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?

@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

Read about his violence, abuse and extreme control here. She is a victim in this.
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/02/mick-philpott-violent-control-freak

She was complicit in the premeditated murder of her children and the attempted cover up afterwards.

I have more faith in womankind than to relegate any woman to just the sad, stupid victim of a sleazy evil man. The victims were 6 children who truly had no choice.

Her life is so very far removed from my own that I cannot judge, even if I wanted to. I cannot even fathom how anyone’s life can turn out like hers did.

Honestly heartbreaking. Those poor poor children.

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?

That’s a different point.

Almost without exception, the most evil people in history have suffered childhood trauma and/or abuse. Hitler, Charles Manson, Ed Kemper, Ted Bundy... But at the time they chose to commit the acts they committed, they weren’t still being abused or traumatised.

Mairead was. That’s the difference.

@TrialOfStyle

Taking all emotion out of it, what is the benefit of her being in prison? Presumably the fact that she is being released means she’s no longer deemed a danger to society.

And I would imagine that the reality is that her life isn’t going to be any better on the outside - if she’s recognised (and it will only likely be a matter of time) it’s going to be much worse.

Exactly. She's not a threat. If she hadn't been with him, any children she had wouldn't have come to this tragic end.

I have more faith in womankind than to relegate any woman to just the sad, stupid victim of a sleazy evil man

Well any woman (and there are unfortunately many of them) who has been the victim of domestic abuse - whether psychological or emotional - would find your statement very offensive and victim-blaming.

'But at the time they chose to commit the acts they committed, they weren’t still being abused or traumatised. Mairead was. That’s the difference.'

Fascinating all these rules that apologists make up.

Mairead was. That’s the difference.

But not to the extent that it excuses her for the deaths of six innocent kids. We are all expected to do better than that.

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'But at the time they chose to commit the acts they committed, they weren’t still being abused or traumatised. Mairead was. That’s the difference.'

Fascinating all these rules that apologists make up.

Do you honestly not think the abuse she suffered by Mick Philpott is in any way relevant here? At all?

But not to the extent that it excuses her for the deaths of six innocent kids. We are all expected to do better than that

Of course it doesn’t excuse her. But it’s the reason for it. And for that reason her sentence was proportionate.

no she didnt intend to murder her kids.....no....but....she would KNOW they would experience harm, distress and trauma from being in a house fire!!!

learning difficulties or not, nothing can excuse that attitude to her children

I suspect her time in prison has brought her further abuse/s from the other inmates and that this will perpetuate her self-id as a victim, cement the pattern a bit more.

But it’s the reason for it. And for that reason her sentence was proportionate.

It’s not. They didn’t take it into account. They rejected the argument that she was coerced and abused and gave her 17 years.

@pjmask they couldn’t remove her next child at birth without proper assessment just off her history, there is a chance she could keep it. I’ve worked with parents who have been to prison for killing their child then have gone on to have other children they have kept following release. There’s been social services involvement but the children have remained with parents.

Do you honestly not think the abuse she suffered by Mick Philpott is in any way relevant here? At all? no.

They are two separate issues.

She was abused by him to think that if she didn’t kill her children she too would die. So she killed her children.

It doesn’t matter if she thought they might get out alive, she would also know that they might not and that they might die. But that was a chance she was prepared to take to save herself.

How many of these murder apologists would be happy to befriend this woman? Have her over for dinner? Ask her to babysit their kids?

She will have a new identity, so people would never know it was her, but let’s just say that she didn’t have a new identity and moved in next door. How far would you go to protect her, after all she was nothing but a vulnerable victim.

Would you turn a blind eye to what she’d done and allow her to babysit for you? Social services wouldn’t have to know after all, and she didn’t mean to murder six children, honest.

@RUOKHon

But not to the extent that it excuses her for the deaths of six innocent kids. We are all expected to do better than that

Of course it doesn’t excuse her. But it’s the reason for it. And for that reason her sentence was proportionate.

Sadly not. The justice system is a funny thing.

Look at the Andrew Harper case for an example. They escaped with manslaughter as opposed to murder because they didn't use the weapon they had brought with them and used their car instead so it couldn't be proven they meant to do it.

It’s not. They didn’t take it into account. They rejected the argument that she was coerced and abused and gave her 17 years

What I mean is, re: the topic of this thread, it’s proportionate that she’s been released now.

@NeedToKnow101 thanks for sharing.

Horrific abuser of women or in a lot of cases children. Interesting it says the "unchecked" abuse, despite his convictions, nothing was done.

@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.

The judge sentencing actually said she was able to stand up to him.

She had done in the past and gave evidence to this fact.

It wasn't even considered she couldn't stand up to him. It was however recognised that Mick was the centre of his world and expected both woman to be his slaves etc.

What I mean is, re: the topic of this thread, it’s proportionate that she’s been released now.

It’s consistent with the law. That’s all I can honestly say.

@AlternativePerspective

Do you honestly not think the abuse she suffered by Mick Philpott is in any way relevant here? At all? no.

They are two separate issues.

She was abused by him to think that if she didn’t kill her children she too would die. So she killed her children.

It doesn’t matter if she thought they might get out alive, she would also know that they might not and that they might die. But that was a chance she was prepared to take to save herself.

I’m honestly just embarrassed for you at this point.

She was abused by him to think that if she didn’t kill her children she too would die. So she killed her children

She was abused by him to think that if she didn’t go along with his plan to set fire to the house and then get the children out, then he would kill her and the children. So she went along with the plan.

Pumper read the judges sentencing above. Some of the points made you are saying to posters they are wrong to believe are actually things the judge said.