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?

She is far from a victim . ODFOD.

@Wheresmykimchi your own words.

@itsgettingweird

*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.

Oh dear @Pumperthepumper. You're looking a bit silly.

@Pumperthepumper

She is far from a victim . ODFOD.

@Wheresmykimchi your own words.

She isn't.

I didn't say that all women who have been raped and beaten aren't.

They're not a single species.

I voted YABU. It was clear during the trial that her husband was the one who started the fire, and she covered up for him. She didn't just cover for him, she knew what he was planning, she might not have lit the match but she is just as guilty as him. I don't understand why she got a lighter sentence in the first place let alone getting out early.

The victims were the children.

This. End of.

@RUOKHon

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

Not in Sally Challen’s case.

We aren't talking about her though

@Dongdingdong

The victims were the children.

This. End of.

With bells on.

[quote MrsShelton]@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[/quote]
You’re right, I think there’s too many posters trying to pretend abuse has no bearing on women’s behaviour, or that they somehow have a choice in what happens to them, and I’m finding that too frustrating. I think I’ll bow out now

@ancientgran

I voted YABU. It was clear during the trial that her husband was the one who started the fire, and she covered up for him. She didn't just cover for him, she knew what he was planning, she might not have lit the match but she is just as guilty as him. I don't understand why she got a lighter sentence in the first place let alone getting out early.

Because despite the courts finding otherwise , she and particular people on this thread have decided she's the victim and should be treated with compassion and support.

Pumper.

I see the opposite. People are saying that just because some woman are and do end up in the position you're arguing doesn't mean MP was. Even the judge ruled that based on her own evidence.

@itsgettingweird I’m going to hide this thread now but I’m sad we couldn’t have this conversation. I don’t think that means she was capable of always standing up to him, only that she was too scared to lose him to grant him a divorce. One for another day, maybe.

[quote Pumperthepumper]@itsgettingweird I’m going to hide this thread now but I’m sad we couldn’t have this conversation. I don’t think that means she was capable of always standing up to him, only that she was too scared to lose him to grant him a divorce. One for another day, maybe.[/quote]
For what it's worth I agree with you on that point.

Not in Sally Challen’s case. that was different though because she killed her abuser.

These children were entirely innocent victims.

Also, he asked her for a divorce and she said no. Hardly a woman who is so terrified that she would murder her children.

If she’d actually said yes to the divorce maybe the children would still be alive.

'think there’s too many posters trying to pretend abuse has no bearing on women’s behaviour, or that they somehow have a choice in what happens to them'

You are bizarrely trying to persuade people that abused women/women in dysfunctional relationships all behave the same. They don't. Kimchi has helpfully posted the judges comments. Read them.

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

It would have made a world of difference - read section 9 of the SCR linked above. His historic offending, including attempted murder, was not known to those risk assessing the family at various points simply because old records on microfiche were not readily avaioabke. If they had been, the significance certain events would have been weighted differently

@AlternativePerspective

Not in Sally Challen’s case. that was different though because she killed her abuser.

These children were entirely innocent victims.

Also, he asked her for a divorce and she said no. Hardly a woman who is so terrified that she would murder her children.

If she’d actually said yes to the divorce maybe the children would still be alive.

Ah here is where I change sides.

If she had said yes the children would have been left alone with him. It only takes a flick through the threads on here to see what lengths women go to to avoid this. Maybe we first she thought she could control the situation and then it got out of hand.

Or maybe he made her feel so shit about herself that when he asked for divorce then changed his mind she thought she was in control.

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'think there’s too many posters trying to pretend abuse has no bearing on women’s behaviour, or that they somehow have a choice in what happens to them'

You are bizarrely trying to persuade people that abused women/women in dysfunctional relationships all behave the same. They don't. Kimchi has helpfully posted the judges comments. Read them.

In fairness as much as I've disagreed with much of @Pumperthepumper s narrative , her point about being asked for divorce not being an indicator of strength is a good one.

I really wonder who made the decision to release her now and on what basis. Will leave it at that for now. We don't know everything after all.

Thing is we’ll never know.

What we do know though is that she was complicit in the murder of those children. And that goes against the belief that she would have stayed to protect them...

Clare’s Law is slightly different because the onus is on the woman, the victim, to put in a request about the perpetrator.

What a centralised register will do is make it easier for historical offences to be flagged to law enforcement whenever they attend an incident where the perpetrator is involved.

Like, in the case of Alice Ruggles, she was stalked and eventually murdered by her ex boyfriend. He had a history of stalking previous ex girlfriends and had a conviction for a violent attack on one of them. Alice made several complaints to the police about his stalking and harassment of her and nothing was ever done because he hadn’t actually harmed her (yet). If his previous convictions had been on the register, they would have been flagged to the police as soon as Alice gave them his name. Then they would have been able to take more definitive action to protect her.

It would’ve been the same with Mairead. Or, that’s the idea anyway.

To the poster who said they had dealings with the family as their social worker - I’m interested to know whether you or any other agencies involved knew about his previous conviction for attempted murder of his girlfriend?

No, it isn’t actually. It means she isn’t guilty of the crime of murdering her children. He is. What about joint enterprise?

Horrible case no matter what.

RIP to those innocent kids.

@AlternativePerspective

Thing is we’ll never know.

What we do know though is that she was complicit in the murder of those children. And that goes against the belief that she would have stayed to protect them...

I agree. And she was.

But there might have been a time that that was the motivation.

I know, AuntiesStella, but I meant it probably wouldn't have made any difference to Maireid herself ... as in any warnings would have been ignored because she "knew her man and he wasn't like that, honest"

It happens all the time

Could be early release to save money.

I'm not going to comment on the length of sentence served on her but the judge would have known the early release provisions.