To think that killing 6 children - should have a longer sentence!

[Whiteday]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-67427340

An absolute disgrace!

I don't see why this man should be kept in jail any longer when the children's actual MOTHER has been out for years already.

Don't care so much about these two thick, morally degenerate cowards. The father, on the other hand, should stay in jail forever (but probably won't).

So if you’re on the interview panel for a job as, say, a postman, and you have 2 identical applicants, except one murdered 6 children, who will you give the job to?

The idea was the Mick would rescue them, be seen as a victim and a hero. But you are talking about a man with an IQ of zero.…

It really wouldn’t.

when you look at how the death penalty is used in other countries, people spend far more time in prison (on death row) and cost far more to the tax payer. Reason being that you have to be completely sure, and allow every reasonable defence before killing someone on death row. Multiple appeals are commonplace. People seem to think that the death penalty is just a case of dragging someone out a courtroom and shooting them, it’s just not the case. (Nor should it be)

Not an IQ of zero at all. He was a very calculated man who was able to control numerous women in his life. Have a read of the history and about the interpersonal relationships between the three who were convicted:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Philpott

Well it seems there is no reasonable argument or solution then. Life is valued very highly by humans, unless you’re the dead victim of course.

He was manipulative and calculating. He controlled those women and his friends who he somehow managed to get them to see him as an alpha male who wanted his approval rather than the bat shit crazy man he is.

The first woman fleed with the children in the clothes they stood up in so he wanted revenge, he wanted her to go to prison and then take her children so he could continue to use them for the benefit money they provided, not because he loved and cared for them. He is a monster. The second women lost all her children in that fire, she was part of it and deserved the sentence, but I also believe she was absolutely shit scared of him and so done and he said when it came to the plot.

I do wonder that if she went to the police about it before it happened and told them, would they have helped her? Or would she have been left in his hands after defying him and grassing him up to the police. Being as the act hadn’t been done yet and there was no evidence, I imagine she would have been ignored.

I guess that's why so many companies do 'blind' interviews, so they're not biased but such information. I'd do whatever had been decided would happen in these circumstances.

I'm assuming that you're talking about Mick Philpott, he is not the man who has just been released, the man released was one of the friends who was seeking his approval.

Mick Philpott will not be eligible for parole for another 4 years and is very unlikely to get it, probably ever.

I was going to say this, she got off lightly. She was the children's mother and should have been their protector.

She was also extremely vulnerable. Already a victim of abuse at 19, which is when she met Philpot. Philpot was decades older than her.

She was forced to live with her husband's mistress, who he made bridesmaid at their wedding.

It is also known there was a sexual relationship between her and Mosley, the man who has just been released on parole. How consensual that relationship was and whether Philpot was pimping her out to Mosley remains unknown.

This is not a woman who had any resources or ability to protect anyone in the state she was in.

I doubt many people will forget their crimes, hopefully we will not be expected to waste public money on protecting them by name changes etc.. They will have to live with any consequences of their crimes.

This type of observation only ever seems to apply to women though doesnt it

Mens prisons are filled to the brim with prisoners who have had trauma, childhood ACES, who have MH issues, ND disorders, learning needs but quite rightly we dont sit here and say they were 'vulnerable' and so shouldnt be there

She had the same resources and ability to manage the situation as anyone does, ie talk to someone and not go along with a plan to set the house on fire while your children are in it

Actually I've often argued on threads where men and women have done awful things about their backgrounds of trauma and abuse and how casting them as "evil" rather than deeply unwell or traumatised hampers our ability as a society to effect any meaningful change. It's easy to chuck one bastard in prison and throw away the key, but that doesn't stop the next one coming along, and the one after that, and the one after that...

Society doesn't have the appetite to actually address the root causes of most crime (poverty, abuse, poor mental health) and to try to really reduce it. We are focussed on treating the symptoms, not looking for a cure.

Mick Philpot has been diagnosed as a psychopath and has personality disorders. He is not a well man either. But given his long criminal history and his age, it is less likely be can be rehabilitated.

Yes I agree

Mens prisons are filled to the brim with prisoners who have had trauma, childhood ACES, who have MH issues, ND disorders, learning needs but quite rightly we dont sit here and say they were 'vulnerable' and so shouldnt be there

That is true, but they are unlikely to be in prison as a result of being controlled and manipulated by their much older evil wives.

Why do people go on about "tax bill" to lock up these monsters ?!

Of all the crap Govs spend on using my tax money - locking up monsters is money I would happily give without question.

I was shocked at this rubbish sentence when I read it yesterday !

Well, yes….but extremely dense to imagine pouring petrol through his letterbox would not cause the house to go up like towering inferno! I know the history, I followed the case, saw the documentary with Anne Widdecombe etc. How he could’ve believed he’d be able to rescue his children from the flames after setting his house on fire the way he did, shows him not to be the brightest of individuals! Neither were his accomplices…

Lets not make excuses for her she knew what she wss doing ,she also had family that say they would have supported her leaving him and were appalled by her .

Extremely dense and very arrogant a very dangerous mix .

What difference does that make.

I dont personally think that culpability is removed by virtue of a difficult background, trauma, MH, SEN (unless the person doesnt have capacity) but it does impact on how a person sometimes makes life choices.

However this argument is constantly aimed at why mums arent or shouldnt be held accountable, or less accountable than an abusive father, when they are also abusive or have allowed abuse to take place.

Very few people view men in the same way, yet we know the demographic for young men involved in crime and violence and abuse, they have offered had horrendous parenting, both by mums and dads toward them and it contributes to how they turn out.

In any case this is slightly off tangent. But I stand by what I said, she is more culpable than the friend who also joined in the plan, she was the children's mother.

Unfortunately for you, why someone did something is important in law. Which is why she has been released on licence while Mick Philpot remains in prison.

It's not excuses. It's circumstantial evidence that helped to determine what crime she is guilty of and what sentence she received.

Im.aware of that ,Mick was. clearly the main perpetrator I have never said he wasn't but she went along with it ,she also culpable of her part in this
Micks other "partner " was also vulnerable but she managed to get her and her children to.safety .

I remember him being on Jeremy Kyle years ago, he was trying to become some kind of celebrity.

I watched a documentary about the case a couple of months ago, the recordings of conversations between the 3 of them in the aftermath of the fire were disgusting.

They also interviewed some of the neighbours, there were two brothers who had tried to rescue the kids while Mick stood there frozen, they are still haunted by guilt that they couldn't save them. So sad.

Surely even “blind” interviews require candidates to reveal that fact that they murdered 6 children? Are people really allowed to conceal such a thing when applying for a job?

What was actually the aim when they set the place on fire? That they’d run in and save all the children? Yet somehow they couldn’t and all the children died? I don’t even understand this ridiculous story let alone anything else