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.

This is what I was thinking of:

[https://www.gov.uk/domestic-violence-and-abuse#domestic-violence-protection-notices-and-orders-pilot Domestic Violence Protection Notices and Orders]]

^The domestic violence protection notices and orders (DVPO) pilot closed on 30 June 2012, though all 3 police forces - West Mercia, Wiltshire and Greater Manchester - will carry on the scheme for another year while the Home Office assesses the pilot and decides whether a change in the law is needed.
The scheme gives victims - who might otherwise have had to flee their home - time to get the support they need. Before the scheme, there was a gap in protection, because police couldn?t charge the perpetrator for lack of evidence and because the process of granting injunctions took time.
The scheme closes that gap. It gives police and magistrates the power to protect a victim immediately after an attack, by stopping the perpetrator from contacting the victim or returning home for up to 28 days.^

www.gov.uk/domestic-violence-and-abuse#domestic-violence-protection-notices-and-orders-pilot

I don't think him being on benefits is the key to his mental make up but to dismiss that aspect out of hand isn't helpful as he seemed to have made a life of getting money by no effort on his part.

I couldn't have 17 kids as I couldn't afford it why do I have to accept that but he didn't?

I don't think the Uk is immoral but we have to overturn this mentality that seems to think someone else can take all the responsibility or that we are all owed something or work isn't worth it unless its being a footballer or reality tv star. Part of me hopes I'm wrong and I'm just too believing of the hype but as an average person these type of stories depress me - who in their right minds thinks having that set up was healthy? I have one son and between full time jobs, taking care of the house, family obligations, some social time but importantly giving son all we can its exhausting.

I'm not talking about mandating how people should live but why aren't people being responsible? I simply don't think society should have to contribute to someone's 17 kids when they haven't done all they can to provide for them themselves.

I believe in a welfare system that helps people going through a bad time but it should never be a lifestyle choice nor be the means by which you make life decisions.

The fear those kids may have felt that night before being overcome by the fire and caused by those meant to protect them.

I don't know the answer but wish we could make children a privilege not a right.

Look, wicked as this man is, will people stop baa-ing about his 'lifetime on benefits'? He was a soldier. He has worked. Both his wife and his girlfriend worked. This is not about benefit claimants and those who are focussing on that are revealing their own stupidity and prejudice.

"I couldn't have 17 kids as I couldn't afford it why do I have to accept that but he didn't?"

Did you actually want 17 children?

Because I don't think he got any special benefits you wouldn't have been entitled to.

I suspect you're just pretending to be hard done by because it makes you feel superior to be one of the put upon "strivers".

How can you judge the whole morality of the country on this one mans depraved behaviour or blame social services?
The irony, if anything is the children appeared well adjusted clever and bright.
He was a predator in a similar bracket to Saville who as we all know regularly kept the company of our PM Thatcher and the Queen. How many turned a blind eye to him if you want to go down that thought process?
It highlights the need if anything for services to maintain funding to support and protect the vulnerable in society from such monsters.

It's significant that the women he was involved with, were all very very young and vulnerable when they got involved with him.

It says a lot about our tolerance of domestic violence and of predators.

here's Women's Aid's statement on the Philpott case

Thanks for that link FB.

You know what, OP, I do think you're a bit Unreasonable. I don't know what anyone could have done. Those children were not malnourished or beaten, I don't think there was any evidence they were sexually abused. they went to school. They were part of a community. They had toys. The house was clean. Can social services walk in because the parents morality is distateful? I don't think so. OK, retrospectively, we can say they were peculiar, but there are plenty of families who are a whole lot worse than the Philpotts

I think what we could do as a society, is recognise the prevalence of domestic violence and not be as tolerant of it.

Philpott was violent and controlling and yet no-one noticed. Even when his ex got an injunction.

The truth is that the Philpotts say nothing about anyone, except for themselves, just as the serial murderer GP Harold Shipman said nothing about middle-class professionals. There are, and have always been, a small minority of individuals capable of breathtaking cruelty. The Philpott case relates in no way to people on benefits in this country.

From the independent.

I reckon some politician must be rubbing there hands in glee, interesting that the verdict was on the same day as benefit cuts.

I too am struggling with the manslaughter verdict although accept this may be a legality ie the prosecution may have been frightened of an accuital if the pushed for murder.

How can anybody who deliberately sets fire to a house knowing that 6 children are asleep and trapped in the house, not be found guilty of murder? What other outcome could there have been?

I felt sorry for both the women he lived with and think Lisa must have put up with so much crap, thankfully she escaped.

Did they know he had fathered so many children with other women though? Did they know he had been in prison?

Why on earth would anyone start a relationship with someone like that?

That is down to their own low moral values. Neither the school, police, social workers or anyone else can be held responsible for that.

Houseworkhater: The reason they were found guilty of manslaughter is that there is no evidence that they intended the children to die; it seems that the 'plan' was for Philpott to get Lisa Willis framed for arson - and for him to look like a hero as he rescued the children from the burning house - except that the children were not all in one room and the fire took hold too quickly for him to get in and save them (though I am inclined to think, after reading the reporting, that while Mairead Philpott probably believed that this was how the plan would work: children safe, hubby a famous hero and her rival in prison, Philpott didn't care that much whether the children lived or died as long as Lisa Willis was blamed for what happened). There is, legally, a difference between doing something that leads to someone's death when you didn't intend for the person to die, and doing something that deliberately causes the person's death. There's also a category of crime where you do something that might cause a person's death (yet the person escapes and doesn't die) - but whether or not evidence suggests you intended the death or didn't care one way or the other makes a difference (I think it's legally described as either attempted murder or reckless endangerment of life, but IANAL.)

Domestic violence happens across all ages all social groups all income brackets all races all cultures. It happens across every single possible difference you can think of.

Domestic violence is always about power and control.

The only thing that protects anyone from domestic violence is not being in a relationship with a abuser. It really is that simple.

Pulling all the other crap into the equation muddy s the water somewhat but hey ho if it makes you feel all safe and sound because you think of course it will only happen to other lesser people then great but you are just kidding yourself.

Athing and orchard. Stearling job your doing, as you were.

SolidGoldBrass - like your comments. The voice of reason.

Abuse like this happened well before the welfare state. And those children's short lives would have been even worse than they were.

According to the BBC, Chancellor George Osborne was asked if the Philpotts were a product of Britain's benefits system during a visit to Royal Crown Derby earlier today.

Did he take the opportunity to say "No, he was not the product of the UK welfare system, he still would have been a nasty murdering bastard without being on benefits"?

Nope. Instead he responded: "It's right we ask questions as a government, a society and as taxpayers, why we are subsidising lifestyles like these. It does need to be handled."

What a twat!

houseworkhater

In addition to what SolidGoldBrass said, I would like to add that this specific situation with fires is practically a staple of criminal law courses.

How can anybody who deliberately sets fire to a house knowing that 6 children are asleep and trapped in the house, not be found guilty of murder? What other outcome could there have been?

The conviction is not based on what the bloody stupid defendant should have realised, but on what s/he actually intended. Similar situations have occurred before, albeit with a less colourful family background. Unless the perpetrator actually intended death, it's manslaughter.

Unfortunately, many, many people are downright ignorant about the dangers of fire, which is why it has happened so damn often.

If you look at this page of notable rulings on intent in murder and manslaughter, you will see that most of them seem to involve fire. Caution: they can be upsetting.

www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/mens-rea-cases.php

www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/mens-rea-cases.php

I can't understand why they needed to have the children in the house. They could have still attempted to frame the ex (and been caught) without the children being trapped upstairs. It isn't as if they didn't have the caravans to put them in.

They probably had their next appearance on JK and stories in Take A Break all planned out.

Grim.

There are some similarities with the Shannon Matthews case, as well: if the poor kid had died in the course of her 'abduction' (eg ISTR they shut her in a cupboard or something and she could possibly have suffocated) it would have been manslaughter rather than murder because they didn't have any intention that she should die.

BumBiscuits Not enough drama; too obviously self-set arson, I expect. If a dwelling gets set on fire but on the one night all the children are out of it, that's a wonderful co-incidence, isn't it?

True TBJ.

I think that as well as all three being evil, somewhere along the line the likes of JK and the media machine that gives low life like this publicity also have blood on their hands.

Just as an aside, if anyone would like to complain to the Press Complaints Commission about the DM tarring tens of thousands of people struggling to survive on benefits due to unemployments with the same brush as this degenerate man then there is a link here:
www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/form.html

Solid and bigJesse- thanks for clearing that up.

I only hope the children died in their sleep without waking, I cannot imagine knowing that you are trapped in a burning building with no escape.