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?

@Pumperthepumper I don't know the beef with @AlternativePerspective but it's coming across as personal now.

They make an interesting point about baby PS mother and Karen Matthews. Why are they any different?

Goodness Boreoff I hadn't realised she was so young. I agree, she probably will be pregnant soon. They wouldn't let her keep it though surely.

[quote Icanflyhigh]@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.[/quote]
I got goosebumps reading that.

But should you be telling us this

Mother of baby P?

Never has a case disturbed and haunted me so much. I still remember that poor little boy’s face like it was yesterday. I can’t believe that “mother” or the men involved were ever allowed to see the light of day again - it’s sickening. Why do people rushing to defend these monsters forget the poor innocent children who are caught up in these horrendous cases?

@MarthaWashingtonsFeralTomcat - I agree.

She had an abusive childhood then abusive relationships as an adult. She completely lost track of what was right and normal. What chance did she have?

Her actions were abhorrent but it was Philpott who was the brains behind the idea. Totally disgusting scuzzy character. Foul. He should stay in prison forever.

Why am I not surprised? angry (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

No as far as I understand Sarah’s Law only relates to paedophiles and the sex offenders register.

I’m not suggesting that it would have been useful to ‘warn Mairead off him’. Where it would have been helpful in this case is, any concerns from social services or other agencies or any reports of domestic violence or police attendance to DV incidences at their house would have been joined up with his previous offending history instead of each thing being dealt with in isolation. So, for example, police attending their house after neighbours reported him knocking her about would be able to see if was part of a wider historical pattern of violence towards women instead of treating it as a one off ‘domestic’, which is what happens at the moment.

Bring children into the discussion and a lot of that support disappears because she is a part of the abuse her children will suffer

What is alternative though realistically? Women stay and their children are exposed to domestic violence ongoing, and subject to risk themselves. When the support available/offered is rejected, how can authorities not consider the mother part of the abuse her children will suffer....from a practical standpoint?

@Dongdingdong

Mother of baby P?

Never has a case disturbed and haunted me so much. I still remember that poor little boy’s face like it was yesterday. I can’t believe that “mother” or the men involved were ever allowed to see the light of day again - it’s sickening. Why do people rushing to defend these monsters forget the poor innocent children who are caught up in these horrendous cases?

Agreed. I can't get over people trying.to feel sorry for and defend her. Those six children are the only victims here.

Wouldn’t it be Claire’s law that would be more relevant? He had been previously convicted so that would have been disclosed under a Claire’s law request surely?

the problem is that most people don’t think “Oh, I’ve met this lovely bloke, better go and do a Claire’s law check to make sure he’s not an abuser, and a Sarah’s law to make sure he’s not a paedophile.

People see that as not a great start to what should be a loving and trusting relationship.

@Pumperthepumper, youre flogging a dead horse. The court accepted neither her MILD learning difficulties or abuse from Mick as mitigation.

And also quite a few posters - @GetOffYourHighHorse and @Wheresmykimchi included, who think being subjected to regular rapes and beatings doesn’t make you a victim.

@AlternativePerspective

Wouldn’t it be Claire’s law that would be more relevant? He had been previously convicted so that would have been disclosed under a Claire’s law request surely?

the problem is that most people don’t think “Oh, I’ve met this lovely bloke, better go and do a Claire’s law check to make sure he’s not an abuser, and a Sarah’s law to make sure he’s not a paedophile.

People see that as not a great start to what should be a loving and trusting relationship.

That, and I'd imagine if you have cause to do the disclosure you're probably too far in , for many women.

'There’s victim blaming - and ableist language - all through this thread.'

The victims were the children. Stop making out she was. Whatever dysfunctional relationship she had she should not have gone along with setting the house on fire with her children inside.

[quote Wheresmykimchi]@Pumperthepumper, youre flogging a dead horse. The court accepted neither her MILD learning difficulties or abuse from Mick as mitigation.[/quote]
Which horse am I flogging?

@Icanflyhigh thanks for the reply - that is truly awful. What was your take on Mairead in all of this? Philpott sounds despicable but her actions were also unforgivable IMO.

@Pumperthepumper

And also quite a few posters - *@GetOffYourHighHorse and @Wheresmykimchi* included, who think being subjected to regular rapes and beatings doesn’t make you a victim.

Hello.

I didn't say that.

As you were.

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'There’s victim blaming - and ableist language - all through this thread.'

The victims were the children. Stop making out she was. Whatever dysfunctional relationship she had she should not have gone along with setting the house on fire with her children inside.

See above.

*Pumper
*
At an early stage of the trial it appeared that you were entirely downtrodden by Michael Philpott to the extent that it appeared that you felt you had no choice but to do whatever he wanted in whatever way he wanted in any aspect of your lives together. But as the evidence came out it was plain that this was not quite the position. This was put beyond doubt when you gave evidence. You pointed out that you had stood up to him in the past. That is why when he asked you for a divorce on no fewer than 3 occasions you refused him. That was a request you were simply not prepared to accommodate, whatever he said. It is inescapable therefore that when something was important enough to you, you were capable of exercising a choice which was not his choice.

The judge does say there was evidence from her herself that was capable of exercising her own mind and not always making his choices hers.

@Pumperthepumper

you are not the voice for abused women. you do not speak for us all.

you are coming across badly and its not helping the cause at all

@Pumperthepumper , the ableist language
(she has mild learning difficulties, not a disability ).and abuse making her less culpable. The courts didn't accept either.

Ah, I see ... thanks for the extra information, RUOKHon

I'm still pretty shocked that such a scheme isn't already in place, but sadly not at all surprised

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

Not in Sally Challen’s case.