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?

@AlternativePerspective

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.

I wouldn't have a problem with her. She did not murder her children. There was no intention. I don't rate her mothering and judgemental skills after having seen the documentary with Anne Widecombe. However I don't think view her as an evil murderer as I do Myra Hindley, Rose West etc

[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]
I disagree. I don't think @Pumperthepumper is coming across badly at all. She/He is making some very valid points that others are choosing to jump on rather harshly.

@MrsShelton

she could have left and she knew this....he had 2 wives.....mairead and the other one, all living together.....a few weeks earlier the other wife left, taking her kids

mairead knew it was possible. she had watched it happen!

What an ignorant and judgemental comment. Did you see what Mick did to his previous partner (and her mother) that left him?

[quote Wheresmykimchi]@Pumperthepumper

You still don't seem to accept that she is dangerous so let's go by your logic. You claim that her IQ and abuse means she is vulnerable and cannot make decisions for herself. It is therefore likely that she will meet a similar type of man.

If she was complicit in and allowed the murder of her own children , do you not think it is likely she would cover up the crimes of someone else a la Maxine Carr? She's done the worst possible so I am honestly gobsmacked that anyone thinks she is not dangerous.[/quote]
She did not allow the 'murder' of her children. There was no intent to kill the children.

@AlternativePerspective

But if the women are choosing to stay then they are the ones responsible for any harm that comes to their children.

We can’t think of the women as so weak that they shouldn’t be held responsible for their children. So while the men should be being held to account, if the women refuse to leave then they are responsible, and the children should be removed.

In fact in many cases this is exactly what does happen if a woman refuses to leave a violent partner.

The children have to come first.

'Choosing to stay?' WOW Have you read anything about Mick's extremely violent history against women. Social services and the justice system should take some responsibility. They should never have let him out with his past crimes and offered more support to his 'wives'.

I wouldn't have a problem with her. She did not murder her children. There was no intention.

There was every intention to set her house on fire with her kids in it. You would let her babysit your precious kids? Heard it all now.

@flaviaritt

I wouldn't have a problem with her. She did not murder her children. There was no intention.

There was every intention to set her house on fire with her kids in it. You would let her babysit your precious kids? Heard it all now.

If you bothered to read what I said. I didn't say I would let her babysit my kids. I don't think she has good judgemental or mothering skills. However I don't view her as a murderer. I view her a victim.

lovelovelove2020

So you don’t think she did anything wrong? Reasonable conduct throughout? That’s the legal test, isn’t it? What she did - in fear of her life - any reasonable person would also have done. Allowed her husband to plan and carry out the manslaughter of her six kids by burning to death. Because she was ‘too scared’ to call the police or tell a neighbour or leave with her children, or call her social worker (if she had one).

Reasonable?

@flaviaritt

lovelovelove2020

So you don’t think she did anything wrong? Reasonable conduct throughout? That’s the legal test, isn’t it? What she did - in fear of her life - any reasonable person would also have done. Allowed her husband to plan and carry out the manslaughter of her six kids by burning to death. Because she was ‘too scared’ to call the police or tell a neighbour or leave with her children, or call her social worker (if she had one).

Reasonable?

Have you actually read anything about Mick's extremely violent history against women? Mairead was raped and abused on a daily basis. She was in fear of beatings on a daily basis. She had learning difficulties etc She did not think her children would be killed. She trusted Mick when he said everything would be okay. Just like a child trusts an adult when they say it. She is a victim of Mick as well as the system that didn't protect her and the kids.

She now has her liberty Flaviaritt. Same as you and me.

lovelovelove2020

I’ve read the whole thread and NO. She was considered culpable because she DID have capacity and wasn’t (as she claimed) under his control to the extent that she couldn’t have called the police.

Stop apologising for this, it’s dreadful.

mathanxiety

The law has the right to remove a person’s liberty or return it to them, as we have discussed before.

@flaviaritt

lovelovelove2020

I’ve read the whole thread and NO. She was considered culpable because she DID have capacity and wasn’t (as she claimed) under his control to the extent that she couldn’t have called the police.

Stop apologising for this, it’s dreadful.

I haven't apologised for anything. I think your attitude towards abused women is the only dreadful thing.

I think your attitude towards abused women is the only dreadful thing.

My attitude to abused women is one of compassion and anger towards their abusers.

My attitude to someone not under the immediate physical control of another person who allows the deaths of their own children whilst taking no action to stop it, and then is proven competent in court, is that they are culpable.

The two issues can be and were separated, and rightly so, because six kids are dead, partly because of what she did.

Reasonable conduct throughout?

I don't think anyone has suggested it was reasonable conduct throughout, hence her serving 8.5 (?) years in prison.

I just don't see what the benefit is to keeping her locked up. Prison sentences aren't about punishment necessarily - obviously loss of liberty is an element of penance - but they're about keeping society safe and rehabilitation.

Yes, I do believe that prison sentences are often too short. But knowing that, I simply can't be outraged that a vulnerable, abused and groomed woman who has covered up a crime (albeit a heinous one) "only" serves 8.5 years. That Mick only served 3.5 years for the crime against his ex is fucking horrific. But I genuinely don't think Mairead, if properly supported and protected in a way which SS and the police failed to do in the past, is a danger.

And for those asking if she should be allowed to babysit?! I would hardly allow anyone to babysit - only my family, or a referenced and DBS'd sitter. I'm hoping that despite a new identity her crimes would show up on a DBS. If not, then that is another gross failure of our justice system, but not her fault.

I think she's going to have a shit, lonely life where she is constantly looking over her shoulder.

I don't think anyone has suggested it was reasonable conduct throughout, hence her serving 8.5 (?) years in prison.

I am talking to those who have no issue with her, say she was a victim (and only a victim) and seem reluctant to admit she was culpable for the deaths of those poor babies.

Mick didn't actually intend to kill those children either ,they were worth far more to him alive in monetary terms than dead but I don't see anyone ,quite rightly trying to absolve him of his guilt ,I don't doubt that Mick was a very aggressive and unpleasant charachter ,how the article I read earlier from one of Mick's older children that stated Mairead had sexually abused him from the age of 14 ,and the poster who Apparently had the family on their caseload and said Mairead was also unpleasant would suggest if true of course that she's not quite the victim some posters would like to make our .

But knowing that, I simply can't be outraged that a vulnerable, abused and groomed woman who has covered up a crime (albeit a heinous one) "only" serves 8.5 years. That Mick only served 3.5 years for the crime against his ex is fucking horrific. But I genuinely don't think Mairead, if properly supported and protected in a way which SS and the police failed to do in the past, is a danger.

If she had covered up the crime, she wouldn’t have been convicted of manslaughter. She was involved in the planning of the crime. She knew it was going to happen. That is a different crime.

I can understand the down trodden groomed wife to a certain extent.

But then there is the behaviour when Duwayne was in intensive care. She was surrounded by family and medical staff, she could have had Mick removed from the hospital, she didn't.

She could have spent time at her child's bedside, instead she had a food fight.

However I don't view her as a murderer. I view her a victim. But it’s possible to be both.

Being a victim doesn’t automatically make you a good person who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Most murderers in history have been victims. We don’t excuse their behaviour on that basis do we?

She could have spent time at her child's bedside, instead she had a food fight.

She sounds to me like an absolute moral vacuum. Yes, probably numbed to the implications of her own actions by years of abuse, but also by years of substance abuse and the realities of her own character. Was she his victim? Yes. But her kids were hers.

I can't understand why any mother doesn't have the primal instinct to protect her children, with her life if necessary. Many women are in abusive relationships and allowing a man to set fire to your home with your children asleep inside is either plain evil or shows a dangerous lack of care, low IQ or not. Either way, her sentence is disrespectful to the lives she had a hand in ending.

@lovelovelove2020 and it was the other wife that life who Mick was trying to frame for the fire! That was the reason behind it! So no it wasn’t ‘easy’ for any of them to leave.

Wife that left! (Not life)

I don't want to live in a society with the death penalty. Killing people to show that killing people is wrong is not logical justice. I personally hope all murderers, rapists and abusers of all kinds live very long lives, with each day more miserable than the previous day.
I find it interesting that some posters seem to defend women at all costs. Being female does not make you immune to being evil. It's likely Mick Philpott was abused too. He didn't intend to kill his children either. On this 'evidence' alone, previous crimes not withstanding, their crimes are the same. Being female does not mean she's less guilty of aiding and abetting her children being burned in their beds. She couldn't even force out a tear afterwards. She's not so daft as she'd have people believe.