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?

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

No, people are saying that her learning difficulties made her more vulnerable to being coercively controlled by a psychopath.

Mick Philpott lived two doors up from me with his first wife years ago and he was vile then.

I can’t believe she has been released. If she has any sense she will stay far, far away from Derby.

so to save herself, she killed her children

No. She believed him when he told her they would get them out before the fire got too bad.

She should have her tubes tied before her release

'No, people are saying that her learning difficulties made her more vulnerable to being coercively controlled by a psychopath'

But as has been said repeatedly the appeal court found she wasn't coerced. You can't just make it up to suit your agenda.

I’d rather be ignorant than a murder apologist.

The time for sympathy was while she was abused and wanted to get out. At the point she murdered her children she lost the right to sympathy.

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.

No. Capacity to understand and agency are two different things. Neither applied in this case to the extent that she is excused.

Firstly, she was not considered incapable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. Whether she expected them to die doesn’t matter. She was considered capable of understanding that it was wrong to set the house on fire with them in it. So the consequences of that are her responsibility.

Secondly, although it is true that she was in an abusive relationship, the threshold for a defence of duress is very, very high. She was not forced to help him. She was not actually prevented from helping them. And the jury/appeal judge saw this and acted accordingly.

This thread led me to watch a documentary on YouTube about the couple - absolutely shocking.

I did wonder like a previous poster whether social services were involved before the deaths?

Anne Widdicombe did a programme with him. She said he made her flinch on a number of occasions from fear.

Horrible horrible human being.

And I really wouldn’t be so sure that she would have the children removed at birth. SS work to keep families together, if she could convince them that the abuse was all him and that they were no longer together, there is every chance she would be allowed to keep a baby she had and be put on a child protection plan until she either convinced them she was capable of being a decent mother (unlikely) or abused the child (likely).

The judicial system also found that John Broadhurst was only guilty of the manslaughter of Natalie Connolly and allowed him to be released after only a year.

The judicial system is deeply misogynistic (see: Family Courts) and is still incredibly ignorant about coercive control. Coercive control has only been a crime for the past five years. It didn’t exist when Mairead was tried. To my knowledge, it’s only been allowed as a mitigating defence on appeal once, in the case of Sally Challen.

@RUOKHon

so to save herself, she killed her children

No. She believed him when he told her they would get them out before the fire got too bad.

If she was competent enough to stand trial , she was competent to know how a fire works. She knew the risk was there a s and went along with it anyway.

What's the point of long sentences if people only serve less than half? I hope she's haunted by this for the rest of her life. And if that makes me a shit human, then I'm OK with that, honestly.

Mick probably believed they could get the children out too ,it doesn't mean he wasn't culpable,I don't think he ever intended the children to die as it would been a loss of his income .But they still did it despite the risks .

It's not much of a deterrent for anyone else, is it. Those poor kids, it's heartbreaking.

@Pumperthepumper, do you believe she was capable of understanding the fire could kill them but too scared not to go through with it , or genuinely thought he'd get them out in time?

Indeed, where does this sympathy for the abused end? What if Mick Philpott was abused as a child? Maybe he shouldn't be punished because he is also a victim? And is just repeating the cycle of abuse? The insistence of some posters on here that men are the root of all evil and women are always helpless victims is infuriating. Mairead Philpott may have a low IQ but she is still a functioning adult. She's hardly a person who needs round the clock care due to lack of mental capacity. She's not less intelligent than the average six year old who knows that a mother should be trusted to not agree to her children being burned in their beds.
As a mother, I would take any beating for my child. I would be tortured for them. Because I couldn't live with myself if I didn't. She could have called 999 and got out with her children, the police would have helped with Mick's past record. Mairead didn't shed a single tear over her children's deaths when they did that insulting press conference.

[quote Wheresmykimchi]@Pumperthepumper, do you believe she was capable of understanding the fire could kill them but too scared not to go through with it , or genuinely thought he'd get them out in time?[/quote]
Yes. I don’t think she meant to murder all of her own children. Do you?

I doubt she was even sure of her own name unless he told her what it was

According to Anne Widdecombe, her name (and that of the other woman) was 'Bitch'.

@x2boys

Mick probably believed they could get the children out too ,it doesn't mean he wasn't culpable,I don't think he ever intended the children to die as it would been a loss of his income .But they still did it despite the risks .

Good point I hadn't considered.

It's that sad but true realisation

@TheAdventuresoftheWishingChair

Mick Philpott's record on violence towards women is horrifying

See this is what we should be focusing 99% of our attention on in this debate. A man was that disgustingly violent and abusive and yet he had his freedom. He had care of multiple children. What the hell is wrong with society? If you had taken him out of the equation many years before the crime was committed, I guarantee that woman would never have burnt her children to death. She wouldn't have thought to do it.

Can't believe he only served 3 and a half years in prison for stabbing his previous partner multiple times puncturing her lung, bladder etc. How on earth do violent men get let out so soon? Unbelievable.

@Pumperthepumper sorry that maybe wasn't clear. I meant which one. The IQ or the knew but too scared not to go through with it.

I'd like to think not. But they still died.

@TheTurnOfTheScrew thank you