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?

Totally unsurprosed. Some middle class, pen pushing nothings fault as always.

Unsurprised *

Taking all emotion out of it, what is the benefit of her being in prison?

In our society, we send people to prison to punish them for something. And she was instrumental to the loss of no fewer than six young lives.

If you are looking for a more practical benefit, how about this: if she so susceptible to coercion that she isn’t to blame if she murders people (or allows them to be murdered) she should probably be in prison because she is likely to cause more deaths.

Now I don’t believe the above. I think she was responsible for her own actions. But lots of people on this thread seem to think not.

I am surprised she has been discharged already, especially because at 39 she is likely to immediately have several more children, which doesn't seem wise and could be prevented by a slightly longer term.

The time served is very short, but I tend to agree that she is not malevolent but simple minded and easily controlled by whatever man she is with.

Taking all emotion out of it, what is the benefit of her being in prison?

You could say that of any prisoner. They don't go there to 'benefit' from it though; they go there to be punished for their crimes.

'But again, that appeal failed because it wasn’t considered that she was coerced'

This! She wasn't coerced. She went along with it and deserves no sympathy. I couldn't give a rat's ass how thick she is. As a pp said a 4yr old would know you don't set fire to things let alone a house with children in.

@papaelf

What do you think would have happened to her if she hadn't agreed with it? Or dared to stand up to Mick? Have you seen what he had done to his ex partners?

I don't know but I tell you this I would fucking die whilst trying to protect my children.

So would I. But she has been abused, raped, beaten, worn down. She also has a low IQ and learning difficulties. He did not say to her he will murder the children. He said he will set fire to the house and get the children out. As someone with her experiences and mental capability her decision making may not be the same as the average person. Also if she did disagree he would very likely beat her.

Isn't it odd how folk so often claim to know more than those with the evidence?
It may well be that some female criminals have been "coerced", "beaten down" and "had no choice", but according to the judgement Mairead wasn't one of them, even though she appealed saying she was

The benefit I’m talking about is to society, not the prisoner. She’s served her required time for ‘punishment’. She would be kept in longer if she was still a danger.

Honestly though, I have no idea if she’s ever likely to commit a crime again. It’s entirely possible. But our legal system for whatever reason things she’s safe to be released.

Taking all emotion out of it, what is the benefit of her being in prison?

The fact that she couldn't create any more children to kill while in there ...?

I was disgusted to see she’s been released no justice for those poor children - absolutely heartbreaking

I’ve only read the first page I’m afraid. But I’m saddened.

Mariad was a victim of the most serious and terrifying coercive and violent control and abuse , she had mild learning difficulties and was extremely vulnerable and mick philpott was the worst kind of abuser both mentally and emotionally. She was younger than him, reliant on him for money, and had been groomed and conditioned by him for years. She was terrified of him and yes he probably would have killed her if she spoke up.
The original plan wasn’t to kill the children, but to make it look like someone who Phil was issue with subjected them to an arson attack. It went horribly wrong. Do you think that she had much say or choice in what happened then or next. She lost her children. She is a victim of domestic abuse and coercive control. And she was repeatedly failed by mental health services, and acute care in the hospital. After several suicide attempts and trips to emergency department over many years before these awful events of the fire, no one bothered to explore the reason behind them. Or picked up on the many many red flags.

Obviously as a mother she should have left and protected her children. To what... hand them over to Mick for sole unsupervised care half the time? You only have to read a few threads in relationships here to see that well educated women with their own money and lots of support and men much less scary, have trouble trying to leave abusive relationships. Mentally and practically. Add mental health issue, learning difficulties, no money, limited education and no emotional or practical support and you are pretty trapped.

I’ve read the review, as part of the multi agency domestic abuse awareness groups I attend. It’s terrifying and unbelievably sad. And could happen to anyone, really.

@MarylinMonrue

It was clear during the trial that her husband was the one who started the fire, and she covered up for him.

Covering up for him is equally as unforgivable though, no?

Not necessarily.

This BBC report explores his history of violence and control of women. The judge said that Mairead did have the strength to stand up to him a couple of times though. The trouble is, I think she believed his story (or allowed herself to be persuaded) that he would rescue the DC. Shocking. Horrible.

People can be victims of grooming and coercion, and dangerous. Its not an either/or.
I think that its ok to expect justice, retribution, and rehabilitation before thinking about releasing serious offenders.

@MarylinMonrue

It was clear during the trial that her husband was the one who started the fire, and she covered up for him.

Covering up for him is equally as unforgivable though, no?

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

I can't imagine how someone like this could do what she did but then I would bet a lot of money on the fact that she has only ever known sever abuse and coercion and has been around very abnormal sexual behaviour for a long time. I don't think she would have approached committing this crime in the way other people would who hadn't experienced very severe abuse. It will have utterly warped her thinking and add in learning difficulties and she just isn't like other women. It doesn't make her evil, it makes her exceptionally vulnerable and damaged.

Do I think she should be released? I think she's probably not a danger to anyone at this stage. I hope she doesn't have more children - if she does I'm sure they will be taken off her immediately which is still unfair on the baby in terms of what life they have to look forward to but I'm sure most people don't want other women to be forcibly sterilised.

What I mean is - for any sane person that is the ultimate punishment. Even if at the moment of realising all the children had died - she didn't take that on board with the weight of guilt upon her, she certainly will now. So although I don't agree she should be released 'early' I'm sure the thoughts in her own head will follow her from her prison cell to a flat wherever she is rehomed. For what it's worth I find it sickening people on here who clearly have no experience of being a victim of abuse can say they "would never allow a man to... " you don't have a choice. You don't get to decide what is allowed. I dont know whether this woman was abused or not but it is demeaning to victims who may read this to say people who allow bad things to happen are weak. Some abusive partners will kill their children to spite their exes. So at times the only choice may be to stay & try to protect your kids, rather than your ex have contact without you, inconceivable as that may be to those who have never experienced DV.

Mick Philpott's record on violence towards women is horrifying -- when he was 21, he shot his girlfriend (who was 15 when they got together) in the groin with a crossbow because he thought her skirt was too short, cracked her kneecap with a sledgehammer and finally stabbed her twelve times when she was asleep (and also stabbed her mother, who tried to defend her) when she sent him a letter telling him she was leaving him. And she was only one of an entire string of vulnerable, very young women and girls he targeted and abused, and repeatedly impregnated.

Mairéad Philpott committed a hideous, unimaginably awful crime, but her day to day existence with Philpott was also more unimaginably awful than most of us can conceive of. She's the ultimate, horrific example of what can become of someone whose low IQ and volatile background makes them unusually vulnerable to falling into the hands of a man like Mick Philpott, and possibly thinking that a crazy, revolting plan to try to frame your ex by setting fire to a house containing your sleeping children and planning to 'rescue' them, is anything other than unjustifiable infanticide and might actually work in the sense that Mick Philpott wanted it to in getting his ex into trouble.

Foxinthechickencoop

It’s a compelling story, isn’t it? I do wonder, though, why it failed to convince a jury? It is probably because the bar for a defence of coercion in criminal cases is so high. You are expected not to break the law unless under immediate, serious coercive pressure. It’s not enough to say “I believed (at some point) he would kill me” if you are not under that person’s direct physical control.

So it would be questions like:

Could you have left with your children?

Did you have a phone? Did you know how to call 999?

Could you have left on your own and got help?

Etc.

Being afraid of someone (however afraid you are) isn’t a defence for causing six deaths.

Omg awful and for those saying she's not as bad as him, are you kidding? She's every bit as bad as him! They both deserve to die in jail. No justice at all

Mick Philpott's record on violence towards women is horrifying

See this is what we should be focusing 99% of our attention on in this debate. A man was that disgustingly violent and abusive and yet he had his freedom. He had care of multiple children. What the hell is wrong with society? If you had taken him out of the equation many years before the crime was committed, I guarantee that woman would never have burnt her children to death. She wouldn't have thought to do it.

i read she wants more children fuuck that take em off her and no i dont give a shit if mick abused her

I am as appalled as everyone else. Sentencing the days generally consists of only half as a custodial and the rest on licence. She won't live a normal life any time soon. She won't be allowed to be in a relationship with someone who has children. She won't be allowed to keep any children she gives birth to.

But yes, 17 years was nowhere near long enough. And we have to pay for the cunt to be given a new life. Well l hope she lives a life of misery, looking over her shoulder.

@papaelf
she has low IQ

She has enough to know right from wrong. She was bringing up children for goodness sake. The idea that learning disabilities excuse this type of thing is awful and wouldn't be getting posted if she were a man. What a crock of shit.

Well said