yes there are levels..ie the amount of people affected by said act.   Books in that post and i agree said ''seems to me'' and it does also seem to me that a person who went through their life with 'what's in it for me' is more like the kind of person phillpot was.   If that disgraceful headline had read ''seems to me'' then you may have had a point ,but it doesnt.  jmo

George Osborne's remark, "I think there needs to be a debate about the welfare state – and the way it subsidised the lifestyle of Philpott… The taxpayers pay for the welfare state, subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that needs to be examined."

Book's remark, "If anything, selfish scumbags like Philpott are more of a product of 'Thatcher UK' than 'Welfare UK'"

IMO if the first statement can be described as 'despicable' then the second also has to be.

Which of the two statements you or I may agree with, if either, is irrelevant regarding the description of them being "despicable".

The argument between Book and myself has blown out of all proportion with regards to the actual statement made because of that very word 'despicable.

Again in my opinion exactly the same can be said about the reaction to George Osborne's remark.

If you really believe that either the benefits system or what Book describes as "Thatcher UK" led to the actions of Philpott then I see nothing wrong in calling for a debate on the matter or making the connection.

Personally I believe that neither the benefit system nor "Thatcher UK" were behind his horrific crimes.