parents of kids that died in fire arrested

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/29/derby-house-fire-police-a_n_1551900.html


The parents of six children killed in an arson attack on their home were arrested today on suspicion of murder.Mick Philpott, 55, and his wife Mairead, 31, were detained this morning in connection with the attack on the house in Derby


vile F****n heartless s@um the two of them :agree:

and as for that lazy b****d of a 'father' hope yer er*e gets pummeled in jail ya lazy worthless piece of utter s**t

[hibsbollah]

Err....have you missed the fact they havent been found guilty of anything yet?

[Scouse Hibee]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/29/derby-house-fire-police-a_n_1551900.html


The parents of six children killed in an arson attack on their home were arrested today on suspicion of murder.Mick Philpott, 55, and his wife Mairead, 31, were detained this morning in connection with the attack on the house in Derby


vile F****n heartless s@um the two of them :agree:

and as for that lazy b****d of a 'father' hope yer er*e gets pummeled in jail ya lazy worthless piece of utter s**t


Remember the first couple that were arrested in this case and then released without charge?

[EH6 Hibby]

I'm aware that they haven't been found guilty but I had a funny feeling when watching their press conference that their grief wasn't entirely genuine, it seemed to be more for the cameras.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Err....have you missed the fact they havent been found guilty of anything yet?


Remember the first couple that were arrested in this case and then released without charge?




i'm well aware of that, do you honestly SERIOUSLY think the polis would make a huge mistake in arresting them, the actual parents without a shred of evidence ?

as for the faither, my thoughts on him will never ever change no matter what the outcome is, ann widdicombe should have slapped his coupon black and blue

[Scouse Hibee]

i'm well aware of that, do you honestly SERIOUSLY think the polis would make a huge mistake in arresting them, the actual parents without a shred of evidence ?

as for the faither, my thoughts on him will never ever change no matter what the outcome is, ann widdicombe should have slapped his coupon black and blue

Well they arrested the other couple which was headline news and then released them without charge so anything is possible I suppose.

I personally think that only one of them will probably be guily of the actual crime. If one/both are guilty how the hell they can live with what they have done to their own children is beyond comprehension.

[DH1875]

i'm well aware of that, do you honestly SERIOUSLY think the polis would make a huge mistake in arresting them, the actual parents without a shred of evidence ?



Where does that leave the McCann's. They've got away with that for years.

[Scouse Hibee]

Where does that leave the McCann's. They've got away with that for years.

Eh?

[Jonnyboy]

Where does that leave the McCann's. They've got away with that for years.

Explain please

[lyonhibs]

Explain please

I suspect it is an outrageously **** and poor taste attempt at fishing.

Massive, massive fail.

Whomever it is that perpetruated this heinous crime, I hope they feel the strong arm of the law right up their arse, and are then the Prison bitch for every single day of their - hopefully - consecutive life sentences

[DH1875]

I suspect it is an outrageously **** and poor taste attempt at fishing.

Massive, massive fail.

Whomever it is that perpetruated this heinous crime, I hope they feel the strong arm of the law right up their arse, and are then the Prison bitch for every single day of their - hopefully - consecutive life sentences

Nothing to do with fishing :rolleyes:. Your all presuming these guy's are guilty and giving them both barrels. The McCanns were/are suspects in their daughters disappearance and from memory didn't get anywhere near such a hard time. Even if they didn't kill her they left her and two babies on their own to go on the lash and let something very, very bad happen. Why have they never been brought to justice for leaving 3 young kids on their own?
If the parents did start the fire then they deserve all they get. I just think people should wait before they start trying to crucify them. Just smarts of a bit of double standards to me.

[Scouse Hibee]

Nothing to do with fishing :rolleyes:. Your all presuming these guy's are guilty and giving them both barrels. The McCanns were/are suspects in their daughters disappearance and from memory didn't get anywhere near such a hard time. Even if they didn't kill her they left her and two babies on their own to go on the lash and let something very, very bad happen. Why have they never been brought to justice for leaving 3 young kids on their own?
If the parents did start the fire then they deserve all they get. I just think people should wait before they start trying to crucify them. Just smarts of a bit of double standards to me.

No we're not, did you actually read the posts??

[Jonnyboy]

Nothing to do with fishing :rolleyes:. Your all presuming these guy's are guilty and giving them both barrels. The McCanns were/are suspects in their daughters disappearance and from memory didn't get anywhere near such a hard time. Even if they didn't kill her they left her and two babies on their own to go on the lash and let something very, very bad happen. Why have they never been brought to justice for leaving 3 young kids on their own?
If the parents did start the fire then they deserve all they get. I just think people should wait before they start trying to crucify them. Just smarts of a bit of double standards to me.

Firstly, I have not given anyone any barrel's

Secondly, the highlighted bit is just so much rubbish it is untrue and smacks of you giving them both barrel's. Like it or not it wasn't unusual to 'leave' kids while out for a meal (there is no evidence they were, as you so quaintly put it, out on the lash) just ask any parents who took their kids to Butlin's or whatever.

I agree we should wait until the police conclude their enquiries before passing comment but to turn your question back onto you ... Do you really think the McCann's were not 'suspects' at some point? Maybe they still are? You've made your mind up re their guilt though

[DH1875]

Firstly, I have not given anyone any barrel's

Secondly, the highlighted bit is just so much rubbish it is untrue and smacks of you giving them both barrel's. Like it or not it wasn't unusual to 'leave' kids while out for a meal (there is no evidence they were, as you so quaintly put it, out on the lash) just ask any parents who took their kids to Butlin's or whatever.

I agree we should wait until the police conclude their enquiries before passing comment but to turn your question back onto you ... Do you really think the McCann's were not 'suspects' at some point? Maybe they still are? You've made your mind up re their guilt though

I didn't say you did I. There's people on here saying they should be prison bitches, the guy, is a this and a that. Read the first post and you'll see what I'm talking about.

As for the McCann's, you should get the facts right. There's plenty of evidence to suggest they were out drinking and left the kids alone. In fact they done it every night of the holiday and openly admit it. If you think that's normal then more fool you. Remember it's Portugal we are talking about, no-one would have looked twice if they had the kids with them.
For the record, I don't think they killed their daughter. In my opinion something happened to the wee girl while they were out and they panicked and got rid of the body. And your right, they were suspects and the Portuguese police to this day still think they were involved.

[Jonnyboy]

I didn't say you did I. There's people on here saying they should be prison bitches, the guy, is a this and a that. Read the first post and you'll see what I'm talking about.

As for the McCann's, you should get the facts right. There's plenty of evidence to suggest they were out drinking and left the kids alone. In fact they done it every night of the holiday and openly admit it. If you think that's normal then more fool you. Remember it's Portugal we are talking about, no-one would have looked twice if they had the kids with them.
For the record, I don't think they killed their daughter. In my opinion something happened to the wee girl while they were out and they panicked and got rid of the body. And your right, they were suspects and the Portuguese police to this day still think they were involved.

That may be true but don't you find it odd that the Met Police guys that recently took a fresh look at the case are of the opinion that the Portuguese police handled the whole thing badly and failed to follow up on a number of lines of inquiry? I'm not condoning leaving the kids alone, merely pointing out that it happened and not just with the McCann's.

[Scouse Hibee]

I didn't say you did I. There's people on here saying they should be prison bitches, the guy, is a this and a that. Read the first post and you'll see what I'm talking about.

As for the McCann's, you should get the facts right. There's plenty of evidence to suggest they were out drinking and left the kids alone. In fact they done it every night of the holiday and openly admit it. If you think that's normal then more fool you. Remember it's Portugal we are talking about, no-one would have looked twice if they had the kids with them.
For the record, I don't think they killed their daughter. In my opinion something happened to the wee girl while they were out and they panicked and got rid of the body. And your right, they were suspects and the Portuguese police to this day still think they were involved.

You've missed the point spectacularly, the first post was as you said and then subsequent posts reminded the OP of their innocence at this time. You then go on to "you all give them both barrels blah blah" you then berate another poster for not getting his facts right when you clearly haven't yourself!!!

[CropleyWasGod]

i'm well aware of that, do you honestly SERIOUSLY think the polis would make a huge mistake in arresting them, the actual parents without a shred of evidence ?

as for the faither, my thoughts on him will never ever change no matter what the outcome is, ann widdicombe should have slapped his coupon black and blue

Nobody is saying that they have been arrested without a shred of evidence. However, evidence is a long way from proof.

[Hibs Class]

I didn't say you did I. There's people on here saying they should be prison bitches, the guy, is a this and a that. Read the first post and you'll see what I'm talking about.

As for the McCann's, you should get the facts right. There's plenty of evidence to suggest they were out drinking and left the kids alone. In fact they done it every night of the holiday and openly admit it. If you think that's normal then more fool you. Remember it's Portugal we are talking about, no-one would have looked twice if they had the kids with them.
For the record, I don't think they killed their daughter. In my opinion something happened to the wee girl while they were out and they panicked and got rid of the body. And your right, they were suspects and the Portuguese police to this day still think they were involved.

Which facts lead you to that opinion?

From my memory the McCanns got an incredibly hard time - there was a real range of views from sympathy through to villification, some of which was based on a perception that being two professionals they a) should have known better than to leave their daughter and b) came under less scrutiny because of their status.

[Jay]

I am currently reading Kate McCanns book, its hard reading as a parent I'll tell you.
Wont go into my personal feelings but will say that she states they went out for a meal in the same restaurant which was in the complex every evening bar the first night they were there when they went to the further away one and took the children.
They booked a table for 8.30 so the children were sleeping before they left and they were back every night around 10pm except for the night previous to her disappearance when they were out slightly later. To say they were out on the lash every night is ridiculous. They could see the apartments where they were all staying and they checked on the children every half hour. The other adults checked on their children frequently too so there was a constant stream of adults going back and forward to the apartments. Earlier on the same day as Madeline went missing she had refused to leave them on a bench and walk across a road to help her husband carry ice creams.

I am not saying this is the right thing to do, I am just saying what she says in the book.

In my opinion what they did in no way reflects what the parents of the children who died in the fire have been accused of.

[Beefster]

I am currently reading Kate McCanns book, its hard reading as a parent I'll tell you.
Wont go into my personal feelings but will say that she states they went out for a meal in the same restaurant which was in the complex every evening bar the first night they were there when they went to the further away one and took the children.
They booked a table for 8.30 so the children were sleeping before they left and they were back every night around 10pm except for the night previous to her disappearance when they were out slightly later. To say they were out on the lash every night is ridiculous. They could see the apartments where they were all staying and they checked on the children every half hour. The other adults checked on their children frequently too so there was a constant stream of adults going back and forward to the apartments. Earlier on the same day as Madeline went missing she had refused to leave them on a bench and walk across a road to help her husband carry ice creams.

I am not saying this is the right thing to do, I am just saying what she says in the book.

In my opinion what they did in no way reflects what the parents of the children who died in the fire have been accused of.

The McCann's can dress it up however they want but leaving 3 kids, all under the age of 4, alone in a hotel apartment every night so that they can socialise is completely wrong IMHO and, irrespective of what actually happened to the child, they bear some responsibility. As a parent, I can't actually comprehend what would go through your mind to think that was a good idea. The flip side is that one of my cousins was kidnapped and murdered when I was a kid so my attitude is probably moulded by what happened and what I remember of the time.

As for the Philpotts, they may well turn out to be completely innocent but, when I saw their press conference, I was convinced that there were no actual tears and that they were hamming it up for the public/press.

[Jay]

The McCann's can dress it up however they want but leaving 3 kids, all under the age of 4, alone in a hotel apartment every night so that they can socialise is completely wrong IMHO and, irrespective of what actually happened to the child, they bear some responsibility. As a parent, I can't actually comprehend what would go through your mind to think that was a good idea. The flip side is that one of my cousins was kidnapped and murdered when I was a kid so my attitude is probably moulded by what happened and what I remember of the time.

As for the Philpotts, they may well turn out to be completely innocent but, when I saw their press conference, I was convinced that there were no actual tears and that they were hamming it up for the public/press.

Like I said - I am not saying its right, I was just clarifying how wrong the out on the lash comments were.
I think its a decision that will haunt them every minute of the rest of their lives though. They werent bad or selfish people just very naive. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[Beefster]

Like I said - I am not saying its right, I was just clarifying how wrong the out on the lash comments were.
I think its a decision that will haunt them every minute of the rest of their lives though. They werent bad or selfish people just very naive. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Yeah, sorry if it came across as me having a go at you or thinking that you condoned it - it's just something I feel strongly about.

[magpie1892]

Parents now charged with murder.

The local press have word from the police as to a motive that's beyond shocking. Hate to tease but as it's now sub judice it can't go on here. Anyone who wants to know, just PM me.

[lapsedhibee]

As others have said, being charged and being guilty are not the same thing.

I'm not ruling anything out or in.

Do we know where the McCanns were when the fire in Derby was started? :dunno:

[Scouse Hibee]

As others have said, being charged and being guilty are not the same thing.

I'm not ruling anything out or in.

Do we know where the McCanns were when the fire in Derby was started? :dunno:

With you :dunno:

[heretoday]

The fact is sometimes people go mental and kill themselves or kill their kids. It does happen.

We have to trust that the law of the land applied by a judge will sort them out.

The Daily Mail is not the arbiter.

[RyeSloan]

Like I said - I am not saying its right, I was just clarifying how wrong the out on the lash comments were.
I think its a decision that will haunt them every minute of the rest of their lives though. They werent bad or selfish people just very naive. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.


Sorry but no hindsight required to know that leaving three kids under the age of 4 alone for any length of time is wrong. That's not naive it is just plain bad and selfish.

Of course I have great sympathy for them in losing a child and who knows what happend to the poor kid but to my mind the McCann's willingly put their children in danger by leaving them alone in a foreign country and are fortunate not to have been charged for that....how anyone can 'enjoy' a meal when their children are alone in an apartment is beyond me, it really is.

As for the OP, horrible almost unbeliveable story...God knows what could have went through anyone's minds to do something like that no matter the kids own parents.

[Phil D. Rolls]

i'm well aware of that, do you honestly SERIOUSLY think the polis would make a huge mistake in arresting them, the actual parents without a shred of evidence ?

as for the faither, my thoughts on him will never ever change no matter what the outcome is, ann widdicombe should have slapped his coupon black and blue

It's not unknown for the police to arrest the wrong person and secure a conviction


Where does that leave the McCann's. They've got away with that for years.

I'd ask their lawyer about that one.

[DH1875]

Sorry but no hindsight required to know that leaving three kids under the age of 4 alone for any length of time is wrong. That's not naive it is just plain bad and selfish.

Of course I have great sympathy for them in losing a child and who knows what happend to the poor kid but to my mind the McCann's willingly put their children in danger by leaving them alone in a foreign country and are fortunate not to have been charged for that....how anyone can 'enjoy' a meal when their children are alone in an apartment is beyond me, it really is.

As for the OP, horrible almost unbeliveable story...God knows what could have went through anyone's minds to do something like that no matter the kids own parents.


Spot on :top marks.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Sorry but no hindsight required to know that leaving three kids under the age of 4 alone for any length of time is wrong. That's not naive it is just plain bad and selfish.

Of course I have great sympathy for them in losing a child and who knows what happend to the poor kid but to my mind the McCann's willingly put their children in danger by leaving them alone in a foreign country and are fortunate not to have been charged for that....how anyone can 'enjoy' a meal when their children are alone in an apartment is beyond me, it really is.

As for the OP, horrible almost unbeliveable story...God knows what could have went through anyone's minds to do something like that no matter the kids own parents.

We had a similar tragedy in Edinburgh last year. It's hard to fathom, but sometimes people are not mad, but bad to the core. Look at the Shannon Matthews case for example, Myra Hindley and others. The things that people will do for their own gratification, like you say, are unbelievable.

[Andy Bee]

Sorry but no hindsight required to know that leaving three kids under the age of 4 alone for any length of time is wrong. That's not naive it is just plain bad and selfish.

Of course I have great sympathy for them in losing a child and who knows what happend to the poor kid but to my mind the McCann's willingly put their children in danger by leaving them alone in a foreign country and are fortunate not to have been charged for that....how anyone can 'enjoy' a meal when their children are alone in an apartment is beyond me, it really is.

As for the OP, horrible almost unbeliveable story...God knows what could have went through anyone's minds to do something like that no matter the kids own parents.

I know this is a highly emotive subject but I'd say that's a bit strong S, to say that "they willingly put their kids in danger" would suggest that they knew something untoward may happen but chose to ignore it and take the gamble, I very much doubt that. What they did was the equivalent of going next door for an hour or two leaving the kids sleeping but checking up every 20 minutes, I wouldn't do it myself (it's a far better laugh with the kids with you anyway) but I wouldn't judge someone who did as a bad parent. They were in what was meant to be a secure complex, in plain sight of the apartment, frequently returning to the room to check on them, paying for a babysitting service wouldn't have been any different.

Sometimes you just can't factor in the lengths that some people will go to when kids are involved, if I had to try, I'd be sending mines to school with a bullet proof vest and a tazar, it's just not realistic. The only real "bad and selfish" people in the McCann story or indeed the OP are the b******* that caused the harm and I'd like to think they'll get their comeuppance in one way or another.

[RyeSloan]

I know this is a highly emotive subject but I'd say that's a bit strong S, to say that "they willingly put their kids in danger" would suggest that they knew something untoward may happen but chose to ignore it and take the gamble, I very much doubt that. What they did was the equivalent of going next door for an hour or two leaving the kids sleeping but checking up every 20 minutes, I wouldn't do it myself (it's a far better laugh with the kids with you anyway) but I wouldn't judge someone who did as a bad parent. They were in what was meant to be a secure complex, in plain sight of the apartment, frequently returning to the room to check on them, paying for a babysitting service wouldn't have been any different.
Sometimes you just can't factor in the lengths that some people will go to when kids are involved, if I had to try, I'd be sending mines to school with a bullet proof vest and a tazar, it's just not realistic. The only real "bad and selfish" people in the McCann story or indeed the OP are the b******* that caused the harm and I'd like to think they'll get their comeuppance in one way or another.

Sorry I don't agree. Your analogy of going next door is similar to the McCanns leaving their kids in the apartment..you are putting them in danger because they are unsupervised when they are clearly of an age where they are incapable of looking after themselves or have any clear understanding of what danger is. At least in this case you could possibly argue that the risk was reduced as they were left in their own home, an environment they might at least be used to..however the McCann’s were hundreds of miles away from their own home in a foreign country.

The complex was not ‘secure’ in any real meaning of the word and the apartment was only partly visible from the restaurant but whether it was or wasn’t is neither here nor there…leaving not one but 3 kids that young alone to me is just crazy.

I disagree completely that paying for a babysitting service would have been the same as going back to check on them every 20minutes or half an hour…I would say there is a world of difference between the two. I do agree though that whoever committed the crime caused the harm however I stand by my opinion that the McCann’s contributed to that crime by failing in their duties as a parent. They made a deliberate choice to go out to dinner together with their friends rather than make sure their children were properly supervised at all times, to me that is a clear and conscious choice and one that does involve them taking a risk that nothing will go wrong. In this instance there is a clear alternative, one of them stays behind. Immediately that mitigates the increased risk completely. They chose not to do so therefore they chose to put their children in a situation that presented a greater risk to their well being than was necessary.

Anyway trying to take the emotion out of it if someone simply asked you the following what would your answers be?

How long is acceptable for a parent to leave twin two year olds unsupervised and alone in a foreign country?

Do you think it is safe to leave 3 children aged 2,2 and 3 totally unsupervised for up to half an hour in an strange apartment?

[Scouse Hibee]

Sorry I don't agree. Your analogy of going next door is similar to the McCanns leaving their kids in the apartment..you are putting them in danger because they are unsupervised when they are clearly of an age where they are incapable of looking after themselves or have any clear understanding of what danger is. At least in this case you could possibly argue that the risk was reduced as they were left in their own home, an environment they might at least be used to..however the McCann’s were hundreds of miles away from their own home in a foreign country.

The complex was not ‘secure’ in any real meaning of the word and the apartment was only partly visible from the restaurant but whether it was or wasn’t is neither here nor there…leaving not one but 3 kids that young alone to me is just crazy.

I disagree completely that paying for a babysitting service would have been the same as going back to check on them every 20minutes or half an hour…I would say there is a world of difference between the two. I do agree though that whoever committed the crime caused the harm however I stand by my opinion that the McCann’s contributed to that crime by failing in their duties as a parent. They made a deliberate choice to go out to dinner together with their friends rather than make sure their children were properly supervised at all times, to me that is a clear and conscious choice and one that does involve them taking a risk that nothing will go wrong. In this instance there is a clear alternative, one of them stays behind. Immediately that mitigates the increased risk completely. They chose not to do so therefore they chose to put their children in a situation that presented a greater risk to their well being than was necessary.

Anyway trying to take the emotion out of it if someone simply asked you the following what would your answers be?

How long is acceptable for a parent to leave twin two year olds unsupervised and alone in a foreign country?

Do you think it is safe to leave 3 children aged 2,2 and 3 totally unsupervised for up to half an hour in an strange apartment?

Irresponsible is the word I would use. Also illegal I believe, in this country anyway.

[speedy_gonzales]

I know this is a highly emotive subject but I'd say that's a bit strong S, to say that "they willingly put their kids in danger" would suggest that they knew something untoward may happen but chose to ignore it and take the gamble, I very much doubt that. What they did was the equivalent of going next door for an hour or two leaving the kids sleeping but checking up every 20 minutes, I wouldn't do it myself (it's a far better laugh with the kids with you anyway) but I wouldn't judge someone who did as a bad parent. They were in what was meant to be a secure complex, in plain sight of the apartment, frequently returning to the room to check on them, paying for a babysitting service wouldn't have been any different.

Sometimes you just can't factor in the lengths that some people will go to when kids are involved, if I had to try, I'd be sending mines to school with a bullet proof vest and a tazar, it's just not realistic. The only real "bad and selfish" people in the McCann story or indeed the OP are the b******* that caused the harm and I'd like to think they'll get their comeuppance in one way or another.

re the bits in bold, I was on holiday 2 years back and met a lovely couple with kids, from just outside Glasgow. The mum worked in the same department at the same hospital as Gerry McCann. A lot of the medical/nursing staff had been briefed not to get involved with the press(the hospital was apparently hoaching with tabloid reporters) and they were also privy to some information that hadn't yet been released.
As our holiday went on the couple we met mentioned, once or twice, the Maddy issue. Even they agreed they wouldn't think about leaving their 2 young ones alone in a house back home never mind abroad. The restaurant was not part of the resort complex, it was down and along the street. As for the checking every 20 minutes, this has been taken out of context, they had made an initial check during their meal but as time went on (and perhaps the wine flowed) the checks became less and less. Kate only discovered the disappearance as she went back to the apartment after complaining of feeling unwell. In the tabloid world, unwell usually reads as being pi$$ed.
Nobody independent from the McCanns gave any evidence to suggest the checks were at 20 minutes or less.
As much as they must be hurting, and they have paid the ultimate price, you wonder how such smart/clever people can be so lackadaisical when it comes to their own kids welfare??

[Jonnyboy]

The situation with the McCann's could be debated endlessly but the bottom line is the wee lassie was taken by some monster and that monster should be brought to justice. The McCann's got it wrong and are paying the price.

Back on topic, regardless of whether we think the parents have been correctly arrested or not I'm sure we'll all agree on one thing. Whoever set that fire must be punished to the full extent of the law

[Hibernia&Alba]

This is one of those stories that just seem incomprehensible. A mother and father accused of murdering their six children in a fire. It's impossible to being to begin to make sense of such a thing. I hope it wasn't them. The idea of parents doing that just doesn't bear thinking about.

[Andy Bee]

Sorry I don't agree. Your analogy of going next door is similar to the McCanns leaving their kids in the apartment..you are putting them in danger because they are unsupervised when they are clearly of an age where they are incapable of looking after themselves or have any clear understanding of what danger is. At least in this case you could possibly argue that the risk was reduced as they were left in their own home, an environment they might at least be used to..however the McCann’s were hundreds of miles away from their own home in a foreign country.

The complex was not ‘secure’ in any real meaning of the word and the apartment was only partly visible from the restaurant but whether it was or wasn’t is neither here nor there…leaving not one but 3 kids that young alone to me is just crazy.

I disagree completely that paying for a babysitting service would have been the same as going back to check on them every 20minutes or half an hour…I would say there is a world of difference between the two. I do agree though that whoever committed the crime caused the harm however I stand by my opinion that the McCann’s contributed to that crime by failing in their duties as a parent. They made a deliberate choice to go out to dinner together with their friends rather than make sure their children were properly supervised at all times, to me that is a clear and conscious choice and one that does involve them taking a risk that nothing will go wrong. In this instance there is a clear alternative, one of them stays behind. Immediately that mitigates the increased risk completely. They chose not to do so therefore they chose to put their children in a situation that presented a greater risk to their well being than was necessary.

Anyway trying to take the emotion out of it if someone simply asked you the following what would your answers be?

How long is acceptable for a parent to leave twin two year olds unsupervised and alone in a foreign country?

Do you think it is safe to leave 3 children aged 2,2 and 3 totally unsupervised for up to half an hour in an strange apartment?



All valid points S and Speedy but I suppose I'm just uncomfortable about the fact that whenever the McCann story is brought up the first point of call is how the parents left them alone with varying degrees of why and what they got up to, from where. As in the OP, the blame solely lies with the animals that caused the harm and sadly the full extent of the law isn't really enough of a punishment in my book.

[speedy_gonzales]

All valid points S and Speedy but I suppose I'm just uncomfortable about the fact that whenever the McCann story is brought up the first point of call is how the parents left them alone with varying degrees of why and what they got up to, from where. As in the OP, the blame solely lies with the animals that caused the harm and sadly the full extent of the law isn't really enough of a punishment in my book.
I genuinely don't want to get into the McCann debate, there are no winners there, BUT,
I agree that the perpetrators of crime must not go unpunished, and if someone abducted and then abused/molested/murdered then there is no punishment within the law of the land that would sate my appetite for justice, however, we don't know if she was abused/molested/murdered, there are just so many vagaries in the reported stories that the facts that we do know place a question mark on the parents behaviour. I'm not convinced that 'what we know they did' was illegal but certainly if they were a family from a council estate with coal mining heritage in the north of England, and they had went down the local, 100 yards away for a couple of Carling, leaving their 4yr old and 2yr old twins in the house, came back and discovered a kid missing, there is no doubt in my mind social services would have been involved!

Sole blame? If you withdrew a large sum of money from the bank, deliberately left it on a bench in a bus shelter, went away, came back and it was gone, who do you think most people, including yourself, would blame?Everybody has a reasonable duty of care!

Personally, every time I hear of the McCanns or Philpotts I get annoyed/frustrated at the parents, that's the easy part, the hard part is understanding why they thought it was OK to do what they do, that(being the father of a 9 year old girl), I will find very difficult.

[speedy_gonzales]

you wonder how such smart/clever people can be so lackadaisical when it comes to their own kids welfare??

Not the only ones it seems (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18391663)

[Pretty Boy]

This is one of those stories that just seem incomprehensible. A mother and father accused of murdering their six children in a fire. It's impossible to being to begin to make sense of such a thing. I hope it wasn't them. The idea of parents doing that just doesn't bear thinking about.

I can't help but wonder whether this was cold blooded murder or some kind of insurance scam or something gone tragically wrong.

Either way if guilty they should be locked up for life.

[Hibs Class]

I can't help but wonder whether this was cold blooded murder or some kind of insurance scam or something gone tragically wrong.

Either way if guilty they should be locked up for life.

Think I read that the family had been pushing for a bigger house from the council as there were so many kids. That would seem to be as plausible a motive as any.

[Baw Baggio]

Think I read that the family had been pushing for a bigger house from the council as there were so many kids. That would seem to be as plausible a motive as any.

Some people seem to have kids to make money, could the money being taken away push some people over the edge?

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/eia-benefit-cap-wr2011.pdf

[Hibernia&Alba]

Think I read that the family had been pushing for a bigger house from the council as there were so many kids. That would seem to be as plausible a motive as any.

If so, surely they would have burned the house down when it was empty? Get the kids out and then torch it. The idea of parents behaving in such a manner goes beyond ones worst fears of human nature. Hopefully the truth is revealed.

[Beefster]

If so, surely they would have burned the house down when it was empty? Get the kids out and then torch it. The idea of parents behaving in such a manner goes beyond ones worst fears of human nature. Hopefully the truth is revealed.

If someone was trying to get a bigger house, the fire would need to be started at night (to avoid witnesses) and an empty house would have been very suspicious. If this has happened, I would very much doubt that they were trying to kill their kids and likely thought that it would be fairly easy to get everyone out safely.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Another twist


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18521989

A 45-year-old man has been arrested in connection with a fire in Derby that killed six siblings


Their parents Mick Philpott, 55, and his wife Mairead, 31, have been charged with their murder.


The funerals for the children will take place at St Mary's Catholic Church on Friday.
Church officials said Mr and Mrs Philpott were not due to attend the funeral service.

[Jonnyboy]

Watched the news footage of the funeral on the TV news today. Heartbreaking

[MSK]

Watched the news footage of the funeral on the TV news today. HeartbreakingAbsolutley tragic John...

[Hibernia&Alba]

Watched the news footage of the funeral on the TV news today. Heartbreaking


It certainly was. Those poor kids. Very moving tributes by their teachers.

[cabbageandribs1875]

3rd Adult charged



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-20215262


A 45-year-old man has been charged with the murders of six children who died in a house fire in Derby.

Assistant chief constable Steve Cotterill said: "Three people have now been charged with the murder of these children. The man [Paul Mosley] stands accused alongside Michael and Mairead Philpott.

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-21875816

The parents of six children who died after a house fire in Derby have been convicted of their manslaughter, along with their friend.



rot in hell evil ****

[easty]

disgusting human beings.

[Hibernia Na Eir]

nothing mentioned on ITV news about the disgusting sexual behavior of the kids' parents (+1) shortly after they torched them.

these people are the real filth.

[frazeHFC]

Watching a documentry on it now. Him his wife and his girlfriend lived together with all the kids and he did them turn about in his caravan outside. Guy is an absolute beast, horrible seeing them holding the kids etc knowing what then went on to happen to them. Disgusting human beings!

[Sir David Gray]

Just watching a bit of that programme on ITV just now about it and it's making me sick and so angry.

His whole attitude to life is deplorable and his "I'll do what I want and get what I want" philosophy just beggars belief. It's unreal how people like that don't see anything wrong with having so many children and expect others to pay for them whilst he lies in his caravan and produces even more offspring for us all to pay for.

I'm glad he's been found guilty and I hope he now rots in Hell.

Disgusting, vile excuse of a man.

Feel so sorry for all of his children.

[cabbageandribs1875]

i'd gladly administer that freak with a lethal injection(and pay for the privilege), just looking at the **** gies mae the boak, the ******* will be on 24-hour security watch

[frazeHFC]

It just makes me sick how 6 inocent children have had their life ended by this absolute ****er of a 'human'. As this documentry goes on and you see the man swaggering about thinking he's gods gift just angers the hell out of me. He was 37 and had a relationship with a 14 year old, absolute beast.

****ing **** of a man, will rot in hell.

[Sir David Gray]

Watching those two brothers giving their account of what happened that day is heartbreaking.

They tried to rescue the children from the house and they actually apologised to him that they hadn't managed to save them.

How he could look them in the eye, knowing full well what he had done, is just unbelievable.

Absolute $cum.

[Scouse Hibee]

I don't normally advocate an eye for an eye but in this case I will make an exception for these total ****. I'm sure he considered himself some sort of celebrity, what a vile piece of filth he is, I hope he never sees the outside of a prison except when he is carried out in a box.

[lord bunberry]

Complete and utter vermin. When I was watching him in that press conference I thought he was putting on an act

[Pretty Boy]

Seeing those poor kids on the news is heartbreaking.

I'm usually quite liberal when it comes to crime and punishment and advocate rehabilitation over/as part of punishment but these ****bags should be locked up and the key thrown away.

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-22023117



A father convicted of killing six of his children in a house fire in Derby has been jailed for life at Nottingham Crown Court.
Mick Philpott was told he would serve a minimum of 15 years in prison.




Hang the *******

[Betty Boop]

Life for Mick Philpott, 17 years for Mairead and Paul Mosely.

[Scouse Hibee]

I was hoping they would all get the same life sentence seeing as they were all found guilty of the same crime of manslaughter. The fact that two of them may only serve 8 years seems totally wrong to me.

[hibsbollah]

I was hoping they would all get the same life sentence seeing as they were all found guilty of the same crime of manslaughter. The fact that two of them may only serve 8 years seems totally wrong to me.

It seems a fair sentence for all involved to me. Philpott terrorised and abused vulnerable women and girls all his life. The women involved are victims as well, which was fairly taken into account at sentencing.

His dependency on benefits is barely relevant to the case, but if youd read the redtops youd think that was the crime involved :dunno: "lets hope this is the last time the State unwittingly subsidises the manslaughter of children' The Sun editorial yesterday (later taken out of the later edition after complaints).

[Scouse Hibee]

It seems a fair sentence for all involved to me. Philpott terrorised and abused vulnerable women and girls all his life. The women involved are victims as well, which was fairly taken into account at sentencing.

His dependency on benefits is barely relevant to the case, but if youd read the redtops youd think that was the crime involved :dunno: "lets hope this is the last time the State unwittingly subsidises the manslaughter of children' The Sun editorial yesterday (later taken out of the later edition after complaints).


Sorry but two of them could be walking the streets in 8 years after being involved in taking the lives of six children!

[Hibs Class]

It seems a fair sentence for all involved to me. Philpott terrorised and abused vulnerable women and girls all his life. The women involved are victims as well, which was fairly taken into account at sentencing.

His dependency on benefits is barely relevant to the case, but if youd read the redtops youd think that was the crime involved :dunno: "lets hope this is the last time the State unwittingly subsidises the manslaughter of children' The Sun editorial yesterday (later taken out of the later edition after complaints).


I agree re the sentencing. I heard a comment yesterday, on the Radio 4 news but may have been part of the newspaper review, stating that Philpott was no more representative of people on benefits than Shipman was representative of middle class doctors. Philpott is representative only of Philpott.

[hibsbollah]

I agree re the sentencing. I heard a comment yesterday, on the Radio 4 news but may have been part of the newspaper review, stating that Philpott was no more representative of people on benefits than Shipman was representative of middle class doctors. Philpott is representative only of Philpott.

The coverage is absolutely insane. According to the Daily Mail and echoed by Gideon Osborne today, it was the benefits system that made him kill his kids.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035

[Jonnyboy]

The coverage is absolutely insane. According to the Daily Mail and echoed by Gideon Osborne today, it was the benefits system that made him kill his kids.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035

That smarmy bassa George Osbourne was asked about the Philpott case outcome and managed to turn his answer to his perceived need for the benefit system to be somehow to blame.

The irony for me is that he bemoaned the fact that Philpott's benefits were paid by the taxpayer. Guess who pays for his time behind bars

[Cropley10]

15 years minimum seems light. Philpott is a degenerate. A proper, proper sociopath. Not only did he set his own house alight but he apparently didn't do much to try and rescue his sleeping children! Him and his wife then didn't even visit the 13 year old as he lay there fighting for his life.

I take comfort that this guy won't be getting his Nat King for a long, long while and should live in mortal fear of having his face rearranged Inside.

**** is too kind a word to describe the mess him, his wife and pal were. End of.

[Jonnyboy]

15 years minimum seems light. Philpott is a degenerate. A proper, proper sociopath. Not only did he set his own house alight but he apparently didn't do much to try and rescue his sleeping children! Him and his wife then didn't even visit the 13 year old as he lay there fighting for his life.

I take comfort that this guy won't be getting his Nat King for a long, long while and should live in mortal fear of having his face rearranged Inside.

**** is too kind a word to describe the mess him, his wife and pal were. End of.

Appallingly so :agree:

I first heard the sentence on 5Live news. In the same bulletin, a Detective Constable, found guilty of nicking seized drugs to sell on, got 23 years

No wonder it's said the law is an ass

[Westie1875]

15 years minimum seems light. Philpott is a degenerate. A proper, proper sociopath. Not only did he set his own house alight but he apparently didn't do much to try and rescue his sleeping children! Him and his wife then didn't even visit the 13 year old as he lay there fighting for his life.

I take comfort that this guy won't be getting his Nat King for a long, long while and should live in mortal fear of having his face rearranged Inside.

**** is too kind a word to describe the mess him, his wife and pal were. End of.


I thought so too, not even 3 years for each life they took, appallingly light IMO. :bitchy:

[Hibs Class]

Bearing in mind the convictions were for manslaughter rather than murder, and the 15 year minimum represents a 30 year tariff with a 50% reduction in time to serve, to be followed by a life licence, this is at the more severe end of manslaughter sentencing. No-one would have objected to an even more severe penalty, but it would have been even worse if he'd been tried for murder and acquitted on the basis of difficulty proving premeditation. He's locked up until he's in his 70s, he'll more likely than not die in prison. This isn't the worst day for justice.

[Sir David Gray]

I know this is a crazy idea but is it really too much to ask that people who are sentenced to life imprisonment, actually spend the rest of their life in prison?

I know that Mick Philpott could, in theory, spend the rest of his days in jail but I just don't see how a judge can hand down a life sentence for someone and then in the same breath, tell them that they'll spend at least 15 years in prison.

For anyone under the age of about 70, a minimum 15 year sentence is unlikely to mean that you'll spend the rest of your life in jail.

As for the other two, the fact that they could be free in just over 8 years is just unbelievable. Again, what is the point in sentencing someone to 15 years in prison, if you then say that they are eligible for release after serving half that sentence?

The sentencing guidelines in this country are a joke.

Mick Philpott should die in prison and the other two should be serving a minimum of 25 years after what they did.

[hibsbollah]

That smarmy bassa George Osbourne was asked about the Philpott case outcome and managed to turn his answer to his perceived need for the benefit system to be somehow to blame.

The irony for me is that he bemoaned the fact that Philpott's benefits were paid by the taxpayer. Guess who pays for his time behind bars

Osborne will have a bad day tomorrow. Daily Mirror has a photo of him parking in a disabled bay :hilarious

[Jonnyboy]

Bearing in mind the convictions were for manslaughter rather than murder, and the 15 year minimum represents a 30 year tariff with a 50% reduction in time to serve, to be followed by a life licence, this is at the more severe end of manslaughter sentencing. No-one would have objected to an even more severe penalty, but it would have been even worse if he'd been tried for murder and acquitted on the basis of difficulty proving premeditation. He's locked up until he's in his 70s, he'll more likely than not die in prison. This isn't the worst day for justice.

I suspected as much but the bald report of 15 years is hugely misleading. Why would the judge not tell it as it is or maybe it's them media hyping up the story?

[Hibs Class]

I suspected as much but the bald report of 15 years is hugely misleading. Why would the judge not tell it as it is or maybe it's them media hyping up the story?

I listened to it on the radio 4 news on the way home. The newsreader read out the precise words that the judge said in sentencing each of them, and she was absolutely clear on how it would be. I suspect the media have edited the story to a shorter slot on tv news and some of the detail may have been lost.

[Jonnyboy]

I listened to it on the radio 4 news on the way home. The newsreader read out the precise words that the judge said in sentencing each of them, and she was absolutely clear on how it would be. I suspect the media have edited the story to a shorter slot on tv news and some of the detail may have been lost.

Perhaps deliberately as it makes 'better' news

Good thing is that the evil monster is unlikely to enjoy freedom again :agree:

[cabbageandribs1875]

just heard an interview with the murdering b******'s sister, she certainly didn't hold back in what should be an appropriate sentence just for him :agree:

[Steve-O]

Can I just clarify this as the media reporting of sentencing and the subsequent public outrage that goes with it is something that really annoys me.

1) He got a life sentence. The 15 years is the minimum non-parole period. He was NOT sentenced to 15 years. That is the FIRST time he'll even be considered for parole. If the system is anything like it is here in New Zealand, which I suspect it is, there is VERY little chance he'll get out at 15 years. He must prove to the Parole Board that he is not a risk (or 'undue risk' as it is here) to the community. If he fails to do this, he'll never get out.

2) Getting out for 'good behaviour' is a myth. Good behaviour no doubt helps, however there are a huge number of other factors that are considered before anyone is released. Some people are capable of behaving perfectly well in prison, but not in the community. The Parole Board know this, they are not idiots.

3) The sentencing (at least over here, again I suspect it is the same over here) does not equate to 2-3 years per child killed. He'll have been given 6 life sentences, 1 for each count of manslaughter. These sentences are served concurrently.

Jonnyboy - your example of the cop who got 23 years. This is a determinate sentence, like the 17 years the other two involved in this crime got. In the UK, the law is that for determinate sentences, they serve half of this time in prison, and the rest on licence (i.e. parole, under conditions, and they can be brought back to prison if they breach these conditions which can be very minor things). So, the cop will serve about 12 in prison, less than Philpott, and his sentence will eventually end after 23 years. Philpott's will not.

Also, here are the sentencing remarks. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-philpott-philpott-and-mosley-sentencing-remarks.pdf

The Judge DOES spell it out, and the media ARE misleading the public, quite deliberately IMO. They do the same here. It stirs up discussion, sells papers, and creates misinformation as we see on threads like this every time such a high profile crime occurs.

FalkirkHibby - the law says people serve half of their sentences in prison. I assume the reason for this in the UK is partly because there is simply not enough room and/or money to keep everyone in for entire sentences. However, that is not the only reason. Research has shown that where a system of parole is in place, the rates of reoffending are lower. i.e. it is better to have these people out contributing to the community, and reintegrating, with conditions and supervision, than to wait until the end of their sentence, boot them out the prison door after 17 years inside, and say 'see you later'. As you can imagine, it would not be easy to just slip back into society after that sort of time in prison, and the risk is that they simply turn back to crime because they cannot cope.

Make no mistake, for manslaughter, this is far from a light sentence. Life is obviously the maximum, and you can see that the other pair didn't even get life as the Judge clearly believed Philpott was the ringleader and orchestrator of the whole thing. He will not be out in 15 years barring a remarkable turnaround.

There endeth the lesson. Do not believe the media!!

[lord bunberry]

Can I just clarify this as the media reporting of sentencing and the subsequent public outrage that goes with it is something that really annoys me.

1) He got a life sentence. The 15 years is the minimum non-parole period. He was NOT sentenced to 15 years. That is the FIRST time he'll even be considered for parole. If the system is anything like it is here in New Zealand, which I suspect it is, there is VERY little chance he'll get out at 15 years. He must prove to the Parole Board that he is not a risk (or 'undue risk' as it is here) to the community. If he fails to do this, he'll never get out.

2) Getting out for 'good behaviour' is a myth. Good behaviour no doubt helps, however there are a huge number of other factors that are considered before anyone is released. Some people are capable of behaving perfectly well in prison, but not in the community. The Parole Board know this, they are not idiots.

3) The sentencing (at least over here, again I suspect it is the same over here) does not equate to 2-3 years per child killed. He'll have been given 6 life sentences, 1 for each count of manslaughter. These sentences are served concurrently.

Jonnyboy - your example of the cop who got 23 years. This is a determinate sentence, like the 17 years the other two involved in this crime got. In the UK, the law is that for determinate sentences, they serve half of this time in prison, and the rest on licence (i.e. parole, under conditions, and they can be brought back to prison if they breach these conditions which can be very minor things). So, the cop will serve about 12 in prison, less than Philpott, and his sentence will eventually end after 23 years. Philpott's will not.

Also, here are the sentencing remarks. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-philpott-philpott-and-mosley-sentencing-remarks.pdf

The Judge DOES spell it out, and the media ARE misleading the public, quite deliberately IMO. They do the same here. It stirs up discussion, sells papers, and creates misinformation as we see on threads like this every time such a high profile crime occurs.

FalkirkHibby - the law says people serve half of their sentences in prison. I assume the reason for this in the UK is partly because there is simply not enough room and/or money to keep everyone in for entire sentences. However, that is not the only reason. Research has shown that where a system of parole is in place, the rates of reoffending are lower. i.e. it is better to have these people out contributing to the community, and reintegrating, with conditions and supervision, than to wait until the end of their sentence, boot them out the prison door after 17 years inside, and say 'see you later'. As you can imagine, it would not be easy to just slip back into society after that sort of time in prison, and the risk is that they simply turn back to crime because they cannot cope.

Make no mistake, for manslaughter, this is far from a light sentence. Life is obviously the maximum, and you can see that the other pair didn't even get life as the Judge clearly believed Philpott was the ringleader and orchestrator of the whole thing. He will not be out in 15 years barring a remarkable turnaround.

There endeth the lesson. Do not believe the media!!

You say he won't get out after 15 years as he might still be a danger to the community but I'm sure I read that he will be 70 when that time comes. I doubt a 70 year old man will be considered a danger to the community

[heretoday]

Bearing in mind the convictions were for manslaughter rather than murder, and the 15 year minimum represents a 30 year tariff with a 50% reduction in time to serve, to be followed by a life licence, this is at the more severe end of manslaughter sentencing. No-one would have objected to an even more severe penalty, but it would have been even worse if he'd been tried for murder and acquitted on the basis of difficulty proving premeditation. He's locked up until he's in his 70s, he'll more likely than not die in prison. This isn't the worst day for justice.

Good post.

[Sudds_1]

i'd gladly administer that freak with a lethal injection(and pay for the privilege), just looking at the **** gies mae the boak, the ******* will be on 24-hour security watch.....and that still wont save him. I hope they use a rusty knife on his gonads before taking his eyes out.

[Jonnyboy]

Can I just clarify this as the media reporting of sentencing and the subsequent public outrage that goes with it is something that really annoys me.

1) He got a life sentence. The 15 years is the minimum non-parole period. He was NOT sentenced to 15 years. That is the FIRST time he'll even be considered for parole. If the system is anything like it is here in New Zealand, which I suspect it is, there is VERY little chance he'll get out at 15 years. He must prove to the Parole Board that he is not a risk (or 'undue risk' as it is here) to the community. If he fails to do this, he'll never get out.

2) Getting out for 'good behaviour' is a myth. Good behaviour no doubt helps, however there are a huge number of other factors that are considered before anyone is released. Some people are capable of behaving perfectly well in prison, but not in the community. The Parole Board know this, they are not idiots.

3) The sentencing (at least over here, again I suspect it is the same over here) does not equate to 2-3 years per child killed. He'll have been given 6 life sentences, 1 for each count of manslaughter. These sentences are served concurrently.

Jonnyboy - your example of the cop who got 23 years. This is a determinate sentence, like the 17 years the other two involved in this crime got. In the UK, the law is that for determinate sentences, they serve half of this time in prison, and the rest on licence (i.e. parole, under conditions, and they can be brought back to prison if they breach these conditions which can be very minor things). So, the cop will serve about 12 in prison, less than Philpott, and his sentence will eventually end after 23 years. Philpott's will not.

Also, here are the sentencing remarks. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-philpott-philpott-and-mosley-sentencing-remarks.pdf

The Judge DOES spell it out, and the media ARE misleading the public, quite deliberately IMO. They do the same here. It stirs up discussion, sells papers, and creates misinformation as we see on threads like this every time such a high profile crime occurs.

FalkirkHibby - the law says people serve half of their sentences in prison. I assume the reason for this in the UK is partly because there is simply not enough room and/or money to keep everyone in for entire sentences. However, that is not the only reason. Research has shown that where a system of parole is in place, the rates of reoffending are lower. i.e. it is better to have these people out contributing to the community, and reintegrating, with conditions and supervision, than to wait until the end of their sentence, boot them out the prison door after 17 years inside, and say 'see you later'. As you can imagine, it would not be easy to just slip back into society after that sort of time in prison, and the risk is that they simply turn back to crime because they cannot cope.

Make no mistake, for manslaughter, this is far from a light sentence. Life is obviously the maximum, and you can see that the other pair didn't even get life as the Judge clearly believed Philpott was the ringleader and orchestrator of the whole thing. He will not be out in 15 years barring a remarkable turnaround.

There endeth the lesson. Do not believe the media!!

Cheers Steve. I guess mine was a knee jerk reaction but I doubt I was alone in reacting that way! It's a great pity that not only the popular press but respectable radio outlets like BBC's 5Live go with reports that essentially mislead the public.

[Steve-O]

You say he won't get out after 15 years as he might still be a danger to the community but I'm sure I read that he will be 70 when that time comes. I doubt a 70 year old man will be considered a danger to the community

You would be surprised. There are many people over 70 still in prison and still considered too high risk to let out. As with 'good behaviour', age is only one more factor in such a decision.

[Steve-O]

Cheers Steve. I guess mine was a knee jerk reaction but I doubt I was alone in reacting that way! It's a great pity that not only the popular press but respectable radio outlets like BBC's 5Live go with reports that essentially mislead the public.

Although I say it's deliberate, it is also sometimes the case of poor journalism and a lack of understanding of the system from the media themselves.

The bottom line in this case was the lack of INTENT to kill. Yes this was a dangerous plan concocted and carried out by completely selfish idiots, but it was not supposed to end this way. Even the Judge says, at least of the mother, that her grief at losing the children is very real.

Some may say intent doesn't matter, but in the eyes of the law, it really does.

[Sir David Gray]

Can I just clarify this as the media reporting of sentencing and the subsequent public outrage that goes with it is something that really annoys me.

1) He got a life sentence. The 15 years is the minimum non-parole period. He was NOT sentenced to 15 years. That is the FIRST time he'll even be considered for parole. If the system is anything like it is here in New Zealand, which I suspect it is, there is VERY little chance he'll get out at 15 years. He must prove to the Parole Board that he is not a risk (or 'undue risk' as it is here) to the community. If he fails to do this, he'll never get out.

2) Getting out for 'good behaviour' is a myth. Good behaviour no doubt helps, however there are a huge number of other factors that are considered before anyone is released. Some people are capable of behaving perfectly well in prison, but not in the community. The Parole Board know this, they are not idiots.

3) The sentencing (at least over here, again I suspect it is the same over here) does not equate to 2-3 years per child killed. He'll have been given 6 life sentences, 1 for each count of manslaughter. These sentences are served concurrently.

Jonnyboy - your example of the cop who got 23 years. This is a determinate sentence, like the 17 years the other two involved in this crime got. In the UK, the law is that for determinate sentences, they serve half of this time in prison, and the rest on licence (i.e. parole, under conditions, and they can be brought back to prison if they breach these conditions which can be very minor things). So, the cop will serve about 12 in prison, less than Philpott, and his sentence will eventually end after 23 years. Philpott's will not.

Also, here are the sentencing remarks. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-philpott-philpott-and-mosley-sentencing-remarks.pdf

The Judge DOES spell it out, and the media ARE misleading the public, quite deliberately IMO. They do the same here. It stirs up discussion, sells papers, and creates misinformation as we see on threads like this every time such a high profile crime occurs.

FalkirkHibby - the law says people serve half of their sentences in prison. I assume the reason for this in the UK is partly because there is simply not enough room and/or money to keep everyone in for entire sentences. However, that is not the only reason. Research has shown that where a system of parole is in place, the rates of reoffending are lower. i.e. it is better to have these people out contributing to the community, and reintegrating, with conditions and supervision, than to wait until the end of their sentence, boot them out the prison door after 17 years inside, and say 'see you later'. As you can imagine, it would not be easy to just slip back into society after that sort of time in prison, and the risk is that they simply turn back to crime because they cannot cope.

Make no mistake, for manslaughter, this is far from a light sentence. Life is obviously the maximum, and you can see that the other pair didn't even get life as the Judge clearly believed Philpott was the ringleader and orchestrator of the whole thing. He will not be out in 15 years barring a remarkable turnaround.

There endeth the lesson. Do not believe the media!!

Even although I disagree with large parts of it, I appreciate that a lot of time and thought has gone into your post so I'm certainly going to give it the respect it deserves.

I understand that Mick Philpott will not necessarily be released after 15 years and I realise that's a minimum term he was given.

However he was given a life sentence by the judge and I just don't understand how someone can be given a life sentence and then at the same time they're told there's a chance that they could be released after 15 years.

I know he was convicted of manslaughter and not murder but the maximum sentence for manslaughter is still a life sentence and I am strongly of the belief that people who are given a life sentence should be in prison until the day that they die. I certainly think that should be the case with Mick Philpott and he should currently be serving a whole life sentence, without the possibility of parole.

As for determinate sentences where people automatically spend 50% of their sentence in prison, I strongly disagree with that too. If the other two in this case are only going to serve 8.5 years in prison, that's the sentence that the judge should have given them. I understand your point that they would spend the other 50% of the sentence under licence and under various restrictions etc. but I don't think that should be the case. If you are released from prison then it should be under the agreement of everyone involved in dealing with such a decision that the person no longer poses any danger to other people and is safe to be placed back into society.

If that is the case then I see no further reason to monitor that person when they are released from prison and they should be a free person until such a time that they do happen to commit another criminal offence. If that person is still considered to pose a risk to the public, however small that risk may be, then they should remain in prison.

I accept that Mick Philpott was the instigator, ringleader and driving force behind this whole tragic event. However anyone who goes along with a plot to set fire to a house, when you are fully aware that there are six children inside (let alone your own children), should be in prison for a lot longer than 8.5 years, in my opinion.

[Steve-O]

Falkirk, I will respond to your post in some detail later. I don't know if it helps any, but the reason I have knowledge of this sort of thing (more in NZ than UK admittedly but the basic principles are the same) is because my job involves attending parole hearings for those serving life sentences. I have so far attended around 200+ such hearings for lifers alone, and another 1500 (estimate) parole hearings for determinate sentences. My point is that I see both sides if the coin (we deal with victims too).

Anyway, as I say, will respond in more detail later but that's just to point out where I am coming from with all this.

Edit - should point out that I am not on the Parole Board. Oh to be that important :greengrin
I am, however, in a unique position in that I hear the deliberations that go into the decision making, and nobody else, bar the Board themselves, are party to those discussions.

[Steve-O]

Even although I disagree with large parts of it, I appreciate that a lot of time and thought has gone into your post so I'm certainly going to give it the respect it deserves.

I understand that Mick Philpott will not necessarily be released after 15 years and I realise that's a minimum term he was given.

However he was given a life sentence by the judge and I just don't understand how someone can be given a life sentence and then at the same time they're told there's a chance that they could be released after 15 years.

I think here you are confusing the words 'sentence' and 'imprisonment'. He WILL serve the sentence for his entire life. A sentence does not necessarily mean imprisonment and this is where a lot of the confusion comes from.

I know he was convicted of manslaughter and not murder but the maximum sentence for manslaughter is still a life sentence and I am strongly of the belief that people who are given a life sentence should be in prison until the day that they die. I certainly think that should be the case with Mick Philpott and he should currently be serving a whole life sentence, without the possibility of parole.

Sorry, but life without parole for manslaughter would be absolutely unprecedented, and in the UK justice system, it is simply too harsh. As stated though, he could still serve the rest of his life in prison, it is certainly a possibility, especially given his age, and personality according to what the Judge said.

As for determinate sentences where people automatically spend 50% of their sentence in prison, I strongly disagree with that too. If the other two in this case are only going to serve 8.5 years in prison, that's the sentence that the judge should have given them. I understand your point that they would spend the other 50% of the sentence under licence and under various restrictions etc. but I don't think that should be the case. If you are released from prison then it should be under the agreement of everyone involved in dealing with such a decision that the person no longer poses any danger to other people and is safe to be placed back into society.

If the Judge had given the other 2 sentences of 8.5 years, then they'd be out in just over 4 years, so what would you prefer? That is the law in the UK (that half of sentences are served in prison) and the Judge can only apply the law in front of them. Also, you seem to be suggesting that if someone is still deemed a risk at the end of their sentence, that they should be kept inside? Unfortunately that is completely illegal and surely not a road we want to go down? It is for that reason it is better to monitor people in the community while they are still serving the sentence. Given they have the prospect of a recall to prison hanging over them, it is a motivational tool to stay out of trouble, try and get a job, and live a normal life. If they've been doing it prior to their sentence ending, the chances are they'll continue that way after their sentences end.

If that is the case then I see no further reason to monitor that person when they are released from prison and they should be a free person until such a time that they do happen to commit another criminal offence. If that person is still considered to pose a risk to the public, however small that risk may be, then they should remain in prison.

The point you are missing is that if someone is being supervised in the community, they can be recalled for very minor things, and this includes things that are not even a criminal offence. If a Probation Officer feels that the risk of this offender reoffending is beginning to escalate for whatever reason, the offender can be recalled BEFORE they actually get the point of committing the crime. Under your system it seems you'd be happy for them to wander the streets unsupervised from the minute they leave prison and then they'd potentially reoffend, by which time it'd be too late for any victim of this new crime. You appear to have dismissed my point that research has shown that reoffending rates are lower in countries that operate a parole system in this way?

I accept that Mick Philpott was the instigator, ringleader and driving force behind this whole tragic event. However anyone who goes along with a plot to set fire to a house, when you are fully aware that there are six children inside (let alone your own children), should be in prison for a lot longer than 8.5 years, in my opinion.

Responses also in bold above.

It's important to remember that if someone has spent 8.5 years in prison, that a lot will have changed in the world in that time. Bear in mind that these people will come out with no job, a lot of the time no money, no home etc. You may say that's their fault or whatever, and of course that is true, however these are things that elevate the risk of them reoffending, and that's why a more gradual approach at reintegrating them into the community is important - it is important for them, and it is important for the community.

Also, if every life sentence prisoner just had the key thrown away, there are many consequences to this. One is that we have prisons absolutely full of these people, new prisons have to be built, and it just goes on and one. And guess who pays for these new prisons and extra prisoners? You do. If someone is not a risk any more, have served their minimum time at least, and can get out and contribute to society, my view is that is better than them sitting in prison while the taxpayer shells out 50k per year to keep someone in who no longer needs to be there.

There is also the question of safety INSIDE the prison. Having prisons full of life sentence prisoners who literally have nothing to lose is a potentially dangerous environment for the staff who have to work there. Not to mention before they go to prison. People talk about deterrents, but if you kill one person and know you're going away forever no matter what, might you then go on and kill a few more anyway? Perhaps the Police Officers that come to arrest you for example? May as well kill them, nothing to lose after all.

I appreciate you'll probably still hold the views you do, but in many ways they are simplistic, and they do not make the UK any safer. These laws and systems are not in place just to wind up the public or be 'soft on crime'. The ultimate aim is to reduce crime. Prison is not the be all and end all. Countries in Scandanavia have much lighter punishments and much less people in prison. Guess what? Their crime rate is lower. The US has MASSIVE amounts of people in prison, and for much longer periods. Guess what? Their crime rate is higher. These sorts of statistics cannot just be coincidence.

[21.05.2016]

An evil man who deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. He obviously had an incredibly arrogant attitude and massive ego who saw women as his property and that their purpose in life was to serve him. This selfishness and arrogance resulted in 6 innocent children being killed. Philpott was quite happy to lead this sleazy lifestyle, whilst spounging thousands of pounds off the good, honest working people.

As for the wife, well how a women could be convinced to risk the lives of her children by her man just so he could look like a hero and frame his lover is quite unbelievable. Absolutely disgusting.

Hope they all rot in hell.

[Scouse Hibee]

Can I just clarify this as the media reporting of sentencing and the subsequent public outrage that goes with it is something that really annoys me.

1) He got a life sentence. The 15 years is the minimum non-parole period. He was NOT sentenced to 15 years. That is the FIRST time he'll even be considered for parole. If the system is anything like it is here in New Zealand, which I suspect it is, there is VERY little chance he'll get out at 15 years. He must prove to the Parole Board that he is not a risk (or 'undue risk' as it is here) to the community. If he fails to do this, he'll never get out.

2) Getting out for 'good behaviour' is a myth. Good behaviour no doubt helps, however there are a huge number of other factors that are considered before anyone is released. Some people are capable of behaving perfectly well in prison, but not in the community. The Parole Board know this, they are not idiots.

3) The sentencing (at least over here, again I suspect it is the same over here) does not equate to 2-3 years per child killed. He'll have been given 6 life sentences, 1 for each count of manslaughter. These sentences are served concurrently.

Jonnyboy - your example of the cop who got 23 years. This is a determinate sentence, like the 17 years the other two involved in this crime got. In the UK, the law is that for determinate sentences, they serve half of this time in prison, and the rest on licence (i.e. parole, under conditions, and they can be brought back to prison if they breach these conditions which can be very minor things). So, the cop will serve about 12 in prison, less than Philpott, and his sentence will eventually end after 23 years. Philpott's will not.

Also, here are the sentencing remarks. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-philpott-philpott-and-mosley-sentencing-remarks.pdf

The Judge DOES spell it out, and the media ARE misleading the public, quite deliberately IMO. They do the same here. It stirs up discussion, sells papers, and creates misinformation as we see on threads like this every time such a high profile crime occurs.

FalkirkHibby - the law says people serve half of their sentences in prison. I assume the reason for this in the UK is partly because there is simply not enough room and/or money to keep everyone in for entire sentences. However, that is not the only reason. Research has shown that where a system of parole is in place, the rates of reoffending are lower. i.e. it is better to have these people out contributing to the community, and reintegrating, with conditions and supervision, than to wait until the end of their sentence, boot them out the prison door after 17 years inside, and say 'see you later'. As you can imagine, it would not be easy to just slip back into society after that sort of time in prison, and the risk is that they simply turn back to crime because they cannot cope.

Make no mistake, for manslaughter, this is far from a light sentence. Life is obviously the maximum, and you can see that the other pair didn't even get life as the Judge clearly believed Philpott was the ringleader and orchestrator of the whole thing. He will not be out in 15 years barring a remarkable turnaround.

There endeth the lesson. Do not believe the media!!

Thanks, I knew that and it does not change my thinking concerning the leniency of the sentencing one bit.