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.

percyfilth - why is it so important for you to post that link to the blogpost where someone is speculating about the case? Why does it make any difference whether you add a comment or not when you make speculation available?

I agree with the deletions as we dont know the whole story and it is a current untried case.

I also read the link to the US blog and two things on the list made me shiver. I just cant get my head around it :(

SWYM, edam.

Is there any chance os a little hint for the US blog? I did a search and the only thing I could find that dealt with the case was a blog where the first word of the title was 'Eyes' (dont want to give it all in case that isnt allowed!) - was that it?

WidowWadman Who said it was important to me? I certainly didn't. It was just a list of observations, not really "speculating about the case".

The fact that I did not add a comment means that I was not "speculating about the case" either.

It doesn't need me or anybody else to "make speculation available". Anyone is free to speculate. And I can't see how MN can be held responsible for the content of other websites which can easily be found by searching on a few keywords.

hiveofbees Yes, it was. Thanks, you've proved my point!

Really? Im surprised that got deleted, as as I see it even if they think that someone has been deceptive it doesnt necessarily mean that the person is guilty, and as I said before, I'm not 100% convinced by statement analysis.

I wonder if my last post will be deleted now.

Yes, hive, it was purely factual, no speculation about the case at all. They were just commenting on what they heard and saw.

why cant we speculate?

cos mnhq deletes your posts.

The formal media (BBC, ITV, Telegraph, Mail, Sun etc) cannot comment sub judice because people take them seriously (), and it will be assumed that any reasonably well informed person / potential juror may know what has been said...

You can say pretty much what you like on Mumsnet because (statistically) few people read it and fewer take it seriously...

But it's not fact, it is an opinion on an event.

At the risk of being deleted again and before you see it mnhq will air on the side of caution on this subject, they have given warning tgat things could be deleted, they then said things will be deleted and were. It doesn't matter if you feel it is insignificant in prejudicing anything they will do what they feel protects the site and they have responsibilities. I said thanks for not deleting the thread because sometimes that has been necessary before with other (still ongoing case being the main one) cases, and tbh I'm sure this one might still go poof.

I mentioned that a post of mine that was deleted would not have been deleted had it been on a tgread of its own, discussing that subject without mentioning this specific cases and it was basically about the type of investigation mention in the blog. Seriously if you can and want to discuss police methods start a new thread but don't refer to this ape fix case.

You can say pretty much what you like on Mumsnet because (statistically) few people read it and fewer take it seriously...

how very dare you SWMNBN does not agree [gein]

percy the fact that you can't tell speculation from factual reporting illustratres the reason why these postings and links need to be deleted very well.

Ohnomyfanjo- any threads on that other (ongoing) case seemed to get pulled. It was impossible to say anything, even just bald well established facts. Made me wonder whether MNHQ actually had some personal connection, it was THAT weird!

They seem to end up totally covered in deleted posts so no point in being there hmm where have I seen tgat recently

Widow I can "tell speculation from factual reporting" perfectly well. The article in question merely listed some oddities about someone's body language and vocabulary. It drew no conclusions - they were simply observations. There was no speculation.

I suggest you read things properly before lecturing people. Now I don't give a fig about MN deleting the link, that's up to them. But I resent being accused of being stupid or irresponsible, which is the general tenor of your comments about me.

I considered there to be speculation in that link, infact I just went back and yes there is. It speculates as to why specfic things were or we're not said.

It poses a few questions, but doesn't offer any theories. I appreciate it can be a fine line.

We will have to agree to disagree seeing as I can't post tge parts I am referring too......IM is a theory.

Body language and such cannot be commented on unless it is known as a fact that the person has not been taking any form of meds, tranquilisers or sleeping tablets etc.

Even a lack of sleep can make you appear completely different. Anyone who has experienced extreme grief will describe some point as walking around in 'haze' and incapable of 'normal' behaviour/actions/speech.

Tbf, neither of them were particulary articulate or expressive under usual circumstances.

i know mumsnet will delete it but why?why cant we say what we want?its not us whos going to be deciding whether they are guilty or not in court.what happened to free speech?

You don't know Cuddler, it could be anyone.

We don't know yet if there will even be a trial.

Well they have been charged so what happens now then?