Father and Mother of 6 children killed in fire are arrested over Murder

[marriedtoagoodun]

Breaking news is that Mr and Mrs Philpott have been arrested for the murder of their six children. I cannot believe this has happened. I pray that a mistake has been made. RIP children.

is anyone able to paraphrase what wifi said? lots of people seem to be agreeing with her but her post (like so many others) has been deleted.

donnie - which part of "Any speculation about their guilt or the crime itself, would be prejudicial to any any trial and therefore we will remove them." do you not understand?

@ YoullLaughAboutItOneDay. Apologies, my paraphrasing was far too loose and I misspelt Moloney, I'm even rustier than I thought. It's that line of cases but Woollin is the authority still. The defendant doesn't have to have aimed to kill or cause gbh. The jury can find indirect intention for murder where they 'feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and the defendant appreciated that such was the case'.

I'm surprised this thread is allowed at all TBH. The concept of sub-judice seems to have been incredibly watered down. Back in the day when I was a young journo (I'm not one now so relax ) as soon as a charge was laid any discussion of a case was forbidden.

I made.no speculation about their guilt or the crime itself

grimble - me too but that was discussion of the case in cold, hard print and in broadcast journalism. Not down the pub. Forums are more like pub conversations - only they stay around for ever and can reach millions of people.

IIRC there were only ten facts you could report with absolute safety once someone had been charged, but I forget which ten (it's like trying to name all seven dwarves). Name/address/age/charge/date of next hearing/occupation and I forget the rest!

(Maybe it was six facts? I've never done court reporting or crime so have no idea...)

Where are the parents now?

Lol, this thread has been well bowdlerised.

Yellowtip Thu 31-May-12 13:02:08
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines.
Poulay Thu 31-May-12 13:06:18
I only have two, and mine have!
AnAirOfHope Thu 31-May-12 13:10:49
I only have two and mine have.

"Forums are more like pub conversations"

I think you're being too generous there. This may feel as if you're chatting to mates, but legally it's publication. And that will be why MHQ delete problematic posts about sub judice cases.

Gosh, my first deleted post Sorry MN, I thought I was careful not to say anything out of line.

percy, thats interesting. i can usually tell when people are lying, as i get lied to an awful lot at work.... i asked a few of those same questions myself but it felt very wrong to voice them given the circumstances.

i tend to work on instinct. mine is usually spot on.

PercyFilth - that will be deleted

And it has been deleted. Interesting. It was only a link to another site, with no comment from me.

Not before I read it Percy

Am amazed the blog writer is allowed to speculate like that tbh.

Yy, Percy, I asked myself a few of those questions as well, but felt like it was an inappropriate thing to do.

Tis in the USA I think.

(The blog, that is.)

percy - the blogpost could prejudice a trial - MN could be accused of contempt if they left the link up.

I read it too Percy, and I thought a lot of she said myself, but like others said I thought it would be inappropriate to say, so have kept it to myself, but interesting to see that others feel the same.

Tbh I don't really get how a few posts on a parents' forum could prejudice the trial. Hundreds of thousands of people are discussing it at the moment, I would imagine. I see how if it there was an editorial published in one of the big newspapers it could prejudice the trial- as there could be some authority assigned to the journalist/millions of people would read it...but here?

I guess it must be one rule for all and I understand why MNHQ don't want to get into trouble, but people frothing at the mouth here are being a bit silly, imo.

Oh, I get the thinking, Widow, but I would have thought a link would be OK without any comment or extracted quotes. How far does this go? Would it be thought dangerous to say where I saw the link posted myself?

well this thread brought me out of lurking and I got a deletion on the first day (I didnt say anything I havent said elsewhere and its still there ),ho hum ,maybe the papers need to stop reporting about it then we would have nothing to discuss??

yes queenedith, as you'll see from my posts I do know about contempt, having been trained properly with NCTJ and all that. The interesting thing for the law and for content providers is that chatrooms and twitter ARE inherently more like pub conversations, not like old-fashioned journalism where copy would go through a sub-editor who knew his (or her) contempt and defamation. People don't have to have a certificate showing 100wpm and a dozen different ways with intros before they get to post on 'tinternet.