The Philpotts: to think this says a lot about the morality of this country?

[SlowlyWakingUp]

Why was this 'getup' allowed to happen? Everyone knew about it, why was it normalised? It seems to have been all nudge, nudge, wink, wink, that's just 'Mick'. A man with 'needs'. Why were social services not involved? They were all over the TV long before the fire with him being aggressive and f'ing and blinding in front of the DCs on camera, dread to think what he like off camera. I bet he was an absolute bastard.

Why was he allowed to live with children after his earlier conviction for attempted murder and the domestic violence he perpetrated to his 2nd 'wifelet' who left before he got involved with Mairaid? Lisa Willis was their pregnant bridesmaid (with HIS baby) at their wedding. In the TV interview she said she did not 'like the wedding night' because she was 'ready to drop' that brings up all kinds of dreadful connotations. People must have known about this. Did they pat him on the back, turn a blind eye? Why did the neighbours not get involved? The school? Just the overcrowded, chaotic household would surely have been enough to ring alarm bells? When Lisa Willis left him a few months before the fire, she got a restraining order so she must have been alleged DV, why were the DCs left behind not checked up on?

I dread to think of the things they must have seen what with other men coming in to have sex with the 'mother', threesomes, booze and weed, the rocking caravan parked out front. I am sure they were aware of what was going on. How could anyone have thought this was 'OK'.

Why, why, why was this evil sexist pig of a 'man' allowed to carry on doing what he liked without being properly challenged (and I don't mean by JK or Anne Widdecombe)? It was a car crash waiting to happen and no one stepped in, just judged him for being a scumbag, the women for being stupid enough to accept it, without taking into account the most important factor, those poor DCs.

I KNOW ultimately the 3 who were found guilty today we were responsible but what about the responsibility of the community and the government agencies to say 'hey, you cannot bring children up in that environment'. Not just to turn a blind eye until an absolute tragedy like this happens. Sorry, it just sickens me that this went on and that similar scenarios are being played out everyday all over the UK.

One might have hoped that when one of the women escaped and got a restraining order, that that should have raised concerns about the children remaining in the home to a level that would have interested SS.

But it didn't.

Because abusing your partner doesn't mean you are a bad father.

Apparently

It does make me laugh that when SWs take kids off people...it's all outrage that they're kiddy snatchers & when they don't it's all outrage that they don't care and failed in the protection of the children.

But like jake' said, it's very hard to prove anything when they seem suitably cared for, by the parents.

It's actually quite hard to remove a child and the case has to be severe (i.e physical, sexual, mental abuse/extreme or ongoing neglect that can be reliably proved).

That is partly why if you see anything you feel is a little suspect it's worth saying something. If enough people do it, that can be the difference between action/inaction.

This case is so sad though & today's DM article about it is disgusting. Who uses the deaths of children in such a sad situation to encourage benefit bashing & mob mentality. That says more about this country than this case ever will...

athinginyour life

A sad fact about abusive men/women is that because such a high importance is placed on contact with birth parents, the courts are very reluctant to say there can be no contact outright. It's a very outdated system that doesn't benefit children as it should and is just covering it's arse and making domestic abuse sound like a discount version of abuse, when it's actually very severe in some cases & should be taken seriously.

Plenty of people in the system see that fault though & want to change it so I don't think it will be this way forever.

Perhaps it is time that we placed more of an emphasis on fathers being financial responsible for the children they father. There is a lot of talk about the tole of mothers these days but many fathers walk about uncriticised.

I can't stand all this harping on about how come so and so didn't do more to intervene and help and how the wider community should have put a stop to this behaviour etc etc. Well, aren't you part of the wider community? What were you doing about this situation? Other than bitching about the decline in society's moral compass online? If this says something about the morals of society, then it says something about you too. So unless you were actively doing something about this, then get of your bloody high horse.

I think OP that your last paragraph said it....the only people ultimately responsible were the three convicted.

It doesn't absolve the rest of society though from looking out for the children in their community. We have two children in our street who run pretty wild. I always make sure I keep an eye out for them as the youngest boy aged 7, once asked a male friend of mine if he could "go for a ride in your car". My friend was horrified but is very good with children....he told him that he couldn't take him for a ride and explained that it wasn't a good idea to ask people this as there were some who were not nice. I also shared that info with the little boy's Mum. My friend though rang social services....I have no idea if they went out but they certainly listened to his concerns.

I think that's down to the fact that many mothers need extra financial help when they're left/leave as children (and childcare) are crazily expensive.

What's more irritating is the difference in reactions when it's a woman leaving a man and their children rather than the man walking out on the woman and children. Apparently women are just not capable of working that way but me can easily walk, or so it would seem. I don't think this assumption helps anyone though as it can make men feel disposable & women feel like they should shoulder all the responsibility (which is enforced by this attitude that pervades the media etc).

^ That attitude also makes it hard for some people to believe that women can be just as 'evil' as men, which can be very troublesome in cases like this.

Anyway, that's a whole other thread !!

It does say something about how domestic abuse is tolerated and normalised. This is the extreme end of the spectrum, but it is the same spectrum that starts with a mother posting on here about how her H has shoved her on the bed, pushed her against the wall, gripped her wrist too tightly.

It does say something about how social workers need to have more resources to do their jobs.

And it does say something about how the welfare system never says - this is the limit of what you will receive, any more children and you will have to manage on what you've got. There is every incentive for parents like the Philpotts to keep having more children than they can cope with.

Those of you saying 'it says nothing about my morals' miss the point entirely, and are effectively turning a blind eye.

Basically OP, if you want to do your 'bit' then make sure if you ever see anything suspect, you report it in case. That's the best most of us can do really.

I found it hard to believe that the head teacher of the children's school said on Panaroma last night that he had no concerns about those children! Surely he should have reported the odd family set up to social services. It did smack to me of him and the police officiers covering their backs. Surely schools and police have a duty to share information about families such as the Philpotts with social services. Poor kids.

I think the 'encouragement' of his behaviour by journalists before and after the fire is a sad indictment of our voyeuristic societ

This.

The sooner we stop validating people like Philpott by giving them the oxygen of publicity - and thereby allowing other halfheads to idolise him - the better. Why do we do it? Voyeurism? To make ourselves feel better and/or superior? I don't know - but it needs to stop.

(and keep it in mind that sometimes the worst abuse is harder to see, especially if it's not physical. It manifests itself in odd ways and can be hard to spot & easily dismissed as trouble making or typical teenage behaviour here's some signs to look out for in general, well worth a read if it's something you've never encountered )

But Bluebell - you can't go round reporting 'odd' family set ups can you? You'll have the full force of the right-on down on you like a ton of bricks for discriminating against alternative lifestyles. That's why people no longer question or report.

Philpott didn't come to the media's attention until around 2006 - by which time he already had 15 kids.

^ and plenty of people have large families!
I know a family with 6 kids, lovely family, very happy children, quite overcrowded but they're well cared for all the same. It's not that easy to spot whether it's negatively affecting the children, unless you're looking at their behavior, how they would describe it etc.

I would rather pay to get people like Philpott sterilized, preferably with two bricks, than throw more tax payers money at scum like him.

YANBU.

I used to work as a social worker in a deprived area and had a couple of similar families on my caseload. However, social services don't work alone, and concerns had been raised by nurseries, health visitors, schools and hospitals. What did used to get me though is when schools reported concerns late in the day, for example ringing social services at 4.55 pm to say a child hadn't been collected, or last day of term about something that had happened on a school trip which they hadn't discussed with child's grandfather, the guardian. I am so glad I don't do that job anymore.

Bluebell, what exactly would you report?

"This bloke has 16 kids with two women"?

If I was a SW my response would be "And"?

I have known two families like this still out there...one on benefits and one not.....in neither case are there any concerns about the children.

If we had THAT kind of set up then God help you if you ever do anything deemed "odd" by society.

How about

"This bloke, with a conviction for attempted murder against a previous partner who tried to leave him, has just had one of his two partners walk out and a restraining order taken out against him. Maybe you should make sure that the children in the house are still safe, as being left is a known trigger point for abusive men."

I was brought up on a quite rough council estate and I can assure you that this was not particularly unusual, we had at least two very large (15+) families in the school, plus lots who were abused and in SS care (e.g. mums who had baby after baby taken away), plus lots of children who just had parents who were a bit nasty/had lots of different partners coming in and out of the house/didn't prioritise their children. It's horrible to look at but lots of people live chaotic, quite violent, not very nice lives. They can't all be removed from their families, if everyone with a nasty looking dad and lots of kids had been put in care, our estate would have been half-full.

But you might not know those things...you are certainly unlikely to know about a conviction in the past.

Otherwise if you DO know these things then yes that is pretty good.

But I do agree the history of attempted murder/current DV with the lady who left should have triggered some investigation (perhaps it did). But even SS popping around isn't going to have been able to predict that these people would plot to burn their own house down, this is not within the normal remit of human behaviour, even by their own chaotic standards.

And- I always remember on here when that SW documentary was shown about Bristol, how many people said the children should be better supported, not taken away, given another chance and so on, even though there was DV allegations in the air, neglect and so on.

I think this country has been in a moral decline for years. However, I have faith in a lot of the younger people. They seem to be more responsible and caring.

Jake, I haven't read all the details about the case, but I do think some disturbing concerns about the set up of the family did come out during the trial, and it is when all concerns of all relevant professions working with a family come together you get the bigger picture. From families I worked with, things like criminal record for violent crimes, injuries which indicated lack of supervision, vulnerable young mothers with learning difficulties, cruel treatment of animals. When all the information is shared, you get a better idea, what's going on.