to think that 15 years sentence for Philpott is not enough?(132 Posts)
15 years for the deaths of six children?
I thought you could get 15 years or life for one murder ( and yes, I know the charge was manslaughter.)
The term life is meaningless if it's only 15 years.
I think the "It's not over yet..." comment is just a variation on the "I know where you live...." threat beloved by so many charmers of his ilk.
What's he going to appeal against? The length of his sentence, or the nature of his conviction? I wonder - anyone got any ideas?
Still trying to be the hard man, and never wanting anyone else to have the last word. I don't see how he can appeal. The forensics all seem straightforward and the police have the tape of him and the other two giving the game away in the Premier Inn. What grounds could he have for an appeal? He'll be staying put.
I suspect we agree Tig. I just see it as incredibly unhelpful I suppose.
It's like all the people who say 'if anyone ever laid a hand on my child I would kill them' yet when faced with a child alleging abuse they rarely respond as you would expect.
As soon as we think an overwhelming urge to physically retaliate is somehow the loving response it makes real life experience very confusing.
But I suspect I am sounding pedantic and irritating so I shall go out
sovery that's exactly what I said to my husband , why use the petrol ,if you were intending to get in and save them why not just put a lighted newspaper through the door and all the bedroom doors were open ,if they had just closed the doors it would have given the children a bit more of a chance . It doesn't bear thinking about its so sad .
I can't imagine there's any chance he will be granted leave to appeal.
My comments around the family doing something to her are based on the fact they shouted "die bitch" at her from the public galary as she was sent down. No it's unlikely to happen but it could, and while I don't condone it if it did society wouldn't exactly be a worse off place without someone like her in it...
But equally the "someopne in prison will do them over," comments are just as unlikely because while attacks on prisoners are fairly frequent, it's rare that they are fatal. Yes I too would be more inclined too think she will kill herself and no, I wouldn't exactly feel that it was a great loss if she did. Her victims are dead, she was the family, so it's not like Shipman or Fred west where killing themselves left family of victims behind who felt they had been robbed of justice.
And he will hopefully die in prison somehow, although probably too arogant to top himself more's the pity.
There's so little been said about the other bloke though, why on earth was he involved in it all?
I think the reason they didn't put measures in their plan sovery, is they were just irredeemably stupid, sadly.
I'm wondering about Lisa, she's been kept out of it till now, but now the trial's over, I bet you anything the tabloids are banging on her door for her story.
Mick Philpott has always been top dog in his world. I wonder if he can carry on being the arrogant bully he is when he will be faced with other violent men
I think Lisa has changed her and the children's names. That's why her face wasn't was blurred in footage.
Maxine Carr is still in this country. She has been moved a few times over the past few years but has been in a 150mile radius for the last 5 years. Mainly because she's been recognised and the police decide its in her best interests. She hasn't outed herself but doesn't seem to deny who she is either. I don't know if she had plastic surgery the rumours suggest she did but it has never been confirmed. It can't have been that drastic if people still recognise her.
Mick will not get released. He's too violent and controlling and I seriously hope his time inside is made significantly uncomfortable by his fellow prisoners. He will not be welcomed with open arms that's for sure.
I don't think it will be long before Mariead comes out and tells of a controlling abusive man. Although she should never of gone along with it I can't help wonder actually did she really feel like she had a choice? Look at what Mick tried to do about his mistress who simply left him, get her framed for murder taking her kids off her and all because she decided to get out of a controlling , violent, abusive relationship. She was terrified of him as he used to beat her up and use her children against her. He stabbed his ex girlfriend and her mother, he physically assaulted someone simply because of road rage, he's now being looked at for rape of another woman!
I'm not saying she is not to blame, of course she did wrong as she didn't protect her children and sadly they died as a result, which is always horrific, but I have trouble believing she wasn't induced and controlled by him. There have been no reports of her being a violent, neglectful controlling hateful woman. She seems very much more to have been manipulated and controlled by him from day one. I believe she would have agreed to anything he suggested because she worshiped him.
Lisa Willis has got a new identity, I heard in reports yesterday. And in footage I have seen her face has been blurred out.
I'd say philpot should be hanged. There's my two pence worth, I'm sure some child killer sympathizers will be along to say how capital punishment is wrong though.
Why on earth would you want a quick dispatch for him? Greatest punishment is surely the long barren years stretching out ahead of him - no kids, no money, no fame, no council house upgrade, no harem of slathering females ever ready to do his bidding.
There may be the odd idiot who fancies herself as wifelet no 106 willing to put pen to paper but I hardly think that'll be enough to satisfy a man of his tastes.
It's inconceivable to think that this woman will potentially be able to go on and have more children.
And in footage I have seen her face has been blurred out.
A quick glance over Google images shows a fair few photos where her face hasn't been pixelated. Hope she and her kids manages to rebuild their lives far, far away.
I've worked in the prison system. He got life with minimum of 15 years to serve.
That means he will not be considered for parole until he has served 15 years. In my experience he will have to do at least 25 years
and I doubt he will even get out tgen
I think his behaviour in prison will be poor and that will go against him.
As for her, well she will have a miserable time as will be a target for bullies and will be hated
I imagine they will both have to be kept under segregation for their own safety.
To get parole do you not have to admit your guilt or did I dream that one up ?
That's right Floral, I also think that the Home Secretary (whoever is at time) can over rule and say 'this person, whoever' will never be released, I'm sure that has happened with some cases?
IIRC it happened with Rose West but whole life terms are very very rare.
I believe that the prisoner has to show insight into what lead to the crime, the impact it had and have had to have taken steps to deal with behaviour problems and attitudes that may have lead to the crime. If someone shows no remorse or understanding of the impact of what they have done then they are unlikely to meet the criteria.
The radio news item immediately after the philpot sentencing, was about a crooked policeman who pocketed loads seized drugs and then sold them on.
He got 23 years.
I know drug dealing is a serious crime, with lots of knock on consequences, but I cant for the life of me see why it would result in a higher sentence than killing 6 children.
Sorry should have added
Its more than just admitting guilt.
So in theory if they continue to claim they didnt do it she will serve the whole 17 years and he will never get out ,that sounds a lot better .
Its difficult to comment on individual cases. The policeman got a shorter sentence than Mick Philpott who got Life.
The issue with crooked policemen is they get a higher sentence because its abuse of their position of trust in society not just the crime they commit.
They were lucky to have the book thrown at them. What I don't understand is why they thought that setting fire to their house was a good idea.
Are they really that stupid that they didn't realise that setting fire to a house with kids in it, could result in the death of those children? If they knew that may happen and went ahead with their plan, then they should have been done for murder.
They may not have intended to kill their DC, but I'm sure they knew there was a chance the DC could die in that fire and they went ahead with the plan anyway .
Ah yes Chazs, I've just googled, there are 35 people serving 'whole life' tarrifs, but is that given by the judge or Home Secretary? But in the event of a lifer, is it not the Home Secretaries ultimate decision as to whether that person can get parole?
For murder you have to intend to kill or seriously harm - they didn't.
However, the judge did sentence them at the top end of the range for manslaughter because lets face it any half sensible person would have realised that the risk to the children was enormous.
One problem is that if Mick Philpott does have sociopathic tendencies one feature can be a reckless disregard for the safety of others so quite possibly he would have mentally dismissed any risk as unimportant.
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.