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?

@itsgettingweird

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.

I will, thank you. Which points in particular?

The judge made those comments in the sentencing before coercive control existed as a crime.

When you look at many posts on here about relationships that are obviously abusive, and the OP cannot see it at all, it does resonate with me that control is something that cannot be swatted away just like that.

Mairead was a very abused woman, Mick Philpott was a very violent and abusive man, he pimped her to a man to try and cover up his crimes, id be surprised if its the first time. she was very young when she met him. one of his ex girlfriends he stabbed her multiple times and served a prison sentence for attempted murder, he imo should never have been allowed to prey on such young girls and have so many kids, authorities should not allow violent attempted murderers to have families after. sadly, she will have been terrified of him.
That doesn't mean i dont think she deserved prison but i dont think shes as evil as mick. imagine being in her head.

This family were on my caseload years ago when I worked in children's services - in my opinion they should both have been left to rot - truly awful people.

Presumably as a served crime , Mick has every right to go on to have children with whoever he likes

He's not out yet, but with a tariff of just 15 years it won't be that long
And yes, he'll almost certainly create more children; he's managed 18 so far (and they're just the ones known about) so why wouldn't he?

When you look at many posts on here about relationships that are obviously abusive, and the OP cannot see it at all, it does resonate with me that control is something that cannot be swatted away just like that. no woman on here talking about being abused would get an easy ride though. They would be told in no uncertain terms that if they stayed they were partly to blame to any abuse their children suffered.

If it’s the woman’ only posters are very supportive of the fact she is finding it hard, but should leave for her sake. Bring children into the discussion and a lot of that support disappears because she is a part of the abuse her children will suffer.

I assume the posters defending Mairead would happily defend the many other recent examples of mothers who’ve harmed their kids too. It’s actually quite chilling.

This family were on my caseload years ago when I worked in children's services - in my opinion they should both have been left to rot - truly awful people.

@Icanflyhigh did you actually meet them?

@itsgettingweird

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.

Right, I’ve read it and I still can’t see which points I said were wrong.

@AlternativePerspective

When you look at many posts on here about relationships that are obviously abusive, and the OP cannot see it at all, it does resonate with me that control is something that cannot be swatted away just like that. no woman on here talking about being abused would get an easy ride though. They would be told in no uncertain terms that if they stayed they were partly to blame to any abuse their children suffered.

If it’s the woman’ only posters are very supportive of the fact she is finding it hard, but should leave for her sake. Bring children into the discussion and a lot of that support disappears because she is a part of the abuse her children will suffer.

Only by people like you though.

This family were on my caseload years ago when I worked in children's services

Well, at least we now have the answer to "did they have SS involvement?"
Not that I imagine anyone will be surprised ...

There’s a consultation process happening in Parliament over an amendment to the Domestic Abuse Act. One of the key proposals on the bill is to create a serial perpetrator’s register so that historic domestic abuse convictions are recorded centrally so that they’re not missed.

Currently there’s no formal system in place for joining up historic offences. Even if they served prison time for it. It’s a huge gap and a failure in the system and needs to be plugged by the register to protect women from violent serial perpetrators.

You can read more about it here if anyone’s interested

paladinservice.co.uk/serial-perpetrator-register-and-order/

@AlternativePerspective, I always used to think women should leave. But here is a real life example:

Women in a violent relationship. She has confided to midwife during 3rd pregnancy. After assessment and ongoing issues Social services tell her she must leave to they will remove the children.

She leaves. She goes to a women’s refuge. Starts a new life. All good. Then The husband/ father takes her to court and gets unsupervised access to to the children. She tries to stop it. Spends £20k of her parents money trying to prevent it. Social services and the refuge and the children’s therapists all give accounts of the abuse.

The family court rules that as the abuse was aimed at the mother, not the children, the father can see the children. Mother tries to stop it. It’s goes to court again. Mother is threatened with losing residency of the children due to ‘parental alienation’ of the father. Father awarded extra time with children. Children forced to spend every other weekend and half the holidays with father. Who they are terrified of. Because of course now he takes it out in them. But he’s careful not to hit them. Just locks them in cupboards for hours or withholds food and water. And of course the children tell cafcass they are happy, because they are soooo scared of him. Cafcass are so biased towards fathers. And have next to no domestic abuse training. And don’t pick up on any basic red flags from the children.

So really, the only way the mother could have protected those children, was to tow the line of the abuser, hide the violence from school and social services and stay with the abuser.

Now do you have an idea on why women might not leave. Add that to the fear and fog and lack of understanding of what’s happening. Growing up in a community where violence against women is a social norm. It’s just not simple enough to say she should have left. Ideally she shouldn’t have had 6 kids with him 😕

@BoreOfWhabylon

She's variously described in the press as 38 or 39.

She'll be pregnant within the year. It's all she knows.

Guaranteed

I assume the posters defending Mairead would happily defend the many other recent examples of mothers who’ve harmed their kids too. It’s actually quite chilling. almost certainly.

Mother of baby P? Karen Matthews?

And those who aren’t excused on the basis of abuse are on the basis of mental health grounds.

Doesn’t matter how a woman murders her children, as soon as they report it’s a woman people are quick to say “she must have been suffering from mental health issues.”

I voted YABU OP but only because I don’t know why you’re amazed that she’s been let out already. Most people who commit serious crimes don’t serve anywhere near enough time behind bars IMO. Just look at Baby P’s “mother” (I’m sure there will be posters on here who will happily defend her, too).

no woman on here talking about being abused would get an easy ride though. They would be told in no uncertain terms that if they stayed they were partly to blame to any abuse their children suffered

But that would be wrong.

76% of domestic abuse homicides happen at the point of separation or within the first four months after separation. When an abuser realises he is losing control over his victim, he escalates. And in two thirds of cases, that escalation results in the murder of the woman and sometimes also her children.

It is never as simple as ‘why doesn’t she just leave’. Often, not leaving is the only thing keeping her alive.

Instead of victim blaming there needs to be much better support and much better signposting to that support for women who want to leave abusive relationships, so that it’s easier and safer for them to do so.

Pumper specifically that despite it being obvious Mick was the centre of Micks world and was clearly an awful character that she could stand up to him and herself gave evidence in court of previous times she'd defied him.

Although not said it implies expressly this was part of the reason it was decided she had some culpability

@RUOKHon

The judge made those comments in the sentencing before coercive control existed as a crime.

Which hard since been thrown out by appeal courts since its introduction.

@itsgettingweird

Pumper specifically that despite it being obvious Mick was the centre of Micks world and was clearly an awful character that she could stand up to him and herself gave evidence in court of previous times she'd defied him.

Although not said it implies expressly this was part of the reason it was decided she had some culpability

That’s not what it says - it says he asked her three times for a divorce and she refused (because she couldn’t stand to lose him). It absolutely doesn’t say she regularly stood up to him, or that she wasn’t scared to do it.

Currently there’s no formal system in place for joining up historic offences. Even if they served prison time for it. It’s a huge gap and a failure in the system

Why am I not surprised? (Although I thought this sort of thing came under Sarah's Law)

You didn't say who this would be aimed at, but I'm not sure what difference it would make to women like Mairead anyway. How often do we hear about women who've been warned, but believe everyone else is wrong and they alone "understand" some guy?

*I always used to think women should leave. But here is a real life example:

Women in a violent relationship. She has confided to midwife during 3rd pregnancy. After assessment and ongoing issues Social services tell her she must leave to they will remove the children.

She leaves. She goes to a women’s refuge. Starts a new life. All good. Then The husband/ father takes her to court and gets unsupervised access to to the children. She tries to stop it. Spends £20k of her parents money trying to prevent it. Social services and the refuge and the children’s therapists all give accounts of the abuse.

The family court rules that as the abuse was aimed at the mother, not the children, the father can see the children. Mother tries to stop it. It’s goes to court again. Mother is threatened with losing residency of the children due to ‘parental alienation’ of the father. Father awarded extra time with children. Children forced to spend every other weekend and half the holidays with father. Who they are terrified of. Because of course now he takes it out in them. But he’s careful not to hit them. Just locks them in cupboards for hours or withholds food and water. And of course the children tell cafcass they are happy, because they are soooo scared of him. Cafcass are so biased towards fathers. And have next to no domestic abuse training. And don’t pick up on any basic red flags from the children.

So really, the only way the mother could have protected those children, was to tow the line of the abuser, hide the violence from school and social services and stay with the abuser.

Now do you have an idea on why women might not leave. Add that to the fear and fog and lack of understanding of what’s happening. Growing up in a community where violence against women is a social norm. It’s just not simple enough to say she should have left. Ideally she shouldn’t have had 6 kids with him*

This is absolutely right. The Family Courts are so ignorant about how coercive control and domestic abuse dynamics work. They effectively enable abusers to keep abusing because the woman chooses to stay because at least that way she doesn’t have to hand her children over to him every other weekend for him to further terrorise them. At least she can try and protect them from him if she’s there all the time.

@Dongdingdong yes several times.
Home visits, family support worker visits and children in need meetings and my role was around school attendance.
The overwhelming message coming through was that they needed/wanted a bigger house and if they got that, everything would be easier - the children would all be at school every day and on time etc
I was actually doing a register check in the younger children's school on the morning after the fire and I remember the office staff being in tears, the children were delightful - genuinely they were, but their parents were shocking, absolutely selfish, never money for uniform as if you plead poverty, the council will pay through pupil premium funding, but always money for fans, beer etc.
He always gave me the creeps, he strutted around like he was gods gift and made a big thing about having a wife and a mistress.... that was also a reason for the kids non school attendance - ot depended where he slept the night before as if he was in the caravan with his girlfriend Mairead didn't ever get up and take the kids to school.

Honestly, vile family, was not shocked to see them on JK, but what they did really did rock a whole community. I drive past the site of the fire every so often on my way to the supermarket and even though their house was bulldozed, I still get goose bumps.