'Tragic Family Situation' - murder of children, apparently by their father.

I don't think it has gone to trial, no, and also didn't know about the extra people. Bloody hell.

No one's been convicted of anything yet re the Philpotts, have they? I think I read that two or three more people have been charged which makes it sound even stranger.

This thread is not like the almost prurient threads about the Philpotts, where people were saying nonsense like 'ooh I knew they were guilty, she wasn't crying at the press conference' etc.

I think most people on here are talking about the language used to report these murders, and the slant often given to men who kill their children in this way, and how there seems to be a certain lack of sympathy for the mother. It is an important discussion to have I think.

The whole 'good man driven to it' is revolting. I agree with SBG - anyone who does something like this emphatically was not a good man in the first place.

I think it's certainly okay to talk about the phenomenon of "family annihilators" as well as how the media tends to report such incidents since the recent case prompted this. I don't see any real problem with discussing information about specific, even current cases, particularly where it is in the public domain (and not just rumour/speculation.) Whether or not a handful of people discuss the recent case on this message board, I doubt it will have much impact on the grief of the mother or anyone else close to the family.

Perhaps someone could, very arguably, be driven to suicide ...

but stabbing all 3 of their children to death ... I don't think so

The "good man driven to it" discourse simply reinforces the view that the blame lies elsewhere. Now as a feminist I might want to locate the blame on patriarchy, and the fact that men are raised in a society where they can absorb the belief that they have have the right to do this. I might want to locate the blame on an individual man for actually doing it. Where I will not locate the blame is on the children's mother for anything she might have done or said. This discussion is primarily about the discourse around these kinds of murder, and why they are not, for example, generally reported as 'Murders' - while a similar killing by a stranger would be.

Agree with GOIL, SGB and northern entirely. This is a discussion about the particular slant taken on reporting the murder of children by their father and the way his crime is being 'softened' in the way it's presented to the public. There is no time period that would suddenly make this a tasteful subject of discussion (I notcice nobody has suggested one...) The Moors Murders will always be an awful subject to discuss. The wish not to really look at these events is also a barrier to discussing how to prevent them in future. Nothing we say here can remotely compare with the murder of someone's own children - yet you would think, from some posts, they are comparable.

Look, what a lot of the people on this thread are discussing is how to prevent this sort of thing happening, not 'ooo, bwaaa, look at the people crying! Let's put up lots of faces! Anyone got any more juicy details?'

One of the worst threads I've seen here in a long time. Desperate stuff...

I sadly agree with SGB.

Quick question, how/why are the papers allowed to lift statuses (sp?) from FB?

What SGB and northern have said, with bells on.

There is something very odd about the reporting of this. Loathsome the way the FB statuses have been pulled to pieces.

Thing is, I cannot think of a single case of a man killing his children and then either killing himself or making a gesture towards doing so, where the background was anything other than an abusive arsehole of a man, who the woman had been trying to get clear of for some time.
Men who do this are not 'decent' or 'sensitive' or 'driven to it', they are scum, and they will always, always have been abusing family members to some extent for some time before it happens. It's a pattern. They consider women and children to be inferior to adult males and to be the property of adult males.

No one is speculating? Sorry, but saying that the grandfather's statement is
"why that poor woman stayed married to an abuser. She'll have been brought up to think that men matter and women don't, and no matter how vile your husband is, you have to 'work at the relationship' ie obey and placate him" is speculating, and in a really offensive type of way given how little is known about the family.

I think it's weird, personally but really, not sure why saying that it's vile that three children are dead counteracts the fact that speculating on the dynamics of a family and what led to THIS particular tragedy is really quite distasteful. I have no issue with anyone talking broadly about family annihilation and what could be done to prevent it etc, especially as there does seem to be a pattern etc. However, talking about the specifics of a case that is current and has brought a whole world of tragedy to one family and one mother in particular just feels very, very wrong.

Agree northernlurker in that what is "vile" is that three children were stabbed to death by their father.

There are vile and evil things in this world and people should always try to be clear what they are.

I doubt too if I'd be saying my daughter was recovering well if God forbid this were ever to happen to her (as a mother). But I guess everyone's different and it's easy to say not quite what you mean when pressed for a comment by reporters I'm sure - especially in the aftermath of this tragedy.

This thread is really a bit out of control. No one knows them or the family and the speculation is vile and voyeuristic.

"Recovering well?" That makes it sound like they're talking about a broken leg, not the brutal murder of her children by someone she had loved and should have been able to trust.

I'm not a grief specialist but I can't imagine how a surviving parent in that position would ever recover, let alone after a few days.

I've just got this awful feeling that this painting of a killer as a good guy is about him being seen as being "driven" to do what he did, and so far there seems to be only one candidate for that.

Really, hugglemuggly?
Really?

And who apart from (some) posters on this thread are making these bizarre readings into what has been said?

You may not like the way this case has been reported, but please, bear in mind that it's you who are making these insinuations. You seem to want to 'blame' this sort of finger pointing on others, but you are making these bizarre statements.

WW: No professional qualifications but I read a lot and have friends in the MH-care professions. And one friend with a psychotic illness.

It's a very common pattern for abusive men to kill their children and then themselves to punish a partner who is trying to get rid of them. Men who do this have a history of abuse. I can't think of a single case in reality (though it's popular in fictional narratives) where a scenario like this turned out to be a Cunning Serial Killer who had actually killed them all and escaped.

sgb - what are your psychiatric qualifications?

Quite possibly sgb but we don't know what the FIL is like do we ? He might just be unusually forgiving and generous like the famous father of the young woman murdered some years ago by the IRA bomb ? Or still massively in shock

I think in general someone who develops some kind of sudden-onset psychosis that leads him/her to kill behaves in a more random fashion; there was a lot of calculation in these murders.
For instance, the severely mentally ill woman who murdered a teenage girl (recently convicted, can't remember the name) - she begged to be sectioned, she knew she was going mad, and when she wasn't locked up, she bought a knife and committed a murder but the girl she murdered was picked pretty much at random.

As to it being the FIL rather than the murderer's own father defending him, well, look no further as to why that poor woman stayed married to an abuser. She'll have been brought up to think that men matter and women don't, and no matter how vile your husband is, you have to 'work at the relationship' ie obey and placate him.