Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To be amazed they've released Mairead Philpott?

874 replies

MarylinMonrue · 29/11/2020 17:02

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?

OP posts:
Phoenix21 · 29/11/2020 20:28

Convo moved on a bit since I posted.

I think as a society we should be ensuring we have proper services to support people who need to escape abuse, give them somewhere to go.

I’ve seen posts in relationships where children are being raised in abusive households but mum won’t/cannot leave due to no where to go and no money.

While I think they are victims I cannot also help but feel they are complicit in their children witnessing or experiencing abuse. Which perpetuates the cycle.

We need to do better.

randomer · 29/11/2020 20:37

I vaguely recall now seeing him on some freak show Tv about benefits and large families.

Poor kids, the siblings.

Intothesheepfold · 29/11/2020 20:40

Yes, the money that has been spent keeping her in prison and giving her a new identity would have been far better deployed earlier on, getting her away from domestic abuse in the first place. The funding goes in too late and it's a false "economy ". Especially when childrens lives are lost.

The woman he falsely accused of starting the fire and her five dc, did manage to get away from him and his house though. Thank God for small mercies. But it was her leaving that in part prompted this grotesque act of violence on his part. He should never be released.

Wheresmykimchi · 29/11/2020 20:40

@Pumperthepumper

But again you are directly linking the murder of her children to the abuse from Mick and absolving her of responsibility.

I think it’s very relevant that she was abused. Do you think she would have done it had she never met him?

If you're arguing that she has such low IQ and was so heavily manipulated then she could have committed any act at the hands of any abusive man.
MrsShelton · 29/11/2020 20:43

she could have left and she knew this....he had 2 wives.....mairead and the other one, all living together.....a few weeks earlier the other wife left, taking her kids

mairead knew it was possible. she had watched it happen!

MitziK · 29/11/2020 20:43

The 17 years she was sentenced to

She's done the first half of what she was sentenced to. The other half was always going to be on licence, because that was what the Law required.

Thisisworsethananticpated · 29/11/2020 20:43

Her learning disabilities and his oppressive character would have contributed to her sentence

In or out , she won’t have a happy life anyway I imagine

Pumperthepumper · 29/11/2020 20:44

If you're arguing that she has such low IQ and was so heavily manipulated then she could have committed any act at the hands of any abusive man.

So we should lock up anyone vulnerable to abuse? Is that honestly what you’re suggesting? Rather than seeing them as victims and helping them?

VestaTilley · 29/11/2020 20:44

I thought it came out in the trial that she was abused and coercively controlled by her husband who wouldn’t even let her have a front door key?

I’m actually very tough on law and order, but in this case - as in so many with women prisoners - it is more complicated than it looks. What happened to her children was devastating and awful, but I think she case across as not very bright (probably didn’t realise they could actually die) and very controlled by him (so not empowered to tell him no).

I’m NOT excusing her behaviour, by the way, just explaining why they’ve likely let her out now. She’ll have to live with what she did forever, and if she has children again they’d almost certainly be taken away from her.

Phoenix21 · 29/11/2020 20:44

@Pumperthepumper

But again you are directly linking the murder of her children to the abuse from Mick and absolving her of responsibility.

I think it’s very relevant that she was abused. Do you think she would have done it had she never met him?

I’d put money on Philpot having been dragged up in an abusive home himself.

If I’m right, assuming he didn’t he may not have abused women and killed his own children.

Mumsnet often states the most dangerous time is when women leave. Imagine, he tried to pin murders on a woman who left him.

What an absolutely disgusting man. It’s sickening.

VestaTilley · 29/11/2020 20:44

*came

RUOKHon · 29/11/2020 20:45

Coercive control in relationships operates in almost exactly the same way as coercive control in prisoner of war camps. It’s brainwashing.

In the 50s a man called Albert Biderman was asked by the US government to conduct some research. They wanted to understand how American POWs in the Korean War had been ‘turned’. The US government suspected that the Koreans were using sophisticated brainwashing tactics to get American POWs to defect. But it wasn’t that sophisticated. It was just good old coercive control.

“Biderman established that three primary elements were at the heart of coercive control: dependency, debility and dread. To achieve this effect, the captors used eight techniques: isolation, monopolisation of perception, induced debility or exhaustion, cultivation of anxiety and despair, alternation of punishment and reward, demonstrations of omnipotence, degradation, and the enforcement of trivial demands. Biderman’s “Chart of Coercion” showed that acts of cruelty that appeared at first to be isolated were actually intricately connected. It was only when these acts were seen together that the full picture of coercive control became clear.”

“In the 1970s, when women began fleeing to newly opened shelters, they spoke about being isolated from friends and family, instructed on how to behave, degraded, manipulated, sexually violated and threatened with death. Physical violence was common, and could be sadistic in its extremes, but survivors insisted it was not the worst part of the abuse – and some were not physically abused at all. In her groundbreaking book Rape in Marriage, Diana Russell presented two lists side by side: Biderman’s Chart of Coercion, and the common techniques of domestic perpetrators. The lists were virtually identical. The only difference was that whereas captors in North Korea deployed the techniques tactically, husbands appeared to be replicating the system of coercive control unconsciously.” (Taken from Jess Hill’s book, Look What You Made Me Do.)

Mick Philpott was a psychopath. In the most clinical, empirical sense of the word. Mairead Philpott was considerably younger than him, of sub normal intelligence, and completely under his control. I doubt she was even sure of her own name unless he told her what it was.

Of course it is absolutely right that she should be punished for her part in the crime. But it is also absolutely right that her punishment should be mitigated by the fact that she was completely controlled and manipulated by an evil, murdering psychopath.

ohnomesandwiches · 29/11/2020 20:48

'She allowed her children to be murdered'

So many of these posts demonstrate such a complete lack of understanding of the law it's pretty pointless trying to engage in the debate.

Also why the comparisons to Maxine Carr? The two situations are totally different!

itsgettingweird · 29/11/2020 20:49

@VestaTilley

I thought it came out in the trial that she was abused and coercively controlled by her husband who wouldn’t even let her have a front door key?

I’m actually very tough on law and order, but in this case - as in so many with women prisoners - it is more complicated than it looks. What happened to her children was devastating and awful, but I think she case across as not very bright (probably didn’t realise they could actually die) and very controlled by him (so not empowered to tell him no).

I’m NOT excusing her behaviour, by the way, just explaining why they’ve likely let her out now. She’ll have to live with what she did forever, and if she has children again they’d almost certainly be taken away from her.

I can buy she was abused.

I can buy she had some mild learning difficulties.

I cannot buy she did t know setting fire to the house risked death by anyone inside. She managed to raise 6 kids. She had some level of capacity and understanding of cause and effect.

Hence why she did things like feed them - because she understands not eating can cause death eventually.

Bluntness100 · 29/11/2020 20:52

She would not have been sentenced if she didn’t have culpability. It’s that simple.

I’m astonished at the women on here trying to absolve her of her crimes.

Her crime was heinous in the extreme. She served eight years for it. Because she knew what she was doing and she knew it was wrong. End of.

There is no excusing it. No justifying it. No exonerating it.

AuntieStella · 29/11/2020 20:53

@AlternativePerspective

And for people saying that we should learn from these cases to stop more children coming to this kind of harm.

What would people propose then? The women who are being abused are adults. They are free to make their own decisions. So perhaps if women are in abusive relationships SS should remove their children just in case? No didn’t think so....

I's like to read the full SCR as well if anyone knows where to find it. But from real articles about it, a couple of ideas are:

a) making sure that complete criminal records are made available to relevant professionals (eg his 1978 conviction that was not, it seems, properly known let alone taken into account when risk assessing the family)
b) considering what the threshold for removal of the father for the children should be when there has been both serious violence against adults and at least one incidence of DV within the current home (he had been cautioned)

By the way, for anyone interested, the judge's sentencing remarks are here:

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-philpott-philpott-and-mosley-sentencing-remarks.pdf

RUOKHon · 29/11/2020 20:54

I cannot buy she did t know setting fire to the house risked death by anyone inside. She managed to raise 6 kids. She had some level of capacity and understanding of cause and effect

But for that argument to work, you need to be starting from the premise that she had any agency in the relationship at all and that she felt able to to say no to him.

She probably knew intuitively that if she refused to go along with it, he’d definitely kill her and all the children. My guess is that, in this warped situation, she probably felt that trusting his plan that they would stop the fire before it got too bad was the least worst option available to her.

AlternativePerspective · 29/11/2020 20:55

So do we know exactly what form these learning difficulties took? After all, having dyslexia for instance is classed as having “learning difficulties,” but dyslexics are still considered mentally competent obviously.

If people are saying that any learning difficulties excuse murder then that excuses an awfully large part of the population.

Foxinsocks1 · 29/11/2020 20:55

I don’t think there’s any excuse for her behaviour and it’s appalling she’s being released so early. She may have to live with what she’s done but she’ll be pregnant again very soon I expect. That will go one of two ways, a child raised by her with who knows what consequences or the child being removed and going through care proceedings

TheTurnOfTheScrew · 29/11/2020 20:56

the SCR is here

AlternativePerspective · 29/11/2020 20:57

She probably knew intuitively that if she refused to go along with it, he’d definitely kill her and all the children. so to save herself, she killed her children.

Pumperthepumper · 29/11/2020 20:57

@RUOKHon

I cannot buy she did t know setting fire to the house risked death by anyone inside. She managed to raise 6 kids. She had some level of capacity and understanding of cause and effect

But for that argument to work, you need to be starting from the premise that she had any agency in the relationship at all and that she felt able to to say no to him.

She probably knew intuitively that if she refused to go along with it, he’d definitely kill her and all the children. My guess is that, in this warped situation, she probably felt that trusting his plan that they would stop the fire before it got too bad was the least worst option available to her.

I was trying to write this out but couldn’t get the wording right. I agree, too many people are looking at this as if it was a normal, healthy relationship. It wasn’t. The ignorance of abuse victims on here really is staggering sometimes.
AlternativePerspective · 29/11/2020 20:58

And I very much doubt she will “have to live with this for the rest of her life.” Anyone who can murder six children has no empathy or ability to regret what they’ve done.

grapewine · 29/11/2020 20:58

@myhobbyisouting

"She lauded him like a king, and had probably never had many positive male role models to compare him too sadly"

So now you need a positive male role model to not kill your kids. Fucking hell. Raise the bar a bit

Agreed. It's outrageous that she's out.
pjmask · 29/11/2020 20:58

I don’t think there’s any excuse for her behaviour and it’s appalling she’s being released so early. She may have to live with what she’s done but she’ll be pregnant again very soon I expect. That will go one of two ways, a child raised by her with who knows what consequences or the child being removed and going through care proceedings

No, if she became pregnant the child would be removed at birth trust me on that one

Swipe left for the next trending thread