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

[Whiteday]

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

An absolute disgrace!

@GlitchStitch do you remember the name of the documentary? I’ve never watched a documentary on this but I really should do!

These people are are scum they won’t be rehabilitated ( I’m from derby I know people who know of them don’t know them personally thank god and don’t hang around in the same places they did! they did deserve longer sentences thought someone would have attacked them in prison by now

That's not what a blind interview is, in a blind interview the panel has no knowledge of the candidate bar their answers to the questions asked on the day, if they have reached that point they will be qualified and meet all the requirements for the job.

I would like to think that even if I knew about someone's past I would still treat them fairly and follow the rules set out by the employer on how to chose between to equal candidates, but I really have no idea.

Agree with @bellac11. Now Mairead has been released am assuming she is still as vulnerable re making decisions and risk assessments for herself. As she didn't see setting aa petrol fire- at the point of exit to the house, so even if her children had got out it would have been at the flash point of the fire, I'm assuming she's in supported living accommodation and has supervision and carers?

If Mairead,was that vulnerable to the point that she would need carers and supervision surely that would have Been picked up st some point?
She had six children ,she must have had interactions with professional, s health visitors, teachers etc ?

Exactly. Which is why I don't understand the 'oh she didn't understand how dangerous and wrong this was' viewpoint!

But am assuming she'd have had an assessment in prison?

Posters were exactly the same about Karen Matthews minimizing her actions saying she must have had learning disabilities etc ,when there was no evidence of that ,I don't think any of them were particularly bright but there is a huge difference between having a low ish IQ and having learning disabilities.

Oh is Mary Bell out? I shall have a read up.

They'd have to disclose it to HR though wouldn't they?

Yeah but the system is crap and expensive so it takes the death of 6 kids for them to flag her as a concern

Well.I assume she was capable enough to get her kids to.school.,looking fairly presentable and fed etc as bad as the system might be there are safeguarding protocols etc.

They (or Mick) had already set up ladders at the back of the house so he could climb up and rescue the children and become a hero. Apparently, they thought it would be a smallish fire and he would have time to rescue them.

I guess the average person probably doesn't know about flashpoints etc. I don't really understand what this means.

I don't really know how fast a fire would spread. OBVIOUSLY it would be utterly utterly stupid and reckless to set one and I'm recoiling in horror even at the thought of doing this, and I think most people would, it's not even in the realms of "mistakes anyone could make". But I think that it's definitely plausible unfortunately that someone could be stupid enough to believe that a fire would spread slowly enough to rescue people. Especially if your main "experience" or "knowledge" of fires is things like TV soaps, where the USUAL storyline is that a fire starts and you think everyone is doomed but then, miraculously, everyone is rescued and smoke inhalation is never a problem. We all know soaps aren't real life but if it's the only place you've ever seen something happen then you can develop a false impression regardless.

You see it all the time on threads where people speculate "Oh in this <dire situation> I would do <implausible thing>!" Obviously most people would never even dream of deliberately setting up the dire situation. But I think the average person probably does have a false assumption about the likelihood of being able to rescue things from a fire. You see it in the hypothetical scenario of "What would you save from your house?" and the way people act in fire drills - very very slowly, and wanting to take all their shit with them.

Which is, I think, why they didn't get convicted of murder. Even though the assumption was wrong, it's likely one that many people hold. It's the fact that most people would never set the fire in the first place that got them convicted at all. But it probably couldn't have been for murder because of that "reasonable doubt" thing.

They weren't convicted for murder because they had no conceivable motive to harm their children and a very real, but evil motive, to set a fire and then rescue all the children. If you don't intend serious harm then it's not murder - even if it would be completely obvious to any reasonable person that there is a huge risk of injury or death.

If they'd been tried for murder, they probably would have got off, because they would have argued there was no intention to kill the children.
So manslaughter it is for all the reasons mentioned.

Seems to be a difference between English and Scots law.

Up here you can absolutely be convicted of murder where it's accepted there is no intention to cause serious harm. So they may have been convicted of murder here, although I doubt it would have made much difference to the sentence because our sentences are derisory.

The definition for murder in Scotland when a person kills another person either deliberately (with intent) or in circumstances where the accused person exhibits reckless disregard for the life of their victim.

Fingers crossed the chief instigator never gets out though.

No-one set out to kill any children that night. She was on the phone to the emergency services as the men started the fire. They didn't realise how fast the fire would spread, and couldn't get the children out in time. Terrible consequences of their actions.

What's brought you here to an old thread with sympathy am assuming for the fire setters who killed 6 children?

No one has any sympathy for them so save your breath. They are scum.