Mick and mairaid philpott.(110 Posts)
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.
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. ):
I cant see SS just sitting back and letting her have any more children though tbh.
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.
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.
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
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!
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!
YANBU Such reckless behaviour is murder in my book too.
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
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.
Agree with Hilda. Heroic rescues are all very well when they're inside your head and you can control exactly what happens.
Being faced with an out-of-control, raging inferno, where you might actually get hurt is another thing entirely.
And also, no begging for people to come forward with information at the press conference. Not a mention of 'whoever did this to my kids', just thanks to everyone who tried to help, including himself.
Catching, that is exactly what I mean, Ok not crying as possible trauma reaction, but to then be thinking 'oh I ought to cry to gain sympathy' was weird. And no matter how much shock you are in, would you swear about the kids in the mortuary? plus threesomes, and putting family liaison officer in a headlock messing about. Bizarre.
msbella I'm the same as you and cry afterwards, although I can be completely grief stricken at the time like everyone else. But this isn't a case of them doing their crying elsewhere, he was bouncing around all hyper before the press release and kidding on with the police right before it, they pretended to cry during the press release, joked about during the mortuary visit, went on shopping sprees and partied and sung karaoke days after their children's deaths.
Eyepad....they didn't try rescuing them because they thought more of themselves than they ever did of the children .
MsBella - I understand that shock and trauma will make people act in different ways i,e not crying. But then why pretend to cry?
The bit I really cannot get my head round is that if they had planned the fire, and then the heroic rescue, why was he not rescuing them? Either of them. They both allowed everyone else to try. If that was any of our children, we would have to be held back physically. We would all refuse to come out until our children were out.
Plus the fake tears at the press conference. Surely, even if it was not meant to end this way, they would both be genuinely inconsolable. As for the swearing about the children in the mortuary, it beggars belief.
They both deserve a very long sentance....please god it haunts them everyday of there miserable lives.
I watched the Panorama programme and couldn't believe how he talked to Anne Widdecome, disgusting creature. Good for Lisa Willis for getting the hell out.
The poor kids, having to see suicide attempts and all sorts.
It has been said that Philpot and the mate rehearsed the fire some weeks before the real thing. Surely that is premedatated on their parts?
He did it to not lose Benefit money instead he lost 6 most precious beautiful kids that they both deserved not to have.
I,m amazed at how these two women were taken in by him, it was painful to watch Jeremy Kyle with him on it.
Unfortunately he will play the big the I am in prison and will show no remorse,vile bastard.
You're right, MsBella. However, these people pretended a grief they don't appear to have felt. I think it's these "crocodile tears" that strongly indicate that something isn't as it seems.
How could anybody do it? Those poor little children had their whole lives ahead of them
I have no doubt they will get at least one battering at some stage in prison.
However,they will find a life for themselves in there.You seem to think that they will be locked up with people who have a high moral compass and who will be outraged at their crimes.Wishful thinking.Quite a few of their fellow law breakers will be in there for crimes that would horrify most decent people.
I'll give you the examples of Rose West and Myra Hyndley...both convicted child killers...and both went on to 'fall in love' with new lesbian partners who were doing time alongside them.
The 3 killers of those children won't really get their just pinishment at all in this life.Makes me want to believe in Hell....because those fuckers deserve to burn for eternity
Right, these people ARE guilty and weren't crying but can we please all remember that some people cope with grief in different ways, some never cry until years later. Not saying this applied to them but it isn't rare that people cope with trauma without crying, doesn't mean they're not sad or horrified and it doesn't mean they're less sad than someone who did cry, just pointing this out
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.