Advanced search

Mick and mairaid philpott.

(110 Posts)
thebody Tue 02-Apr-13 20:55:56

If you pour petrol over your house and light a match.

You know your 6 children are asleep upstairs and you make less effort to save them than your neighbours did.

If you try and smear another person with the crime.

If you habitually lie to avoid prosecution.

Why is that manslaughter?

I know posters will say they didn't mean it but seriously such reckless disregard for life is murderous.

sneezecakesmum Wed 03-Apr-13 22:42:04

The crown prosecution have a duty to ensure a conviction. If they went for murder and the defence successfully argued there was no intent, they would all walk free. Beyond reasonable doubt would be hard to prove as there would be reasonable doubt to the jury. The bastards didn't want to kill the children, just to frame the ex.

Frankly I hope they all die in jail, including the wife. She was just as guilty.

Horsemad Wed 03-Apr-13 22:46:16

And apart from what he did to the children which is just totally unforgivable, what irks me is the fact that the tax payers will be paying for them still, albeit in prison angry

ukatlast Wed 03-Apr-13 23:03:27

YANBU Such reckless behaviour is murder in my book too.

Nattynar Wed 03-Apr-13 23:22:49

Personally think you are giving this low life more credit than he deserves.

He is just too bloody stupid to comprehend what he was doing by setting his own house on fire with his children inside! Probably never occurred to him that they would die.

Mind you does seem like the children were treated as a commodity, and was the result of his sexual appetite and him wanting to "milk" the system!

Hope he rotes in hell!

stressyBessy22 Fri 05-Apr-13 09:24:41

Let not forget that although he may not have had any intention of killing his children he did intend to frame an innocent woman for six attempted murders!

stressyBessy22 Fri 05-Apr-13 09:28:14

I do think it is wrong that his actions have been so much entwined with his benefits lifestyle.
Let us not forget a very middle class couple whose extreme recklessness - leaving 3 tots alone in an unlocked apartment next to a swimming pool in a public place, most likely led to their 3 yr olds death.These people are widely treated with compassion and sympathy

Corygal Fri 05-Apr-13 09:35:48

The judge made the point that they were done for manslaughter not murder only because the police changed the charge late in the day - the officers didn't want to have to prove that all 3 of them intended to kill all 6 kids, the difference between the 2 charges here.

18 murder charges to prove beyond reasonable doubt is a lot for one trial. The police were worried that if there was a single hole in any of the 18 cases, all 3 killers could walk. Whereas manslaughter was beyond easy to prove.

In the event, the police had a point. Maireadd could - and did - argue it was an accident, Mick said it was a frame up, and the friend had no motive for the killings.

The more that comes out about the case, the more I suspect that Mick, at any rate, may have wanted the kids out of the way.

melika Fri 05-Apr-13 09:42:29

If only they could forceably sterilise them while in prison, and make sure they never procreate ever again.
Maread could still come out and have another family.

DreamsTurnToGoldDust Fri 05-Apr-13 10:02:46

I cant see SS just sitting back and letting her have any more children though tbh.

SpanishLady Fri 05-Apr-13 10:29:59

I agree that him being on benefits doesnt make this a more disgusting or inevitable crime/situation but I think the issue for me is that by paying his benefits it kind of feels like we (the public) colluded and permitted his lifestyle.

Ive said on another thread that even if I wanted to I cant have 17 children and not work - I wouldnt want his lifestyle admittedly but the point is every decision I make I have to be responsible for - this guy just does what he wants. I dont know the answer but surely its wrong for people in their situation to be able to make life style decisions without accountability - but then I get frustrated by cases like Abu Hanza - why am I paying for someone elses lifestyle and having to respect their rights - no one pays for mine!

I know I am straying very dangerously close to suggesting 'poor' people shouldnt have children - that is NOT what I am saying but if you rely on benefits is it correct to THEN decide to have a family especially a large one? I dont know the answers as I said but it has crossed my mind that is seems an odd decision when you think about it but maybe I am naive or someone will shortly come along to point out how wrong I am. ):

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now