits for the kids


And all of that is tax free, I suppose?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 3, 2013)

Well that is sort of the point about tax credits, yeah


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 3, 2013)

Falcon said:


> And all of that is tax free, I suppose?


 
Do you think tax credits should be taxable? Interesting.


----------



## Falcon (Apr 3, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Do you think tax credits should be taxable? Interesting.


Nope.

I'm calibrating his income. A working person would have to earn £90,000 a year before tax to have a net income of £60,000. That puts Mr Philpott somewhere between the 95th and 99th income percentile.

Now *that's* interesting.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 3, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Nope.
> 
> I'm calibrating his income. A working person would have to earn £90,000 a year before tax to have a net income of £60,000. That puts Mr Philpott somewhere between the 95th and 99th income percentile.
> 
> Now *that's* interesting.


It's neither interesting nor accurate because, as previously discussed, the figure is the combined income of two or three adults with 11 dependants and is not comparable to one person's salary.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 4, 2013)

7 minutes in

http://www.channel4.com/news/government-treating-disabled-people-generously


----------



## treelover (Apr 4, 2013)

Awful awful woman, shows the calibre of who gets to the top in Uk politics these days...


----------



## yardbird (Apr 4, 2013)

"Hang on a minute"
"Hang on a minute"

Not the best governmental representative.


----------



## Falcon (Apr 4, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> It's neither interesting nor accurate because, as previously discussed, the figure is the combined income of two or three adults with 11 dependants and is not comparable to one person's salary.


I appreciate it may not be accurate - it's not clear, for example, whether it includes the income from the women, who receive tax credit. But even dividing it by three still puts each adult inhabitant of the "household" in the 70th income percentile.

I appreciate this may not be interesting to those of you who are familiar with the benefit system. To those of us who aren't, it is. By all means, clarify.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 4, 2013)

Falcon said:


> I appreciate this may not be interesting to those of you who are familiar with the benefit system. To those of us who aren't, it is. By all means, clarify.


 
I'm not familiar with it and I find it as dull as ditchwater. If you're that interested just google it like I did. Find out for us what benefits Fred and Rose West were on while you're at it.


----------



## Falcon (Apr 4, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> I'm not familiar with it and I find it as dull as ditchwater. If you're that interested just google it like I did. Find out for us what benefits Fred and Rose West were on while you're at it.


Yes I could do that. And I will get what google dishes up - the opinions of the Mail, the Sun and all the other anti-welfare sentiments. I was hoping to obtain informed opinion, in a "discussion forum".


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 4, 2013)

the spirit of honest inquiry strikes again


----------



## golightly (Apr 4, 2013)

Anyone listen to AN Wilson on the Today programme this morning?  I was too busy shouting at the radio and leaving to go to work to listen to the debate properly, but it didn't sound like he was particularly bothered about the criticism of his piece.  I'll have to listen to it when I get home.


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2013)

golightly said:


> Anyone listen to AN Wilson on the Today programme this morning?  I was too busy shouting at the radio and leaving to go to work to listen to the debate properly, but it didn't sound like he was particularly bothered about the criticism of his piece.  I'll have to listen to it when I get home.


Yes, I listened to it. He was absolutely and unshakeably staunch in the defence of his piece and completely unconcerned by epithets such as repugnant levelled at his views. Horrible.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 4, 2013)

never has the term posh twat been so applicable than for AN Wilson.


----------



## two sheds (Apr 4, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Yes I could do that. And I will get what google dishes up - the opinions of the Mail, the Sun and all the other anti-welfare sentiments. I was hoping to obtain informed opinion, in a "discussion forum".


 
To answer the question we'd first need to know the total costs of feeding and clothing (etc) a child nowadays. Also relevant is the cost of taking all the kids into care. Otherwise of course - which I presume is the Daily Mail's favoured option - we could just let them starve.


----------



## Falcon (Apr 4, 2013)

two sheds said:


> To answer the question we'd first need to know the total costs of feeding and clothing (etc) a child nowadays. Also relevant is the cost of taking all the kids into care. Otherwise of course - which I presume is the Daily Mail's favoured option - we could just let them starve.


Do we? 3 adults, 11 children and £90,000 a year is (conservatively) three times 1 adult, 4 children and £30,000 a year (a 75th percentile income). For those of us that grew up in a household with one working adult on 50th percentile income, one non working adult (a "housewife", as they were called in those days) and three siblings, the claim that current welfare arrangements are inadequate is difficult to understand.

Hence my request for clarification.


----------



## yardbird (Apr 4, 2013)

Sentencing is now underway


----------



## mentalchik (Apr 4, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Do we? 3 adults, 11 children and £90,000 a year is (conservatively) three times 1 adult, 4 children and £30,000 a year (a 75th percentile income). For those of us that grew up in a household with one working adult on 50th percentile income, one non working adult (a "housewife", as they were called in those days) and three siblings, the claim that current welfare arrangements are inadequate is difficult to understand.


 
really , this tired old argument


----------



## yardbird (Apr 4, 2013)

Mick Philpott - Life. Minimum 15 years. Probably never released.
Wife - 17 years. Parole after 8 poss
Mosley - 17 years. Parole after 8 poss


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 4, 2013)

yardbird said:


> Mick Philpott - Life. Minimum 15 years. Probably never released.
> Wife - 17 years. Parole after 8 poss
> Mosley - 17 years. Parole after 8 poss


 
Sounds about right. Maybe his wife should have got a bit less.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 4, 2013)

This Morning discussing it again and how papers hijacking the story to slate benefits


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 4, 2013)

I'm sure bod from The Sun just used the word *Welfarism*. Is that a word?


----------



## tommers (Apr 4, 2013)

yardbird said:


> Mick Philpott - Life. Minimum 15 years. Probably never released.
> Wife - 17 years. Parole after 8 poss
> Mosley - 17 years. Parole after 8 poss


 
Good.  Is that the maximum for manslaughter?


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 4, 2013)

tommers said:


> Good. Is that the maximum for manslaughter?


 
Life? Yes it is.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 4, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I'm sure bod from The Sun just used the word *Welfarism*. Is that a word?


 

its part of the ongoing attempt to hijack the language of left discourse by exploiting the old prism of multiculturalism. See also: the poshos trying to make out they are a persecuted identity group


----------



## tommers (Apr 4, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> Life? Yes it is.


 
Yeah   I meant the minimum term.


----------



## Poot (Apr 4, 2013)

golightly said:


> Anyone listen to AN Wilson on the Today programme this morning?  I was too busy shouting at the radio and leaving to go to work to listen to the debate properly, but it didn't sound like he was particularly bothered about the criticism of his piece.  I'll have to listen to it when I get home.


Ah. I wondered what the stream of obscenities coming from the kitchen was this morning. My other half must have heard it on the radio.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 4, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Do we? 3 adults, 11 children and £90,000 a year is (conservatively) three times 1 adult, 4 children and £30,000 a year (a 75th percentile income). For those of us that grew up in a household with one working adult on 50th percentile income, one non working adult (a "housewife", as they were called in those days) and three siblings, the claim that current welfare arrangements are inadequate is difficult to understand.
> 
> Hence my request for clarification.



Some of the money was from the women's part time work too. It isn't a clear enough picture to say with all honesty that they were getting £60,000 _in benefits_.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 4, 2013)

Mick Philpott murdered six of his own kids. He's going to spend a few days getting a kicking from his fellow residents, and a shitload of time on the seg.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 4, 2013)

He'll go on the numbers.


----------



## Garek (Apr 4, 2013)

Horrible case. I can't help but feel sorry for Mairead Philpott though. As for Mick Philpott it's good that he got life. Couldn't really have been anything less than that.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 4, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22025881

scumbag.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 4, 2013)

a rathre wry comment from DM of all places: 
'Well, he certainly got his wish to live in a bigger place. A great, big prison! For life!'


----------



## Poot (Apr 4, 2013)

Garek said:


> Horrible case. I can't help but feel sorry for Mairead Philpott though. As for Mick Philpott it's good that he got life. Couldn't really have been anything less than that.


It's tempting to feel sorrow for mairead philpott but since we weren't in the courtroom we can't really speculate about her motives or her actions. I wondered whether she had been coerced by her husband, who appears to be a dominating character, but a jury found her guilty of manslaughter, so she must have known what she was doing.


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 4, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> a rathre wry comment from DM of all places:
> 'Well, he certainly got his wish to live in a bigger place. A great, big prison! For life!'


 

He should be castrated before he is released.
- Andrew, Aylesbury, 4/4/2013 12:46


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 4, 2013)

eeek! lacks the wit of the previous one methinks. there is loads of 'hang em' rhetoric on far right pages if you're feeling brave!!!


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 4, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> eeek! lacks the wit of the previous one methinks. there is loads of 'hang em' rhetoric on far right pages if you're feeling brave!!!


 
Hang em, kill em..... maybe we need Sharon Law down in that London


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 4, 2013)

actually the DM comments are more extreme than the fash!


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 4, 2013)

Poot said:


> It's tempting to feel sorrow for mairead philpott but since we weren't in the courtroom we can't really speculate about her motives or her actions. I wondered whether she had been coerced by her husband, who appears to be a dominating character, but a jury found her guilty of manslaughter, so she must have known what she was doing.


 
Her own sister put it quite well I think when she said something like 'Maireed was a victim of Mick as well but she should have put the kids first'.  The man is clearly a horrible manipulative bully but she still went along with a plan to start a fire in a house her kids were sleeping in.  So some sympathy yes but only to a limit.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 4, 2013)

and what is the older kid indicating behind philpott?


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Do we? 3 adults, 11 children and £90,000 a year is (conservatively) three times 1 adult, 4 children and £30,000 a year (a 75th percentile income). For those of us that grew up in a household with one working adult on 50th percentile income, one non working adult (a "housewife", as they were called in those days) and three siblings, the claim that current welfare arrangements are inadequate is difficult to understand.
> 
> Hence my request for clarification.


Both women worked. In-work benefits (excluding child-related benefits) typically leave people with about 50% more income after rent than someone who is unemployed and wholly dependent on benefits.

You'd need to know the rent on their house and how much council tax benefit they received to know how much actual cash the family were getting.

There are benefits calculators out there. You can play with them if you like.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 4, 2013)

gues which paper? 'At long last - EVIDENCE in a court case that shows those poor kids were bred for benefits. This judgment has finally proved it once and for all. No more liberal hand wringing. 100 k and the kids were still starving. Food vouchers not our cash!'


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Her own sister put it quite well I think when she said something like 'Maireed was a victim of Mick as well but she should have put the kids first'.  The man is clearly a horrible manipulative bully but she still went along with a plan to start a fire in a house her kids were sleeping in.  So some sympathy yes but only to a limit.


There's one lurid detail about the case that I would rather not repeat that indicates the level of coercion Philpott used on his wife. She must have been really scared of him.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> Both women worked. In-work benefits (excluding child-related benefits) typically leave people with about 50% more income after rent than someone who is unemployed and wholly dependent on benefits.
> 
> You'd need to know the rent on their house and how much council tax benefit they received to know how much actual cash the family were getting.
> 
> There are benefits calculators out there. You can play with them if you like.


 

Falcon claims not to know how to work google. Indeed it claimed not to know how to google for jewish orgs who are against israels current leadership. Before loudly demanding that all jews denounce israel or be considered complicit. Its a hardbaked wingnut.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 4, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> There's one lurid detail about the case that I would rather not repeat that indicates the level of coercion Philpott used on his wife. She must have been really scared of him.


 
Perhaps, probably.

Its interesting that in the run up to or during the trial she never broke rank and confessed.  Her legal team must have strongly suggested it to her, the game was clearly up and she could have got herself a much more lenient sentence.  For whatever reason she didn't and that is all the court had to go and all we have to go on.


----------



## Poot (Apr 4, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> There's one lurid detail about the case that I would rather not repeat that indicates the level of coercion Philpott used on his wife. She must have been really scared of him.


Oh.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Perhaps, probably.
> 
> Its interesting that in the run up to or during the trial she never broke rank and confessed.  Her legal team must have strongly suggested it to her, the game was clearly up and she could have got herself a much more lenient sentence.  For whatever reason she didn't and that is all the court had to go and all we have to go on.


That kind of power of a bully over a victim has a lot of reach. Even when the bully is locked up.


----------



## Garek (Apr 4, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Her own sister put it quite well I think when she said something like 'Maireed was a victim of Mick as well but she should have put the kids first'. The man is clearly a horrible manipulative bully but she still *went along with* a plan to start a fire in a house her kids were sleeping in. So some sympathy yes but only to a limit.


 
Doesn't sound there was any mental room her head not to. And she's paid the price for that by losing all her children.

17 years, life, the twisted fantasies of some Daily Mail commenter, I doubt there is anything that can be done to her that is worse than that.

Not saying I think she is excused or not excused, just that I find it hard not to think of her as a victim of patriarchy and a violent misogynistic bastard.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 4, 2013)

bred for benefits?


----------



## Poot (Apr 4, 2013)

Garek said:


> Doesn't sound there was any mental room her head not to. And she's paid the price for that by losing all her children.
> 
> 17 years, life, the twisted fantasies of some Daily Mail commenter, I doubt there is anything that can be done to her that is worse than that.
> 
> Not saying I think she is excused or not excused, just that I find it hard not to think of her as a victim of patriarchy and a violent misogynistic bastard.



I want to feel that the justice system is watertight and I don't think women deserve special favours, but I find it interesting that Vicky Pryce was able to use an old law on 'marital coercion' whereas mairead philpott was not. I'm sure it has nothing to do with her class


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> That kind of power of a bully over a victim has a lot of reach. Even when the bully is locked up.


Yes. She got a 10-2 rather than a unanimous verdict, which suggests at least some of the jury were very conflicted. He does sound like a proper full on psychopath. Violence and manipulation is what he does. She wasn't even allowed her own front door key, ffs.

I doubt it's possible to punish her any further. Just hope she gets proper help inside.


----------



## tommers (Apr 4, 2013)

I think the thing that makes me angriest about this is that it was all so unnecessary.  Who comes up with a plan where you set light to a house that has 6 of your kids in it?  It's inconceivable.  He put his stupid little concerns above the lives of his kids, I really can't comprehend it.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 4, 2013)

Poot said:


> I want to feel that the justice system is watertight and I don't think women deserve special favours, but I find it interesting that Vicky Pryce was able to use an old law on 'marital coercion' whereas mairead philpott was not. I'm sure it has nothing to do with her class


 
Pryce wasn't, it was laughed out of court and pissed the judge off.  If anything this case would have been a more suitable time for it to be applied but she 'chose' to plead not-guilty.


----------



## Poot (Apr 4, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Pryce wasn't, it was laughed out of court and pissed the judge off.  If anything this case would have been a more suitable time for it to be applied but she 'chose' to plead not-guilty.


Oh, I see. I didn't realise it had been laughed out of court.


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

Partly because it didn't legally apply to her circumstances. It actually does apply in this case, but it's an arcane bit of law and probably not the best route. Pryce was clutching at straws.


----------



## Poot (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> Partly because it didn't legally apply to her circumstances. It actually does apply in this case, but it's an arcane bit of law and probably not the best route. Pryce was clutching at straws.


That's why I don't want to feel sorry for mairead philpott. If she was found guilty of manslaughter and jailed for 17 years, she must have been jointly responsible for the deaths of 6 children and not coerced into it. Right? 17 years is a long time if that's not the case.


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 4, 2013)

my facebook is awash with fucking idiots who can't read headlines....

most think he's only got 15 years....


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

Poot said:


> That's why I don't want to feel sorry for mairead philpott. If she was found guilty of manslaughter and jailed for 17 years, she must have been jointly responsible for the deaths of 6 children and not coerced into it. Right? 17 years is a long time if that's not the case.


 
Her defence failed. I'm not in a position to second guess the jury, but I do feel for her. I had a lucky escape from a far less serious version of her situation. I lost all sense of personal autonomy. It never occurred to me that I was allowed to leave him. In the end my brain shut down and others got me away. There was no one to help her.

In the judge's comments, she notes that Mairead refused to give him a divorce 3 times, and that this showed she had some autonomy. I assume this was the prosecution argument that the jury bought.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 4, 2013)

Free Mick Philpott says George Osborne.


> *Chancellor George Osborne has questioned whether the state should be paying for the lifestyles of people like Mick Philpott.*


 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 4, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Free Mick Philpott says George Osborne.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035


 
people like him made the mick philpott's of this world possible.


----------



## Garek (Apr 4, 2013)

Poot said:


> That's why I don't want to feel sorry for mairead philpott. If she was found guilty of manslaughter and jailed for 17 years, she must have been jointly responsible for the deaths of 6 children and not coerced into it. Right? 17 years is a long time if that's not the case.


 
I think it is important to think a bit deeper about these things rather than just taking the results of a court case at face value.


----------



## Poot (Apr 4, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Free Mick Philpott says George Osborne.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035


I love the way he thinks the state shouldn't subsidise "lifestyles like that" as though everyone claiming benefits has 17 children by several mothers and a murderous streak.


----------



## Poot (Apr 4, 2013)

Garek said:


> I think it is important to think a bit deeper about these things rather than just taking the results of a court case at face value.


There are so many grey areas here. Even the jury don't have all the information, it's unlikely anyone will ever get to the bottom of what happened and whether anyone was coerced and if so how.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 4, 2013)

Garek said:


> I think it is important to think a bit deeper about these things rather than just taking the results of a court case at face value.


 
Thinking deeper or second guessing?

FWIW I think it was highly likely that she was scared of him to a great extent probably through fear of physical harm but perhaps even just fear of losing him.  Problem is I don't know and these are why these things are so hard.


----------



## Garek (Apr 4, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Thinking deeper or second guessing?
> 
> FWIW I think it was highly likely that she was scared of him to a great extent probably through fear of physical harm but perhaps even just fear of losing him. Problem is I don't know and these are why these things are so hard.


 
I'd agree with that.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 4, 2013)

The irony is the benefit changes will mean there are actually more people like that able to get away with murder rather than less.


----------



## RedDragon (Apr 4, 2013)

Poot said:


> I love the way he thinks the state shouldn't subsidise "lifestyles like that" as though everyone claiming benefits has 17 children by several mothers and a murderous streak.


I thought it was really distasteful for him to make a comment on it at all.


----------



## tommers (Apr 4, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Free Mick Philpott says George Osborne.


 
Bit tacky George.  No shock there then.


----------



## agricola (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> Her defence failed. I'm not in a position to second guess the jury, but I do feel for her. I had a lucky escape from a far less serious version of her situation. I lost all sense of personal autonomy. It never occurred to me that I was allowed to leave him. In the end my brain shut down and others got me away. There was no one to help her.
> 
> In the judge's comments, she notes that Mairead refused to give him a divorce 3 times, and that this showed she had some autonomy. I assume this was the prosecution argument that the jury bought.


 
TBF I think with Mairead her defence (probably at her instruction) didnt really go all out for that strategy - had they totally split from Philpott and confessed everything, with the proviso of his behaviour towards her / her vulnerabilities making her not able to effectively stop what he was doing, then its not inconcievable (given that it was 10-2 anyway) that she would have been found not guilty. Instead they seem to have half-heartedly tried to suggest that she was a victim without ever really demonstrating that she was.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 4, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Mick Philpott murdered six of his own kids. He's going to spend a few days getting a kicking from his fellow residents, and a shitload of time on the seg.


 
how much truth is in this kind of thing, con on con vengeance etc? id be surprised if a hi-profile lo-life like wd be put in general prison cicrculation. what governor would want him stiffed in their nick?


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 4, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> how much truth is in this kind of thing, con on con vengeance etc? id be surprised if a hi-profile lo-life like wd be put in general prison cicrculation. what governor would want him stiffed in their nick?


 
Huntley got stabbed as I recall.  Although that could have been about anything frankly.

I actually think Maireed Philpot will get it worse being in a woman's prison, she may not be attacked but she will forever carry with her the tag of a woman who killed her own children.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 4, 2013)

yeah, and sutcliffe lost an eye i think. but in general, do 'honourable cons' give out 'people's justice'?


----------



## trashpony (Apr 4, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> yeah, and sutcliffe lost an eye i think. but in general, do 'honourable cons' give out 'people's justice'?


I think it's fairly well documented that child killers don't have a great time inside.

This is an interesting article about what a vile controlling psycho Philpott is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/02/mick-philpott-violent-control-freak


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 4, 2013)

Falcon said:


> I appreciate it may not be accurate - it's not clear, for example, whether it includes the income from the women, who receive tax credit. But even dividing it by three still puts each adult inhabitant of the "household" in the 70th income percentile.
> 
> I appreciate this may not be interesting to those of you who are familiar with the benefit system. To those of us who aren't, it is. By all means, clarify.


It also unclear whether any of the children had disabilities or whether either of the women were carers for their children or other family members. Even then, the money would have to be divided by 14 and would include the running costs of the home, it probably also includes housing benefit which is paid directly to the landlord and therefore should not be classed as income because it is not money that the claimants have at their disposal.

Personally I find this financial scrutiny quite callous and grubby minded. The worth of any life is not measurable in pound,pence and percentiles. It is an uniteresting avenue of interrogation because their circumstances are not representative of the overwhelming majority of people who are familiar with the benefits system and it tells us absolutely nothing about why those people did what they did.
What I find interesting is that had this family been a middle class family committing a home insurance fraud I imagine they would be viewed as misguided, irresponsible and stupid whereas because this family fits a stereotype and suit the agenda of those who might wish to dehumanise people on benefits; they are a 'vile product' operating a human puppy farm and their class dominates the reporting of the case in a way that it absolutely would not if they were of a different class. That's interesting.


----------



## treelover (Apr 4, 2013)

BBC News is reporting that the Govt is going to run with the Philpott/arch benefitscrounger theme, high risk?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 4, 2013)

God, I hope it really backfires for them. They are just horrible horrible people.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 4, 2013)

Slimy cunty thicky cuntychops.



Odious, odious man.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 4, 2013)

treelover said:


> BBC News is reporting that the Govt is going to run with the Philpott/arch benefitscrounger theme, high risk?


 
Some interesting figures here from Jon Snow's blog



> Some six months ago the excellent Channel Four News fact-checker Patrick Worrall came up with the statistic that there are thirty families in the whole of the UK with eleven children, who like Philpott, have claimed child benefit.
> 
> See this link to see the figures  – the vast majority of claimants have just one (over 600,000), or two (400,000), children. The idea that an entire system should be re-jigged to cope with a lunatic who burnt to death half the children he’d fathered seems questionable at the least.
> 
> http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-the-truth-about-the-child-benefits-cap/11739


----------



## Balbi (Apr 4, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> how much truth is in this kind of thing, con on con vengeance etc? id be surprised if a hi-profile lo-life like wd be put in general prison cicrculation. what governor would want him stiffed in their nick?


 
Sister works in drug rehab in a Cat A prison - there's certainly truth in it. Child killers, molestors, those who have killed their parents/women - all at risk.


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

Owen Jones just did a decent job on C4 News, against some ridiculous Tory child called Ruth Porter.


----------



## secateurz (Apr 4, 2013)

Gideon: Why should the taxpayer fund 'lifestyles' like those of the Philpotts?

I ask myself..why should we? Given its a tiny tiny tiny minority that have shedloads of kids..maybe you just have to accept it?  Or should there be a cap on state support for babs?


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2013)

Poot said:


> Ah. I wondered what the stream of obscenities coming from the kitchen was this morning. My other half must have heard it on the radio.


The cunt described it as a "benefits crime".


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 4, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Slimy cunty thicky cuntychops.
> 
> 
> 
> Odious, odious man.




I'd be happy to subsidise somebody burning osborne to death in his home.


----------



## secateurz (Apr 4, 2013)

he warmed up vs Guido Fawkes on This Morning earlier. I detest Owen..but he held his own!


----------



## Quartz (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> Gideon: Why should the taxpayer fund 'lifestyles' like those of the Philpotts?




The Tories have been in a position to fix it for nearly three years, so why haven't they?


----------



## secateurz (Apr 4, 2013)

What is your opinion, should the taxpayer fund it?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> What is your opinion, should the taxpayer fund it?


Fund what?

For the non-loons, worth remembering:
FactCheck: The truth about the child benefits cap


----------



## shygirl (Apr 4, 2013)

Agreed, Owen Jones very good on This Morning and C4.  I like that he raised the cases of Shipman, the guy jailed last week for killing his parents, and the millionaire who murdered his wife and daughter a few years ago, asking what do they say about doctors, inheritance and millionaires.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> What is your opinion, should the taxpayer fund it?


 
By "lifestyles", he means lives.


----------



## secateurz (Apr 4, 2013)

Lets pick an arbitrary number...lets say 4. Should the taxpayer fund and support families with more than 4 children? if so..why?





butchersapron said:


> Fund what?
> 
> For the non-loons, worth remembering:
> FactCheck: The truth about the child benefits cap


.


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> Lets pick an arbitrary number...lets say 4. Should the taxpayer fund and support families with more than 4 children? if so..why?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because they are human beings.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> Lets pick an arbitrary number...lets say 4. Should the taxpayer fund and support families with more than 4 children? if so..why?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What, loon, do you mean by fund? What do you mean by 'the taxpayer'?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2013)

Reminds me:

Taxpayers' Alliance admits director doesn't pay British tax


----------



## treelover (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> Owen Jones just did a decent job on C4 News, against some ridiculous Tory child called Ruth Porter.


 

Aye, Owen is very very incisive in these debates, bringing it back all the time to the Tories making political capital from the six bairns deaths.

he got under Smiths skin on QT as well, he just seems to have the knack, bit of a rotweiller, well a puppy one anyway...

imo, he is an asset...


----------



## weepiper (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> Lets pick an arbitrary number...lets say 4. Should the taxpayer fund and support families with more than 4 children? if so..why?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Of course we should. If no-one has kids because we can't afford it who's going to work in care homes wiping all our arses when we get old, and who's going to work to pay tax to fund them?


----------



## agricola (Apr 4, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Of course we should. If no-one has kids because we can't afford it who's going to work in care homes wiping all our arses when we get old, and who's going to work to pay tax to fund them?


 
Wealth creators in the City!


----------



## secateurz (Apr 4, 2013)

n"o one has kids" is not equal to having >4 kids. Please try again. Can it be justified?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 4, 2013)

I don't need to justify myself to the likes of you.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> n"o one has kids" is not equal to having >4 kids. Please try again. Can it be justified?


What, loon, do you mean by fund? What do you mean by 'the taxpayer'?


----------



## agricola (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> n"o one has kids" is not equal to having >4 kids. Please try again. Can it be justified?


 
Of course it can be justified.  The cost of *all* the families claiming more than £50,000 in benefits nationwide was quite a bit less than - for instance - the cost of the failed West Coast franchise attempt.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Reminds me:
> 
> Taxpayers' Alliance admits director doesn't pay British tax


 
That's so amazing


----------



## secateurz (Apr 4, 2013)

so you cant? well that just makes the point nice and easy


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> n"o one has kids" is not equal to having >4 kids. Please try again. Can it be justified?


If you want contraception to be 100% effective, universal vasectomy is the way.

If you want to prevent single parents coupling up if they already have too many kids between them, say so.

If you think it makes more sense to allow children to starve to death on the streets, or be used by gangs because there is no one else to turn to, say so. Bearing in mind that we need young workers from somewhere, so you will need to replace them with immigrants.

It doesn't matter whose children they are, they will be paying my pension. I want them to have the very best life we can possibly offer, which is very good indeed given the wealth of this country.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> so you cant? well that just makes the point nice and easy


 
It's justified because they are children. End of. Regardless of the choices of their parents. That's the moral justification.

The financial justification comes from these amounts being gnat piss when compared to those of legal tax avoidance.

Nice and easy.


----------



## _angel_ (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> What is your opinion, should the taxpayer fund it?



You should be grateful they're all dead then?


----------



## secateurz (Apr 4, 2013)

having children should be a privilege not a right. cant afford them? dont have them


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> having children should be a privilege not a right. cant afford them? dont have them


You're not very good at this. Can you say why you're not? Can you justify yourself?


----------



## agricola (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> cant afford them? dont have them


 
are you arguing against Trident now?


----------



## eatmorecheese (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> having children should be a privilege not a right. cant afford them? dont have them


 

Might it be possible to imagine a scenario where a family might experience changes in circumstance during the course of a couple of decades?


----------



## Poot (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> having children should be a privilege not a right. cant afford them? dont have them


 
How do you plan to stop it happening? What about those who already have many children to support? Would you take away their benefits and let their children starve?


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> having children should be a privilege not a right. cant afford them? dont have them


What if you could afford them and then the company you worked for went tits up? How long before we take the kids into care? That'd cost though, so perhaps you're thinking euthanasia? Within the first fortnight, or can we give them a few months grace?


----------



## andysays (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> having children should be a privilege not a right. cant afford them? dont have them


 
What about *being* a child - should that be a privilege as well?

As has already been demonstrated to anyone with a half-way open mind, we as a society can afford them.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> having children should be a privilege not a right. cant afford them? dont have them


 
Yes fine - but who should it be denied to - those who send them to private schools or those denied the fruits of their labour/blocked from paid employment. This is the key question you should answer.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 4, 2013)

This is weak sauce.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 4, 2013)

andysays said:


> What about *being* a child


 
This, kids aren't property, and whether their parents are 'deserving' or 'undeserving' is immaterial to how we as a society treat them.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 4, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Of course we should. If no-one has kids because we can't afford it who's going to work in care homes wiping all our arses when we get old, and who's going to work to pay tax to fund them?


 
Filipinos, Tamils, Slovaks, Lithuanians will be brought into work in care homes on very poor wages by the time today's thirty year olds are pensioners. Britain's current average fertility rate: 1.8. Recession means delayed conceptions for virtually all classes except the very rich.


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

We won't be importing workers by then, we'll be exporting them.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 4, 2013)

Belushi said:


> This, kids aren't property, and whether their parents are 'deserving' or 'undeserving' is immaterial to how we as a society treat them.


 
Belushi these people want "society" to strip children from undeserving parents into care homes and token rich families, 90% of them subsequently onto workfare programmes - honourable one nation Tory Michael Heseltine has strong evidence Britain is "too rich to push" for economic recovery these kind of ideas will incentivise the next generation to push harder for economic recovery. The Third World must not win!


----------



## existentialist (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> n"o one has kids" is not equal to having >4 kids. Please try again. Can it be justified?


It's not about justifying it. It's about not making the kids pay for the choices of the parents. 

Perhaps, if a significant proportion of parents on benefits were punching out kids like rabbits, the issue might warrant a bit more action. But they aren't, so it's not.


----------



## JTG (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> Lets pick an arbitrary number...lets say 4. Should the taxpayer fund and support families with more than 4 children? if so..why?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


fuck off


----------



## JTG (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> having children should be a privilege not a right. cant afford them? dont have them


fuck off


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 4, 2013)

should the children be punished for the crimes of the parents? Even my complete bastard of a god doesn't allow this.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> should the children be punished for the crimes of the parents? Even my complete bastard of a god doesn't allow this.


Mine does, unto the 7th generation


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 4, 2013)

expressly forbidden in fact, when hashem himself who's hardly known for being a particularly nice god is forbidding something on the grounds it's too harsh you have a massive massive problem on your hands.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Mine does, unto the 7th generation


 
Only for certain things tho. I doubt this was one of them.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Only for certain things tho. I doubt this was one of them.


I speak as an autotheist.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 4, 2013)

Like marrying a bastard. I wonder if marrying a leading tory fell into that category


----------



## secateurz (Apr 4, 2013)

JTG said:


> fuck off


 
are you a recipient of benefits from the state then? you seem overly touchy for this discussion


----------



## JTG (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> are you a recipient of benefits from the state then? you seem overly touchy for this discussion


fuck off


----------



## coltrane (Apr 4, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Slimy cunty thicky cuntychops.
> 
> 
> 
> Odious, odious man.




Yet it was only on Tuesday that Osborne, in reference to the IDS/David Bennet £53/week petition, said:



> *I don’t think it’s sensible to reduce this debate to an argument about one individual’s set of circumstances. *
> 
> ‘We have a welfare system where there are actually lots of benefits available to people on very low incomes, there’s jobseeker’s allowance, income support, working tax credit, council tax benefit, housing benefit, if they have children, child tax credit.
> 
> ‘*What this debate is about, it’s not about any individual,* it’s about creating a welfare system that rewards work, supports people who do the right thing, helps people who want to get on in life and has a regard for the many millions of people who work hard and pay their taxes and expect them to be well spent.


 
Today the slimebag comes out with:



> Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation; the courts are responsible for sentencing him.
> 
> "But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had.


Gideon is more fucking bewildered than his brighter namesake Ozzy.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 4, 2013)

agricola said:


> Wealth creators in the City!


 
Can't afford to run up massive gambling debts at the taxpayers expense? Then don't be an investment banker.

Oh wait ...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 4, 2013)

coltrane said:


> Yet it was only on Tuesday that Osborne, in reference to the IDS/David Bennet £53/week petition, said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gideon is more fucking bewildered than his brighter namesake Ozzy.


 
I bet he's shit at biting the heads of bats too.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 4, 2013)

A colleague told me today that a recent barrista vacancy in a local coffee shop had approx. 300 applicants. Do they honestly, _seriously _think everyone on benefits is just dicking around and playing the system?

Of course, if you want to talk about playing the system...


----------



## Gavin Bl (Apr 4, 2013)

secateurz said:


> Lets pick an arbitrary number...lets say 4. Should the taxpayer fund and support families with more than 4 children? if so..why?


 
If we aren't replacing ourselves fast enough, then it sounds like a good idea to fund them. Its those bastards who hang around after they retire, some of them past 75, the selfish swine.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 5, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Slimy cunty thicky cuntychops.
> 
> 
> 
> Odious, odious man.




Tucked away in the Telegraph report was a little clue about why Gideon went with this disgusting line....



> His intervention was welcomed by Tory backbenchers


 
Interesting, on a number of levels, that he feels the need to say this.


----------



## JTG (Apr 5, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Tucked away in the Telegraph report was a little clue about why Gideon went with this disgusting line....
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, on a number of levels, that he feels the need to say this.


 
It's bloody terrifying when you realise it means the cabinet represents the sane wing of the party


----------



## brogdale (Apr 5, 2013)

JTG said:


> It's bloody terrifying when you realise it means the cabinet represents the sane wing of the party


 
Hmmm....'_*est'...*_maybe.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 5, 2013)

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/04/domestic-violence-mick-philpott



> This case highlights more than 30 years of domestic violence – where Philpott's partners have been controlled, manipulated and terrified – not benefit abuse.
> We need to have greater support for those experiencing domestic violence, yet local services are facing the impact of spending cuts and welfare reform that threatens to undermine their funding, including measures that will impact on women seeking refuge with more than two children.


----------



## xenon (Apr 5, 2013)

Course no one killed their kid before the wellfare state. Fact.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 5, 2013)

trashpony said:


> I think it's fairly well documented that child killers don't have a great time inside.
> 
> This is an interesting article about what a vile controlling psycho Philpott is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/02/mick-philpott-violent-control-freak


 
thanks. im just a bit cynical when it comes to the bullshit 'criminal code' and 'soccer hooligans code' of not grassing, kicking when they're down etc.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 5, 2013)

secateurz said:


> are you a recipient of benefits from the state then? you seem overly touchy for this discussion


Oh dear. Lukewarm.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 5, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> thanks. im just a bit cynical when it comes to the bullshit 'criminal code' and 'soccer hooligans code' of not grassing, kicking when they're down etc.


There was a bloke who'd murdered his baby daughter who was killed in prison earlier this year iirc. And the bloke who killed Peter Connolly (Baby P) had boiling water thrown over him.

I suspect Mairead will get a particularly hard time


----------



## Balbi (Apr 5, 2013)

xenon said:


> Course no one killed their kid before the wellfare state. Fact.


 
My Dad told me about his grandmother, great grandmother and her mother - their stillborn children were left in a box outside the local church to be put into the next available grave.

My great auntie was premature, my great grandma's mother told her not to bother to feed her as she probably wouldn't be worth it - too expensive.

Grim pre-welfare times.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 5, 2013)

righto! i dont keep abreast of such things. i was watching a thing on hooligans who were on about the code where 'we never attack non-hooligans' and 'we only fight ourselves.' and i thought, i dont believe you. likewise the 'gangsters code' - 'we'd never hurt anyone who wasnt a gangster' etc. course you dont!


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 5, 2013)

Balbi said:


> My great auntie was premature, my great grandma's mother told her not to bother to feed her as she probably wouldn't be worth it - too expensive.
> 
> Grim pre-welfare times.


 
Yup my mum told me a story of when she was first a nurse in the late 60's how new born babies that were very premature or had obvious conditions, which would probably require long term treatment and/or care, were put in a separate ward and essentially left to die.  They were kept warm and had their nappies changed etc but they were not fed or watered, even some babies born with conditions such as downs would end up in this ward.  How times have changed.


----------



## _angel_ (Apr 5, 2013)

Balbi said:


> My Dad told me about his grandmother, great grandmother and her mother - their stillborn children were left in a box outside the local church to be put into the next available grave.
> 
> My great auntie was premature, my great grandma's mother told her not to bother to feed her as she probably wouldn't be worth it - too expensive.
> 
> Grim pre-welfare times.


The  stories in the Leeds Mercury make particularly grim reading especially wrt child murder and abuse.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 5, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> The  stories in the Leeds Mercury make particularly grim reading especially wrt child murder and abuse.


Have you been to the medical museum in Leeds? Lots of grim dioramas of children dying of cholera in slums


----------



## _angel_ (Apr 5, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Have you been to the medical museum in Leeds? Lots of grim dioramas of children dying of cholera in slums



No it sounds a bit grim for a fun day out wi kids tbh


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 5, 2013)

I shall mention it again elsewhere. Not the thread for it.


----------



## geminisnake (Apr 5, 2013)

Ok, I'm not sure if anyone has posted this and my eyes are too tired to read many, many pages but the torygraph have a poll for you to check out
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/997...tribute-to-the-Philpott-fire-killings.html?fb


----------



## Favelado (Apr 5, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> thanks. im just a bit cynical when it comes to the bullshit 'criminal code' and 'soccer hooligans code' of not grassing, kicking when they're down etc.


 
Well, I think old-school real hooligans would respect that rule but it only applies to around the ground before and after the match. The opposite would apply on any other night on "their" turf. Also, people who aren't in a firm but are just violent supporters are sometimes happy to threaten people in "colours" in my limited experience.

Some of the older men who were going to footy in the good/bad (delete as appropriate) old days can tell you more.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 6, 2013)

Can't view Telegraph now.

Can anyone see what their story is about living on £53?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 6, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Can't view Telegraph now.
> 
> Can anyone see what their story is about living on £53?


 
It's pretty sympathetic for the Telegraph tbh. Several interviews with people living on fuck all



> Life on £55 a week is no stunt for Debbie Garrity. It is laid out in painstaking detail in separate labelled compartments of a plastic box she keeps next to her armchair. Gas £5, Water £4, Bus Pass £12.50, Food £10. Inside a newly labelled section – Bedroom Tax – is a crisp £10 note, which means she has had to halve her shopping budget. In the Social Fund section, there is nothing at all.
> “Sometimes I would like to saw a pound in half to make it go further,” says the 45-year-old, who has a 2:1 BSE degree in health and social care and worked full-time for decades before losing her job several months ago. Outside the window of her neat flat on the sprawling Newbiggin Hall estate on the edge of Newcastle, seagulls roll in the wind. The A1 roars faintly in the distance.
> “I just feel stuck and I can’t go anywhere,” she says. “You would have thought that by my age you’d be able to have some luxuries, but sadly not. This is no quality of life at all.”


 


> Mother-of-three Lorna Sculley is in a similar predicament. She works 16 hours a week as a school kitchen assistant in Tower Hamlets (the maximum permitted before her benefits become automatically reduced) from which she earns around £90 a week on top of benefits of £371. After paying bills and outstanding debts, she is left with £50 a week to feed and clothe her family. They have spent the past two Christmases in a nearby food bank – one of hundreds now established across the country. Her three boys, aged 12, eight and two, share a bedroom in their tiny flat in the shadow of Canary Wharf, with the two eldest sleep on mattresses on the floor.
> “The weekends are the worst,” says 33‑year-old Sculley. “By then the money has been spent. I sit here and think about trying to take the kids swimming or something, and then I look at the budget and realise I can’t. Sometimes I can’t afford to put anything in the electric meter and know it will run out. We sit here with quilts around us.
> “I look out of the window at Canary Wharf, and see all the lights on those buildings and all the heat coming off them at 11pm or midnight, and wonder who on earth is in them at that time of night. I can’t work any more than my 16 hours a week, it doesn’t matter what I earn. I’m a working mum trying to do better for myself and it’s really wrong.”
> Sean, her eldest tells me at one point that his mother often goes hungry in order to feed them. She nods and falls silent.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 6, 2013)

Priti Patel is a cunt



> Priti Patel, the MP for Witham, said: “I completely support George Osborne’s comments. We are at a stage where society has to look at the way benefits are used and abused.
> “The Philpott case *typifies that* and it is absolutely legitimate to ask these kinds of questions.”


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 6, 2013)

weepiper said:


> It's pretty sympathetic for the Telegraph tbh. Several interviews with people living on fuck all


 
That's why I was curious to read it.  Everyone on Twitter's talking about

Cheers. Are you subscribed then?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 6, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> That's why I was curious to read it. Everyone on Twitter's talking about
> 
> Cheers. Are you subscribed then?


 
No - is it paywalled now? Maybe I haven't read enough articles to get locked out yet


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 6, 2013)

weepiper said:


> No - is it paywalled now? Maybe I haven't read enough articles to get locked out yet


 
treelover (I think it was) was talking about a paywall.  I had to google as no idea what it was.  Now I can't view without subscribing.

Anyway, looks like at least one person has been educated



> *Mr. Yap* ‏@*mryap*  42m
> I thought that living on £55 a week is after deducting rent and utilities. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9974373/Welfare-reform-53-a-week...-You-do-the-maths.html …


 
Wonder how many other people think like that?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 6, 2013)

Have managed to open The Telegraph using a different browser


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 6, 2013)

fear and loathing of the 'lower classes' in the sun: 

Across Britain, unshaven, unwashed people such as Philpott lived in shellsuits, lined their 

walls 

with plasma TVs, parked untaxed Range Rovers in their drives and spawned children 

subsidised by you and me at £13 each a week.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 6, 2013)

poor = dirt = disgust.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 6, 2013)

also noted very little concern in all the media over the remaining kids who now have no parents or home as well as the social stigma.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 6, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> also noted very little concern in all the media over the remaining kids who now have no parents or home as well as the social stigma.


 
Where ever they are they'll be better off than they would have been under Mick's tender ministrations.


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

DownwardDog said:


> Where ever they are they'll be better off than they would have been under Mick's tender ministrations.


The kids were well looked after, by all accounts. Not that I've read anything specifically about what they witnessed of his controlling behaviour.


----------



## Geri (Apr 6, 2013)

He threatened his ex with killing one of them and drop kicked another across the room. I suspect the mothers were the ones who did most of the looking after.


----------



## Geri (Apr 6, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> also noted very little concern in all the media over the remaining kids who now have no parents or home as well as the social stigma.


The remaining kids are with the ex, Lisa. She had taken them when she left, so they have a parent and presumably a home elsewhere. Some of his others are grown up.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 6, 2013)

Considering that witnessing domestic violence is classified as a form of child abuse, I don't suppose that the surviving kids are entirely unscathed.


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

> sarahditum
> Right, hope that sounded OK. Thanks to @BBCRadioWales for inviting me on – should be available on iPlayer from around midday.
> 
> sarahditum
> ...


Right-wingers: stupid, vicious or both.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 6, 2013)

Didn't he try to make his sons punch his wife?


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

Succeeded in getting one to punch his mother in the face and kick her. Not Lisa or Mairead, the one who managed to get away with two of his kids before, I think.


----------



## Geri (Apr 6, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Didn't he try to make his sons punch his wife?


 
I think it was one son with an ex-girlfriend. A three year old, I think!


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 6, 2013)

seems to be 2 conflicting interpretations: first that they were well behaved, good at school and there was no concern from soc. services or headteacher over their welfare. then the sister claimed 1 lad hadn't eaten for a week and wolfed down a pizza on a visit. this latter seems the exception as they were hardly an invisible family.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 6, 2013)

weepiper said:


> It's pretty sympathetic for the Telegraph tbh. Several interviews with people living on fuck all


 
Is there a link? I think some people I know could do with seeing that article.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 6, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Is there a link? I think some people I know could do with seeing that article.


 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9974373/Welfare-reform-53-a-week...-You-do-the-maths.html

It was blocking me last night wanting me to subscribe, but I managed to open in Chrome instead of Firefox


----------



## Balbi (Apr 6, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> No it sounds a bit grim for a fun day out wi kids tbh


 
Depends on how they've been behaving. Acting a bit spoilt and entitled? Off to the museum with you.


----------



## treelover (Apr 6, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> fear and loathing of the 'lower classes' in the sun:
> 
> Across Britain, unshaven, unwashed people such as Philpott lived in shellsuits, lined their
> 
> ...


 
So much for the post Levinson more responsible Sun...


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 6, 2013)

*John Prescott* ‏'If outraged by the Daily Mail, tell the Chair of the PCC's Code of Practise Committee. He's Paul Dacre. Editor of the Daily Mail.' 
eek.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 6, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> *John Prescott* ‏'If outraged by the Daily Mail, tell the Chair of the PCC's Code of Practise Committee. He's Paul Dacre. Editor of the Daily Mail.'
> eek.


 
Keep up 

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...the-welfare-state.308480/page-4#post-12110394


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 6, 2013)

i posted the same prescott thing on wednesday! dont have twitter so at a disadvantage!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 6, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> i posted the same prescott thing on wednesday! dont have twitter so at a disadvantage!


 
Ah I see.  Twitter's full of shit, but handy for accidentally stumbling across articles and snippets of info to save you trawling through all the news websites


----------



## treelover (Apr 6, 2013)

> Above all, Labour has to address the sentiment that lies at the heart of those anti-welfare poll numbers: resentment at the thought that people are getting something for nothing. Jon Cruddas and the Blue Labour camp have interesting ideas on reviving the contributory principle originally championed by Beveridge, making welfare more like an insurance policy: the more you put in, the more you get out. Some want to demand that benefit recipients have to give if they are to get, doing socially useful tasks, whether visiting the elderly or cleaning up the local park. There are dangers: ensuring that these duties are not seen as punishment and don't block jobseekers finding paid work. But surely few would dispute the value of an element of reciprocity.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/05/labour-draw-sting-welfare-or-lose-2015


 

Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian suggests the LP should tackle 'welfare' head on, offering what he thinks is a moderate programme, but is really a Blairite one, no mention of the years of demonization of claimants which has affected public opinion.

btw, the notion of bring back the contributory principle was partly Purnells.


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Ah I see. Twitter's full of shit, but handy for accidentally stumbling across articles and snippets of info to save you trawling through all the news websites


It's only as full of shit as the people you choose to follow! I only follow people who give good link and do not feel the need to tell me about the minutiae of their day (and Ben Goldacre, who gives enough good link to make his inane witterings tolerable, just).


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> It's only as full of shit as the people you choose to follow! I only follow people who give good link and do not feel the need to tell me about the minutiae of their day (and Ben Goldacre, who gives enough good link to make his inane witterings tolerable, just).


 
I haven't quite figured out how it works completely.  I suppose if you only look at the tweets of those you follow, then you don't end up with the idiots, but I like seeing the idiots as well.  It's a bit like reading a condensed version of Daily Mail comments


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 6, 2013)

i like the idiots.


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

I don't engage with people often on Twitter because it is such a shit platform for discussion. If I looked at too many idiotic tweets, I'd end up wasting my life insulting people to no purpose. At least here people can usually work out why I am insulting someone if they want to, without having to piece the conversation together first.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> wasting my life insulting people to no purpose.


 
thats the only reason why I go on twitter.


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> thats the only reason why I go on twitter.


When you have urban?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> When you have urban?


 
I don't actually tend to insult people on here. I try to make my posts well thought out, don't always succeed though. And urban is useful for learning in a way that twitter isn't.


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

Twitter is completely useless for debate though. I use it as a personalised newspaper.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 6, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I don't actually tend to insult people on here. I try to make my posts well thought out, don't always succeed though. And urban is useful for learning in a way that twitter isn't.


 
absolutely. the insults on here are dreadful. i always hope for a more enlightened standard of debate but for some reason calling someone a 'cunt' is acceptable. its a good job i am a mild mannered reporter.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 6, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> absolutely. the insults on here are dreadful. i always hope for a more enlightened standard of debate but for some reason calling someone a 'cunt' is acceptable. its a good job i am a mild mannered reporter.


 
the insults on here aren't actually that bad.

except to people who deserve it.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 6, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> thats the only reason why I go on twitter.


 
The only convincing argument I've heard for the existence of twitter


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 6, 2013)

i don't like being called a 'cunt.' its not very nice.


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> i don't like being called a 'cunt.' its not very nice.


That's your problem, no one else's. If it causes you to focus on the way someone chooses to express themselves and ignore the reasons they are calling you a cunt, you're probably a bit of a cunt.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 6, 2013)

why is it m'kay though? i know plenty of women who get v annoyed over this word.


----------



## _angel_ (Apr 6, 2013)

Come on who are you all on twitter. No one has talked to me in over a month.
*sulks*


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> That's your problem, no one else's. If it causes you to focus on the way someone chooses to express themselves and ignore the reasons they are calling you a cunt, you're probably a bit of a cunt.


 
what if someone calls you a cunt? is that acceptable? (assuming yr a lass).


----------



## _angel_ (Apr 6, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> what if someone calls you a cunt? is that acceptable? (assuming yr a lass).




I'm not mad keen on it - it makes me think the user doesn't have much imagination


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> why is it m'kay though? i know plenty of women who get v annoyed over this word.


I am a woman.

Plenty of delicate flowers get annoyed over the word, mostly men on these boards, as it happens. If they are too precious to address content over form, they're not worth bothering with. Most of them seem do it to avoid backing down in an argument, IME.

Your rather sexist assumption that it is women who object may be because you are North American, or have had too much exposure to American culture without understanding it. The word 'cunt' is directed exclusively at women over there and is therefore considered misogynist across the pond. In the UK it is entirely unisex, and often used affectionately. Not sexist. Delicate flowers will have to admit that they are protecting their own ears/ego, and not standing up for women's rights at all.


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> what if someone calls you a cunt? is that acceptable? (assuming yr a lass).


I've been called a cunt on here loads. I've never ever mentioned it, let alone used it as an excuse to avoid discussing the reasons why. I am a cunt at times, why on earth should it bother me? 

And unless you're a northerner, I am a woman, not a lass.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> I am a woman. Plenty of delicate flowers get annoyed over the word, mostly men on these boards, as it happens. If they are too precious to address content over form, they're not worth bothering with. Most of them seem do it to avoid backing down in an argument, IME. Your rather sexist assumption that it is women who object may be because you are North American, or have had too much exposure to American culture without understanding it. The word 'cunt' is directed exclusively at women over there and is therefore considered misogynist across the pond. In the UK it is entirely unisex, and often used affectionately. Not sexist. Delicate flowers will have to admit that they are protecting their own ears/ego, and not standing up for women's rights at all.


 
i say this as it seems all of my women mates/comrades (from late 20s up to 60s!) get V annoyed about it. i notice that up here in scotland it is used all the time by women and blokes. i dont agree that there is no misogyny in its use in UK tho. just interested in people's feelings! i dislike being called one.


----------



## andysays (Apr 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> I am a woman.
> 
> Plenty of delicate flowers get annoyed over the word, mostly men on these boards, as it happens. If they are too precious to address content over form, they're not worth bothering with. Most of them seem do it to avoid backing down in an argument, IME.
> 
> Your rather sexist assumption that it is women who object may be because you are North American, or have had too much exposure to American culture without understanding it. The word 'cunt' is directed exclusively at women over there and is therefore considered misogynist across the pond. In the UK it is entirely unisex, and often used affectionately. Not sexist. Delicate flowers will have to admit that they are protecting their own ears/ego, and not standing up for women's rights at all.


 
Without wishing to re-run the exchange we had recently on another thread, I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

I think, for instance, that there are generational and regional differences in the significance of the use of the word (to generalise wildly, it seems, from what I can tell, to be slightly more acceptable in some northern regions than where I am in London).

I'm also not sure that the distinction between offensive on the one hand, and sexist on the other, is that clear-cut. It is as offensive as it is because of its sexist connotations (which is not the same as always being directed exclusively at women), or so it seems to me.

I can also assure you, for what it's worth, that this take on the word is shared by many women who I know - this particular word is seen as particularly sexist and offensive.


----------



## purenarcotic (Apr 6, 2013)

weepiper said:


> No - is it paywalled now? Maybe I haven't read enough articles to get locked out yet


 
Apparently you get 20 free hits a month.  My dad likes the Telegraph (god knows why) and he was complaining about it the other day to me.


----------



## _angel_ (Apr 6, 2013)

andysays said:


> Without wishing to re-run the exchange we had recently on another thread, I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
> 
> I think, for instance, that there are generational and regional differences in the significance of the use of the word (to generalise wildly, it seems, from what I can tell, to be slightly more acceptable in some northern regions than where I am in London).
> 
> ...


Yeah there is quite a big trap of thinking everyone else irl is as unphased by the usage of this word as on here.
Fwiw I wouldn't use it if I was out and about to be honest prob wouldn't use it anyway.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 6, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> I'm not mad keen on it - it makes me think the user doesn't have much imagination


That's one interpretation, and it's often true. But it's such an "edgy" word that there is also the possibility that someone's playing a very clever game, and using it quite subtly. I think that happens quite often here on Urban, and I see it sometimes in the banter amongst a certain kind of group of people, where is is clearly not just a matter of some mouthbreather flinging the nastiest insult his tiny brain can conjure up.


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

andysays said:


> Without wishing to re-run the exchange we had recently on another thread, I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
> 
> I think, for instance, that there are generational and regional differences in the significance of the use of the word (to generalise wildly, it seems, from what I can tell, to be slightly more acceptable in some northern regions than where I am in London).
> 
> ...


What sexist connotations? References to sex are obscene, not sexist. To be sexist, they have to be applied differently to men and women. Now, some sexist men do apply it differently on a "not in front of the ladies" basis, but that in and of itself is sexist.

A lot of people seem to have trouble distinguishing sexism from sexuality and/or obscenity. It can't be this difficult to grasp, surely?


----------



## andysays (Apr 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> What sexist connotations? References to sex are obscene, not sexist. To be sexist, they have to be applied differently to men and women. Now, some sexist men do apply it differently on a "not in front of the ladies" basis, but that in and of itself is sexist.
> 
> A lot of people seem to have trouble distinguishing sexism from sexuality and/or obscenity. It can't be this difficult to grasp, surely?


 
As I said before, I don't want to re-run the exchange we had elsewhere recently (and apologies for some of what I said about you seeking to censor - that was over the top and out of order...)

Anyway, it's not just about whether it's applied only to women, or to men as well, it's the fact that the most offensive word possible referring to a part of the human anatomy refers, ultimately, to a part of a *woman*'s anatomy. Why do you think that is, or are you trying to suggest it's merely a coincidence?


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

Cameron said "too many tweets make a twat" and no media expressed shock at his language. Fanny is as mild as it gets. Are you really trying to argue that line?

If cunt is sexist, so are cock, dick, prick, fanny, twat, twunt and tit.

We've done this before. Many amusing unisex body-part insults emerged to complement the only remaining 'arsehole' allowed.


----------



## andysays (Apr 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> Cameron said "too many tweets make a twat" and no media expressed shock at his language. Fanny is as mild as it gets. Are you really trying to argue that line?


 
Are you suggesting that "cunt" is the same as "twat" or "fanny"? I'm not talking about all words referring to the female anatomy, I'm referring to that one in particular.


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

andysays said:


> Are you suggesting that "cunt" is the same as "twat" or "fanny"? I'm not talking about all words referring to the female anatomy, I'm referring to that one in particular.


Why that one in particular? Why is that one sexist when other words for female body parts and those for male body parts are not? Explain. Show your working.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 6, 2013)

andysays said:


> Are you suggesting that "cunt" is the same as "twat" or "fanny"? I'm not talking about all words referring to the female anatomy, I'm referring to that one in particular.


Not to be too partisan in this debate, but what do you mean by "is the same as"?

Obscenity (or not) depends on context. I only ever rarely use the word "cunt" on here, though I have been known to liberally sprinkle my conversation with the word in certain company, but I would never dream in a million years of using it in my parents' earshot.

On the other hand, I can think of plenty of circumstances where calling someone a "twat" could be equally as offensive as calling someone else a "cunt". So any equivalences are going to be so context-sensitive as to be meaningless.

The fact is that here on Urban, you'll see "cunt" used rather more than you might see it used elsewhere (especially if you're used to Stateside fora). That doesn't make it a better place, or a worse place: it just makes it a place where "cunt" just happens to be part of the _lingua franca_. No value judgements necessary.

But if someone uses it (or pretty much any other construction) in a sexist or otherwise discriminatory way, they're going to get called to account pretty damn sharpish. That's just the way Urban rolls, motherfucker


----------



## andysays (Apr 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> Why that one in particular? Why is that one sexist when other words for female body parts and those for male body parts are not? Explain. Show your working.


 
We seem to be arguing somewhat at cross-purposes here. I'm going to try to be as receptive as possible to what you're saying, because I recognise that you're not just having a go for the sake of it...

I agree that references to sex are (generally) obscene, not sexist (although the way in which they're made to particular people can obviously make them sexist); I agree that applying it (or other words) differently on a "not in front of the ladies" basis is sexist.

I don't know why that word in particular is considered the most offensive, and why other words for female body parts and all those for male body parts are, for most people, far milder.

What I'm suggesting is that the fact that the most offensive word possible referring to a part of the human anatomy refers, ultimately, to a part of a woman's anatomy, is not a coincidence but is a reflection of sexism.

Maybe I'm confusing the fact that the word being considered the ultimate in offensiveness is the result of sexism, with the word itself being sexist. Maybe you can argue that the two things are completely separate, or at least that it is possible to separate them sufficiently that my assertion breaks down. Maybe you don't even agree that the word cunt *is* considered the ultimate in offensiveness.

It's not possible to "show my working"; this isn't a solution to a maths problem. You don't have to agree with me (clearly you don't) but to me this just seems obvious...


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 6, 2013)

crivvens! i should have stayed shtum but language use is determined by the context in which it is used, ie what ia acceptable in the pub is not at work or at yr ma's for tea etc, all require different etiquettes.


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> treelover (I think it was) was talking about a paywall. I had to google as no idea what it was. Now I can't view without subscribing.
> 
> Anyway, looks like at least one person has been educated
> 
> ...


He's retweeting sensible responses too. Good on him.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> If cunt is sexist, so are cock, dick, prick, fanny, twat, twunt and tit.


 
Arsehole is nice and not gender specific.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 6, 2013)

also words detach from their original meaning, such is etymology so twat maybe more 'harmless'  that 'cunt.' 'berk' is rhyming slang for berkeley hunt and it has long since detached from its original meaning, likewise bollocks which generally means rubbish.


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

andysays said:


> We seem to be arguing somewhat at cross-purposes here. I'm going to try to be as receptive as possible to what you're saying, because I recognise that you're not just having a go for the sake of it...
> 
> I agree that references to sex are (generally) obscene, not sexist (although the way in which they're made to particular people can obviously make them sexist); I agree that applying it (or other words) differently on a "not in front of the ladies" basis is sexist.
> 
> ...


There's the working I wanted. 

If it is sexist because it is taboo, why reinforce the taboo? The word ain't going anywhere, let's face it.


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> crivvens! i should have stayed shtum but language use is determined by the context in which it is used, ie what ia acceptable in the pub is not at work or at yr ma's for tea etc, all require different etiquettes.


Of course.

That is manners, not sexism.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 6, 2013)

i never said it was sexist just that my mates find it unpleasant. as do i. can i suggest this as a symbol - (*) ? 

anyway, im off to eat me pork pies (see separate thread for further info). 
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/whats-for-tea-tonight-8.256241/page-823


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

You're free to find it unpleasant. I am free to use it. You're free to tell me you don't like me using it and I am free to consider whether to moderate my language around you or whether you're just making up diversionary tactics. I will occasionally check myself for a delicate-eared type who doesn't use it to divert from the main discussion, if I remember at the time of posting, but I object every bit as strongly to others presuming to tell me how to express myself informally amongst 'friends' as any of you delicate types object to having to read certain words on a screen.


----------



## andysays (Apr 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> There's the working I wanted


 
I thought I already said that in post 694



andysays said:


> Anyway, it's not just about whether it's applied only to women, or to men as well, *it's the fact that the most offensive word possible referring to a part of the human anatomy refers, ultimately, to a part of a woman's anatomy. Why do you think that is, or are you trying to suggest it's merely a coincidence?*


 


ymu said:


> If it is sexist because it is taboo, why reinforce the taboo? The word ain't going anywhere, let's face it.


 
If you want to attempt to shatter the taboo by metaphorically shouting "cunt" all over the place, go right ahead (like you need *my* permission...). Maybe (think I said this before) it's a generational thing, but I'm afraid I won't be joining you


----------



## weepiper (Apr 6, 2013)

er... derail guys?


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

Sorry. Didn't notice the thread it was on (until I posted that retweet thing, tbh). malatesta32 This debate is on lots of current threads. And it's all been said before, at great length.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 6, 2013)

Fitting that a thread about Carole Malone ends up being about cunts though.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 6, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> also words detach from their original meaning, such is etymology so twat maybe more 'harmless' that 'cunt.' 'berk' is rhyming slang for berkeley hunt and it has long since detached from its original meaning, likewise bollocks which generally means rubbish.


But again we seem to be trying to ascribe a ranking of significance to specific words. I just don't think it can ever be that simple.


----------



## Ax^ (Apr 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> We've done this before. Many amusing unisex body-part insults emerged to complement the only remaining 'arsehole' allowed.



true

but you also can call someone a perineum with almost  complete immunity...


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

Ax^ said:


> true
> 
> but you also can call someone a perineum with almost complete immunity...


And language would be much the poorer for it. We've done this, elsewhere, on threads which are relevant.

Anyways, the Guardian have a remarkably decent editorial. I am going to quote most all of it, with approval (some quibbles, but remarkably few for the Graun):



> Imagine a caricature soggy leftist, a 1970s sociology lecturer, say. Faced with a crime, he would countenance every conclusion apart from the obvious one: don't blame the sweet and tender hooligan. In discussing the terrible tale of Mick Philpott's six dead children, it has not been the left but the right that has downgraded individual moral responsibility, by playing up the supposed role of "the system". Not, you understand, the system of structural inequality, monopoly capital or other slogans that might have framed common room arguments in a Malcolm Bradbury novel. No, it is today the "welfare system" that gets casually damned as the mother of all evils.
> 
> How precisely tax credits and housing benefit payments persuaded a man to set ablaze a home packed with his slumbering offspring is not explained. Instead, the running demand in parts of the press – echoed by George Osborne – is that "a debate" must follow this case, a debate progressive opinion supposedly shrinks from. On Friday, leading Lib Dems distanced themselves from an ugly attempt to exploit lost young lives to justify the benefit cuts which begun biting this week; but the prime minister weighed in behind his chancellor. Care was of course taken to mention Philpott's personal culpability, but the privileged partners of Downing Street both leapt from the specifics of one case to generalities about "subsidised lifestyles" of millions of benefit claimants. The debate being launched has no more regard for the truth than that Mr Cameron sparked by branding the fatal neglect of Baby P by his 27-year old mother "a story about a 17-year-old girl who had no idea how to bring up a child". Factoids are once again spinning out of control – the ubiquitous claim that Philpott was better-off lounging around on his sofa than in a £100,000 job is achieved by such brazen tricks as counting his wife's cleaning wages as benefits. Truth, it seems, is the first casualty of class war.
> 
> ...


----------



## 1%er (Apr 6, 2013)

For anyone not in the UK (without a watch again facility) who wants to see the program about this story, here are a couple of links.

The man who would stop at nothing, the mick philpott trial (putlocker)
The man who would stop at nothing............................ (vidbull)


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> Anyways, the Guardian have a remarkably decent editorial.


 
That really is good, perhaps especially the point about the hypocrisy of the right taking a break from their obsession with individual responsibility to blame 'the system.'  Good for the Graun, IMO.


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

I liked them pointing out that no out-of-work benefits were claimed, also. Unusual for them to get that point.

Bit pitying on the "poor kids didn't ask to be born" bit, as if they really shouldn't have been, but it's a bit churlish given the educational value of that (including links!).


----------



## 8115 (Apr 6, 2013)

I genuinely don't get how he (they) really thought, it's easy to save 6 kids from a burning house.  That's the bit I don't get.

/a propos of nothing.


----------



## Geri (Apr 6, 2013)

8115 said:


> I genuinely don't get how he (they) really thought, it's easy to save 6 kids from a burning house. That's the bit I don't get.
> 
> /a propos of nothing.


 
I don't think any of them are very bright.


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

8115 said:


> I genuinely don't get how he (they) really thought, it's easy to save 6 kids from a burning house. That's the bit I don't get.
> 
> /a propos of nothing.


He fits the typical profile of a psychopath. They're very good at manipulating people, with violence if that does the job. They are often not as clever as they think, although that usually just results in them getting caught rather than committing violence they did not intend.

The other two seem to have been fairly comprehensively in his power. The fact that the other bloke looks so like him might even be something to do with it; narcissism from Philpott, or some other connection.


----------



## treelover (Apr 6, 2013)

> but also with the roots of that concern, roots one serious analysis locates in the harsh rhetoric about the unemployed that New Labour adopted in the mid-1990s


 

I like the fact they(partly) implicate NL:, amongst his myriad crimes, the BSA shows how Blair and co systematically shifted the country to the right on social security/benefits, I remember attending a CAP meeting with John Battle MP who admitted the Blairites were obsessed with welfare and ''something for nothing'' The UK(England?) was always one of the more punitive countries on attitudes to benefits, but nothing like it has become. I would argue no real attempt can begin to wrest back the agenda on S/S without this being acknowledged.


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

Yeah, that is the most important, treelover, you're right. Labour making political capital over this makes me feel sick. I don't try to start too many fights on twitter, but Labour acolytes pushing them as the obvious alternative are a frequent exception.

#fryingpantofire


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 7, 2013)

ymu said:


> Sorry. Didn't notice the thread it was on (until I posted that retweet thing, tbh). malatesta32 This debate is on lots of current threads. And it's all been said before, at great length.


okay, cheers! not seen it on the htreads i usually post on  antifascism etc.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 7, 2013)

Ax^ said:


> true
> 
> but you also can call someone a perineum with almost complete immunity...


 
ive always found 'perineum' to be a bit of a mouuthful. i think making up your own insults is better, ie, arse spangle, fuck trumpet, cock bugle etc.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 7, 2013)

philpott, mosley and miread's dad all looked very similar in the they have what i call 'an ulster tache' as seen on many panoramas in the 70s and 80s.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> philpott, mosley and miread's dad all looked very similar in the they have what i call 'an ulster tache' as seen on many panoramas in the 70s and 80s.


And also sported by at least one member of the wolfe tones


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 7, 2013)

Geri said:


> I don't think any of them are very bright.


 
from one of his surviving sons: '“He had a temper, he lived on a short fuse, he’s thick, ugly, he doesn’t wash, doesn’t even have any teeth and loves being the centre of attention. But he loved all of us kids to bits and never laid a hand on any of us. He’s thick but not thick enough to put his kids in harm’s way.”


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> And also sported by at least one member of the wolfe tones


maybe they should be called 'billy taches'?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> maybe they should be called 'billy taches'?


More like brillo taches


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 7, 2013)

yeah, they are horrible. i cant imagine lassies enjoying them on their fellers!


----------



## Balbi (Apr 7, 2013)

It's a 'Yosser' tache. Or a Theoden tache, if you're paying attention.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 7, 2013)

theoden? whits that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> theoden? whits that?


King of rohan in lord of the rings


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 7, 2013)

1%er said:


> For anyone not in the UK (without a watch again facility) who wants to see the program about this story, here are a couple of links.
> 
> The man who would stop at nothing, the mick philpott trial (putlocker)
> The man who would stop at nothing............................ (vidbull)


 
on youtube too:


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> King of rohan in lord of the rings


anything that involves cloaks is not my kind of entertainment, sirrah!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> anything that involves cloaks is not my kind of entertainment, sirrah!


Anyone who describes it as a theoden tache and thinks everyone will get the allusion must be middle, if not ruling, class.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> anything that involves cloaks is not my kind of entertainment, sirrah!


What about star trek, with the cloaking devices?


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 7, 2013)

anything with puppets, cloaks or spacemen is pish! ie, star wars.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> anything with puppets, cloaks or spacemen is pish! ie, star wars.


So you don't like much children's tv then, no wombles, no clangers, no charlie chalk, no magic roundabout, no sooty, no bagpuss, no mr benn, no trumpton, no playschool and no captain pugwash, among other classicks you'd doubtless despise. Oh, and you wouldn't get on with quite a few carry on films, not to mention sherlock holmes


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 7, 2013)

okay, i was referring to films but anyway ...
wombles, clangers, all good.
never heard of charlie chalk.
magic roundabout made me feel unusual and sooty was a freak (dont trust quiet talkers!)
bagpuss - i have a bagpuss pot next to me here full of biros and memory sticks.
mr benn (animation) and trumpton were good and chigley and the other one. edit: camberwick green. 
playschool? am i the only 1 who found this programme frightening?
captain pugwash - animation!
sherlock holmes is moot as sometime he had an ulster which is not strictly a cloak. i think i meant capes rather than cloaks.


----------



## cesare (Apr 7, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> yeah, they are horrible. i cant imagine lassies enjoying them on their fellers!


First time I've heard it called that!


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 7, 2013)

cesare said:


> First time I've heard it called that!


 
it? what the  tache?


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 7, 2013)

six dead kids and you are talking about taches


----------



## cesare (Apr 7, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> it? what the  tache?


No  Think about it ...


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 7, 2013)

no, its a slow morning. diagrams and flow charts please!!!!


----------



## cesare (Apr 7, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> no, its a slow morning. diagrams and flow charts please!!!!


It was only a homeopathic dose of humour in the context of the earlier derail.


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 7, 2013)

okey dokey!


----------



## cesare (Apr 7, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> okey dokey!


(((Wasted effort)))


----------



## _angel_ (Apr 7, 2013)

8115 said:


> I genuinely don't get how he (they) really thought, it's easy to save 6 kids from a burning house. That's the bit I don't get.
> 
> /a propos of nothing.


Massively thick but I partly blame TV here. For example it took a full half an hour to get Stella out of a burning pub and she survived.


----------



## Poot (Apr 7, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> Massively thick but I partly blame TV here. For example it took a full half an hour to get Stella out of a burning pub and she survived.


True. Also, if someone gets punched, they simply punch the other person. They never spend the next 30 seconds thinking wtf? Whilst trying and failing to get off the floor. 

Off topic, sorry.


----------



## andysays (Apr 7, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> from one of his surviving sons: '“He had a temper, he lived on a short fuse, he’s thick, ugly, he doesn’t wash, doesn’t even have any teeth and loves being the centre of attention. But he loved all of us kids to bits and never laid a hand on any of us. *He’s thick but not thick enough to put his kids in harm’s way.*”


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 7, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> anything with puppets, cloaks or spacemen is pish! ie, star wars.


 
Except Flash Gordon. But that's so obvious you probably didn't feel the need to say it.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 7, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> Massively thick but I partly blame TV here. For example it took a full half an hour to get Stella out of a burning pub and she survived.


 
True. And on telly, when an arsonist douses the scene with petrol and lights it, it always ignites like parrafin would, ie it burns (quickly) but doesn't explode the way petrol would.


----------



## yardbird (Apr 7, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> True. And on telly, when an arsonist douses the scene with petrol and lights it, it always ignites like parrafin would, ie it burns (quickly) but doesn't explode the way petrol would.


Yes, this.
As soon as the petrol leaves its container,the fumes from it  are a bomb.


----------



## _angel_ (Apr 7, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> True. And on telly, when an arsonist douses the scene with petrol and lights it, it always ignites like parrafin would, ie it burns (quickly) but doesn't explode the way petrol would.


I imagine using petrol in the pyrotechnics might be a little (ie very) dangerous but all the same... half an hour it took to burn the Rovers down!


----------



## yardbird (Apr 7, 2013)

The Rover's Return burnt down ?
I haven't seen Corrie for years, since my ma died.

The Rover's and petrol?
Totally engulfed in minutes, no way more than fifteen - flames would be shooting out of all the  windows!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 10, 2013)

Apologies as ever if I'm coming late to the party on this one, but it occurred to me earlier: has anyone suggested that rather than being a product of the welfare system, it could be argued that Philpott was a product of a system that equates wealth and possession with status and success? Is it any surprise that, in a society where more is better and system upon system is abused to obtain it, people such as Philpott take warped actions to achieve that status and success?

e2a: as much as anyone taking such actions can be said to be a product of any system, of course. Some people are just horrible human beings.


----------



## Poot (Apr 10, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Apologies as ever if I'm coming late to the party on this one, but it occurred to me earlier: has anyone suggested that rather than being a product of the welfare system, it could be argued that Philpott was a product of a system that equates wealth and possession with status and success? Is it any surprise that, in a society where more is better and system upon system is abused to obtain it, people such as Philpott take warped actions to achieve that status and success?
> 
> e2a: as much as anyone taking such actions can be said to be a product of any system, of course. Some people are just horrible human beings.



I agree.

I also think that without the benefits that people are so keen for him not to have received, he would have begged or stolen or - and having read about his controlling behaviour - possibly would have demanded his wife (and others?) prostitute themselves for his gain. I think he's a despicable human being. 

I am glad he received benefits.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 10, 2013)

Possibly not the place for it, but it recently started to bug me that they're called "benefits" too. It's hardly a benefit to need assistance for basic living requirements!

It's like "advantage" in sport - just because you've managed to progress _despite_ being fouled, you haven't got a bloody advantage from it!


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

Was Philpott claiming benefits? I don't think he was eligible for any. Both his partners worked and both claimed tax credits. He would have been entitled to sign on for his stamp but nothing else AFAIK.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> Was Philpott claiming benefits? I don't think he was eligible for any. Both his partners worked and both claimed tax credits. He would have been entitled to sign on for his stamp but nothing else AFAIK.


 
This is something that's really been annoying me. I don't think _he_ was claiming anything. It was all in-work benefits being claimed by his wife and girlfriend, only he was insisting they had to be paid into his bank account (because he wouldn't let them have their own)


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 10, 2013)

Aha, yes, good point. Wasn't he claiming child benefit though, hence (allegedly) all the children?

I'll freely admit I'm not the best when it comes to terminology


----------



## weepiper (Apr 10, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Aha, yes, good point. Wasn't he claiming child benefit though, hence (allegedly) all the children?
> 
> I'll freely admit I'm not the best when it comes to terminology


 
Child benefit is generally claimed by the mother. See above re bank accounts though.


----------



## Poot (Apr 10, 2013)

weepiper said:


> This is something that's really been annoying me. I don't think _he_ was claiming anything. It was all in-work benefits being claimed by his wife and girlfriend, only he was insisting they had to be paid into his bank account (because he wouldn't let them have their own)


In that case I'm glad someone was making money, or at least there was money coming into the household, and the Daily Mail can fuck off. Again.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 10, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Child benefit is generally claimed by the mother. See above re bank accounts though.


Aye, thanks for that.

Like I said, some people are just horrible human beings.

(Just to avoid ambiguity, I'm talking about Philpott here, not weepiper  )


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

weepiper said:


> This is something that's really been annoying me. I don't think _he_ was claiming anything. It was all in-work benefits being claimed by his wife and girlfriend, only he was insisting they had to be paid into his bank account (because he wouldn't let them have their own)


Suggesting that the actual problem is a patriarchal society where men can get away with abusing women to the point where this shit happens.

Funny how the establishment and their lackeys in the media haven't made that point, eh?


----------



## andysays (Apr 10, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Child benefit is generally claimed by the mother. See above re bank accounts though.


 
It is generally claimed by the mother but can be claimed by the father instead. When my daughter was a baby, I looked after her when her mother went back to work (she earned more than I was able to) and we got the CB paid in my name which meant the gap in my NI contributions was "justified" and won't count against me when I come to claim a pension (assuming such things still exist when the time comes).

From what I've read about Philpott, it's certainly possible that he could have arranged to have the CB paid to him.


----------



## andysays (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> Suggesting that the actual problem is a patriarchal society where men can get away with abusing women to the point where this shit happens. Funny how the establishment and their lackeys in the media haven't made that point, eh?


 
Don't hold your breathe for that one


----------



## weepiper (Apr 10, 2013)

andysays said:


> It is generally claimed by the mother but can be claimed by the father instead. When my daughter was a baby, I looked after her when her mother went back to work (she earned more than I was able to) and we got the CB paid in my name which meant the gap in my NI contributions was "justified" and won't count against me when I come to claim a pension (assuming such things still exist when the time comes).
> 
> From what I've read about Philpott, it's certainly possible that he could have arranged to have the CB paid to him.


 
mm of course, but my point is that the child benefit would have been paid with or without Philpott in the picture iyswim.


----------



## ymu (Apr 11, 2013)

Good to see they haven't benefited from this nastiness:


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 11, 2013)

cesare said:


> First time I've heard it called that!


 
cesare! i just got that! fellers = Lady willies!


----------



## cesare (Apr 11, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> cesare! i just got that! fellers = Lady willies!


 Blimey mal, that's nearly a week! I'd almost given up on ya


----------



## malatesta32 (Apr 11, 2013)

i know! they dont call me an ejjit for nuthink!


----------



## cesare (Apr 11, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> i know! they dont call me an ejjit for nuthink!


----------



## sihhi (Sep 24, 2015)

A UEL sociologist has written this article about the episode and others

Benefits Broods: The Cultural and Political Crafting of Anti-Welfare Commonsense


----------

