To be amazed they've released Mairead Philpott?

[MarylinMonrue]

After serving half her sentence for the arson attack? Apparently even a source from the prison was a shocked at the leniency and the fact she's going to get a new identity and protection. Six children in that fire - is there such a thing as justice in this country anymore?

@LadyJaye

Philosophical question here - do you think she should have (based on on the likelihood of what we, as a society, understand about what happens to women who say no to their abusers) essentially have offered herself up as a murder victim?

What do you mean?

If you mean risked Mick killing her than killing her children...then yes.

Wheresmykimchi

😂

I had similar feelings towards Shannon Matthews mother

Ditto, Wheresmykimchi
Call me a lousy rotten cynic, but the more they dab at non-existent tears, appear with previously unseen walking aids or clutch their arrested child's teddies, the more I go "hmmm"

@Pumperthepumper we can agree to disagree on the victim thing. My point is , in order to learn from her story we don't need to let her out. If she's as broken down and unaware as you say , she will be straight into another abusive man. My honest belief is whether she's a victim or not she should be behind bars

[quote Foxinthechickencoop]@itsgettingweird of course many people with learning difficulties don’t lie. Just like many people without don’t. Of course I know that. The point I am making is, that the fact she was able to tell lies isn’t proof that she didn’t have mild learning difficulties and that she could then decide micks plan was terrible. She probably did know it was a terrible idea. But she was completely broken and beaten and brainwashed.[/quote]
She ran a household.

She has enough cognitive ability to know setting fir to a house had severe risks.

That's not to disagree her it may be low. But being low doesn't explain much or give a picture of her ability or give a reason she may have done it.

She got her children up, dressed, to school. Went to supermarket and paid bills. She knew fire risked death. She was deemed competent enough to stand trial so she was deemed competent enough to be responsible for her actions.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

I had similar feelings towards Shannon Matthews mother

Ditto, Wheresmykimchi
Call me a lousy rotten cynic, but the more they dab at non-existent tears, appear with previously unseen walking aids or clutch their arrested child's teddies, the more I go "hmmm"

I wouldn't like to get myself into trouble with the rich pair either , but I don't get them one bit. Not one.

@Crazycatlady83

But the jury (and appellant courts) heard all the evidence that she was a victim of abuse, he controlled her, and her low IQ absolved her of the crime etc., and convicted / upheld her conviction for manslaughter. Incidentally this is the same conviction as Philpott himself.

Don’t forget - the jurors / Appellant courts would not have convicted her if there had been any doubt.

She is as guilty as him. She may have had different motives (to save her own skin / to please him whatever), but that doesn’t absolve her from her actions.

And we should absolutely have a discussion about the length of sentences handed to criminals in this country. If we aren’t happy with the length of sentences, it’s by discussion / debate that we get things changed.

They didn't hear everything. His previous conviction for breaking into the house of the girl he had been sexually and physically abusing since she was 14 years old at night, where he slit her stomach open whilst stabbing her 17 times (and her mother 11 times) because he 'forgot he had a knife in his hand) - what, when it results in the death of the victim, rather than just almost dead twice during emergency surgery, is referred to as Overkill, wasn't known to the Jury. Nor was his bragging that he only did three years for it, so was untouchable.

This was a male who was so sure of his absolute right to torture and abuse that he would beat a child with hammers and fire a crossbow bolt at her genital area. And he did a couple of years for it. Because society didn't think it that important. And then, when six children were dead, the judge decided it wasn't important to let the Jury know.

Until 1992, it would have been perfectly legal and above board for him to rape any woman that was married to him. Until five years ago, it was perfectly legal for him to coerce and control any woman at all - it's pretty clear from his history that he was violent towards women who did not do as he decreed at all times - the fear of violence is specifically referred to in the CC legislation here.

He was, until the police got suspicious and bugged their hotel room, utterly untouchable. Because nobody really cared what happened to teenage girls groomed by middleaged men.

In any case, the press loves a wicked woman story. Never mind the monster that had been doing exactly as he pleased at all times (other than a brief interruption in the 1970s) until the point at which one of his victims ran away and he fucked up in trying to frame her for attempted murder so he could take ownership of 'his property' - the children she had got away from him.

Far more media interest to be gained from focusing on the woman than a man just doing the sort of things men have always done to girls and women.

Setting aside Mairead... how can a man who has a conviction for the attempted murder of his ex girlfriend, ever be allowed to live in a home with his future children?
How is that not a black and white rule that social services do not even assess the risk - but simply legally, cannot allow it?

@Foxinthechickencoop

I’ve only read the first page I’m afraid. But I’m saddened.

Mariad was a victim of the most serious and terrifying coercive and violent control and abuse , she had mild learning difficulties and was extremely vulnerable and mick philpott was the worst kind of abuser both mentally and emotionally. She was younger than him, reliant on him for money, and had been groomed and conditioned by him for years. She was terrified of him and yes he probably would have killed her if she spoke up.
The original plan wasn’t to kill the children, but to make it look like someone who Phil was issue with subjected them to an arson attack. It went horribly wrong. Do you think that she had much say or choice in what happened then or next. She lost her children. She is a victim of domestic abuse and coercive control. And she was repeatedly failed by mental health services, and acute care in the hospital. After several suicide attempts and trips to emergency department over many years before these awful events of the fire, no one bothered to explore the reason behind them. Or picked up on the many many red flags.

Obviously as a mother she should have left and protected her children. To what... hand them over to Mick for sole unsupervised care half the time? You only have to read a few threads in relationships here to see that well educated women with their own money and lots of support and men much less scary, have trouble trying to leave abusive relationships. Mentally and practically. Add mental health issue, learning difficulties, no money, limited education and no emotional or practical support and you are pretty trapped.

I’ve read the review, as part of the multi agency domestic abuse awareness groups I attend. It’s terrifying and unbelievably sad. And could happen to anyone, really.

I only read up to this post. This sums it up perfectly.

@Cocomarine

Setting aside Mairead... how can a man who has a conviction for the attempted murder of his ex girlfriend, ever be allowed to live in a home with his future children? How is that not a black and white rule that social services do not even assess the risk - but simply legally, cannot allow it?

Who are you referring to here? Mick?

there were 3 of them convicted for this

is the third man out too? he was tasked with rescuing the children.

@MitziK that makes am interesting read.
But it's nothing to do with her gender. It's because it's her being released.
Same as with Maxine thingy. She hit the media because she was the one being released.

It’s disappointing that she has served so little of her sentence

She appealed twice for her sentencing to be reduced (on the grounds that she was a victim) and twice her appeal was dismissed

She has certainly known what to do and what not to do in prison many who have learning difficulties don’t and end up servicing very long sentences. She may not be educated she may not come across as very sharp but there has been no reason to believe she did not ah e the capacity to understand her actions could cause harm

We have to stop viewing women who are complicit with men as always being victims. Not all women love their children as much as we mostly do on here not all women will but their children before their partner and many women are so caught up in their relationships they love the excitement their children are just there around they are not nurtured or particularly cared for.

She lied for him she lied to save herself

she's got male pen pals

she will be at it as soon as she can be.....banned from Derbyshire and her family have disowned her

I wouldn't like to get myself into trouble with the rich pair either

No, not them (though I agree with you). I was thinking of Amira Abase's dad, clutching her teddy and insisting he knew nothing, when later photos showed him taking her to terror group rallies

@Wheresmykimchi yes, Mick. He was convicted of attempted murder of a previous girlfriend (ex girlfriend at the time, as she was nearly murdered because ended the relationship).

Why not make a conviction for attempted murder of a previous partner an automatic ban on allowing you to live with children, and children?

Social services are allowed to tell a woman that live with a particular man is not keeping her children safe, and so trigger them (eventually) being taken into care.

I would argue that attempted murder of a previous partner is a high enough risk factor of future domestic violence, itself a high enough risk of being witnessed by children, to allow a blanket rule: you cannot live with any children, yours or any others.

@ItsAlwaysSunnyOnMN

It’s disappointing that she has served so little of her sentence

She appealed twice for her sentencing to be reduced (on the grounds that she was a victim) and twice her appeal was dismissed

She has certainly known what to do and what not to do in prison many who have learning difficulties don’t and end up servicing very long sentences. She may not be educated she may not come across as very sharp but there has been no reason to believe she did not ah e the capacity to understand her actions could cause harm

We have to stop viewing women who are complicit with men as always being victims. Not all women love their children as much as we mostly do on here not all women will but their children before their partner and many women are so caught up in their relationships they love the excitement their children are just there around they are not nurtured or particularly cared for.

She lied for him she lied to save herself

This this this.

[quote Cocomarine]@Wheresmykimchi yes, Mick. He was convicted of attempted murder of a previous girlfriend (ex girlfriend at the time, as she was nearly murdered because ended the relationship).

Why not make a conviction for attempted murder of a previous partner an automatic ban on allowing you to live with children, and children?

Social services are allowed to tell a woman that live with a particular man is not keeping her children safe, and so trigger them (eventually) being taken into care.

I would argue that attempted murder of a previous partner is a high enough risk factor of future domestic violence, itself a high enough risk of being witnessed by children, to allow a blanket rule: you cannot live with any children, yours or any others.[/quote]
I agree with you , bur how would they enforce it? Theys rely on the woman grassing him up (and any woman willing to live with him obviously wouldn't ) and they would probably argue it goes against his human rights in the same way that Mairead , Maxine and the ilk are within their rights to have children when as PP says they shouldn't.

I imagine if she got pregnant again any children would be removed from her at birth.

@Besswess88

I imagine if she got pregnant again any children would be removed from her at birth.

Would they though? (I don't know , I'm asking ).

@Wheresmykimchi I’d be open to anyone with experience here explaining why it wouldn’t work, and I don’t suppose for a moment that it would always work. But the mechanisms exist because SS can already tell a woman that having a particular man in her home, will (ultimately) result in her child being taken into care. Perhaps Mairead would never have been picked up on the radar. But perhaps she’d have had a visit somewhere along before she had 6 children by him, and that visit would have led to support to leave him. Who knows 😕

[quote Wheresmykimchi]@Pumperthepumper we can agree to disagree on the victim thing. My point is , in order to learn from her story we don't need to let her out. If she's as broken down and unaware as you say , she will be straight into another abusive man. My honest belief is whether she's a victim or not she should be behind bars[/quote]
I don’t know if I think she should be behind bars or not. I think she deserves a punishment but I ask think her life will be shit, as it seemingly always has been, regardless of whether or not she’s in jail.

[quote Cocomarine]@Wheresmykimchi I’d be open to anyone with experience here explaining why it wouldn’t work, and I don’t suppose for a moment that it would always work. But the mechanisms exist because SS can already tell a woman that having a particular man in her home, will (ultimately) result in her child being taken into care. Perhaps Mairead would never have been picked up on the radar. But perhaps she’d have had a visit somewhere along before she had 6 children by him, and that visit would have led to support to leave him. Who knows 😕[/quote]
Presumably as a served crime , Mick has every right to go on to have children with whoever he likes.

It's awful she has been released so soon. I walked past her children's graves earlier this week and it really hits home seeing six graves for innocent children who should still have their whole lives ahead of them but instead were killed by those supposed to love and protect them. Mairead now has the rest of her life ahead of her with a new identity it's just wrong.