UKC

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

In reply to dale1968: good

In reply to dale1968: bast**ds. why did they do it? anyone know?

In reply to heidi123:

Prosecution case was the fire was started to try and win a custody battle with his ex partner.

In reply to off-duty: was he supposed to rescue them to prove how great he was?

In reply to dale1968:
How can you possibly adequately sentence the people responsible for killing 6 children?

In reply to Indy: yes. no matter what sentence they get it wont bring the children back or change what they have done.

In reply to Indy:


You can't, but I would hope they would get whatever the maximum sentence possible is.

In reply to icnoble:

Whilst I trust that the jury got it right, I think I would had preferred it if they had not been guilty of killing their six children.

In reply to heidi123:

I think the plan was to frame the other woman.

In reply to Indy:

I think in cases like this there should be an additional charge of being a piece of shit, with a burden of proof on the accused.

Having said that I am sure there are many similar families that just have not gone quite as far or not been caught, Shannon Mathews' case, the one last year where the step granddad done it. The common denominator is the shameless benefits culture yet we have threads running to hundreds of posts defending the benefits system which encourages this sort of moral degeneracy.

In reply to andic:

Must........not.........get........drawn.........in. Must...........not......get.........

*I agree by the way.

In reply to andic: 'The common denominator is the shameless benefits culture yet we have threads running to hundreds of posts defending the benefits system which encourages this sort of moral degeneracy.'

Love it. Unfortunately it's bollox.

1) Show me a single post where anyone has encouraged 'moral degeneracy' (great phrase, btw!). Just one will do. 2) Read some history, or even fiction if you like, like 'Tess of the D'Urbevilles' or 'Mary Barton' or 'Oliver Twist'. Look on the graffiti in Pompei. 'Moral degeneracy' didn't suddenly appear with benefits culture: men have sold their wives and daughters for the price of a drink since the dawn of time, women have had babies to trap fathers, 12 year old girl prostitutes were common in London in the Victorian era etc etc etc. Mick Philpott would have been an inadequate, pathetic destructive (and self destructive) waste of space whenever he had been born - and somehow would have found the resources to be so.

It's the price we pay for living in a society - some people are less than perfect.

In reply to andic:
The common denominator is the shameless benefits culture yet we have threads running to hundreds of posts defending the benefits system which encourages this sort of moral degeneracy.>

How on Earth does the benefits system encourage moral degeneracy?

There are plenty of "moral degenerates" in full time employment at all levels of expertise and income.

I am guessing that those who slate the benefit system have had the good fortune to have always been in worthwhile employment.
Gaining and keeping a full time job is not completely down to personal effort, things don't always fall into place.

I know so through bitter personal experience, which i am currently living through.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Apparently Philpott viewed his kids as his own personal revenue/income generators. Which is why the fire was started to frame his girlfriend so he could keep control of the 4 other kids that the custody trial was about. So it could be argued in this particular instance that Andic is right as benefits were at the core behind his actions, though personally I'd be inclined to agree with your assertion that there have always and will always be pieces of shit who do terrible things for the wrong reasons.

In reply to andic:
>

What utter, utter, tripe.

In reply to dale1968: Sentencing deferred to Thursday.

In reply to Toby S: I'd have to agree with you there Toby.
Philpott is a reckless, egotistic, fantasist and it just so happens he was on benefits as well. Even if he had won the lottery he'd still be a dangerous man with no concept of danger, responsibilty or morality.

In reply to blanchie14c:

Maybe if he had had to work to support the lifestyle it would have improved my opinion slightly, at least he would have been funding it and not the UK taxpayers and maybe he would have some appreciation of values in life?

So as it is I'd add lazy and selfish to your list.

In reply to John Lewis:

Not defending Philpott at all, however some need to realise that it really isn't always that easy to just walk into work (from personal experience).

This is not a benefits system problem.

In reply to Skip: Don't dissagree at all.

In reply to dale1968:

having spent time just down the Road at Rolls Royce, it's interesting to see the contrast between the money that seeps down the drain at our largest most successful aircraft engine manafacturer, compared to the other end of Vistory Road which is erm a drain.

In reply to New POD:
I know the area well and yes, you are on the money with that statement

In reply to John Lewis:

....?

To paraphrase, "well he might have killed six children, attempted to murder a previous girlfriend by stabbing her 13 times, been a violent and manipulative partner to several vulnerable and impressionable young womenand tried to frame his neighbours for this crime but he wasn't on benefits so he's not quite the lowest of the low.."

Have I got that right?

In reply to Removed User:

Substitute "was otherwise a good father" for "wasn't on benefits" and you've almost quoted his breifs mitigating statement verbatim..

In reply to Ridge:

What puzzles me is that the women of the house both worked. I thought the Daily Mail ideal family was to have one or more wage earners and one parent staying at home to look after the kids. Or is it only OK if the person staying at home is female? And, of course, not claiming other benefits - but the amount of child tax credits you would get from that lot would, I would have thought, mean that the main earner could earn 60k+ and still get a proportion of them.

In reply to Removed User:

Not completely no, and I did not communicate that well. He was as nasty a piece if work as I can imagine, attempted murder, gbh, six counts of infanticide, manipulation of the system as well as in his relationships, and still he laughed and joked including inappropriate comments to some police women I understand.

So no remorse and all he cared about was that getting what ever he wanted for himself from whoever. To top that he managed to get us to fund it.

In reply to Toby S:

Didn't you know benefits cause immorality like this? It's what every right thinking person knows.

Hmmn....

In reply to John Lewis:

Mrs Frog says he is a "classic psychopath" with regards to his behaviour.

In reply to Indy:


It is tricky isn't it. It seems the Philpotts never intended to kill the children. They were just the collateral damage in a rather fvcked up plan to win custody. In similar killings, though in different circumstances, medals are sometimes awarded.

In reply to David Martin:

I'm not sure it is tricky. The option of a life sentence is there (presumably for the very worst manslaughter cases). This would appear to fit the bill.
I think the judge is holding off to let things calm down a bit and because of the uniqueness of the case and therefore the influence on legal precedent.

In reply to David Martin: did you see the Mail headline today? Apparently the whole thing is a product of the benefits system.

In reply to dale1968:
I'm surprised that nobody has had a go at the police for bugging their room to try and get evidence against them. If they had turned out to be wrong I've no doubt there would have been hell to pay and much criticism against the police.
Whatever sentence they receive, their time in prison will be pretty grim and deservedly so, I have no sympathy for them.

In reply to Moley:


Why? There is a robust and transparent procedure to enable listening devices to be used governed by legislation.

In reply to David Martin:

I'm not sure I understand what would be a medal worthy similar situation?

Oh FFS, he's no more representative of people on benefits than the ripper is of your average lorry driver.



The guy is turd, he would be a turd if he worked at Kwikfit or PwC.

To equate what this bastard did to people on benefits makes me despair. He's the Hoogstraten of the poor.



anyhow, he's spending the rest of life in prison, making "special friends" will be rather fitting - he's about to get a starring part in his own Hieronymus Bosch painting.............a little triptych of hell awaits....

In reply to David Martin:


Maybe he just needs a cuddle. i'll hold your coat.

what's your blood type?

I reckon if you set fire to your house with your kids in it, you're not the best of parents, and I say this as a man with no kids.

In reply to off-duty:


I couldn't work that one out either.. ..I was wondering whether it was some very contorted analogy with the Iraq war or summin.....??????!!!!

In reply to Jimbo W: I think I read somewhere that he set the fire so he could blame his ex and look like a hero when he saved the kids.

In reply to David Martin:


They set a fire in a house with 6 kids who were killed. They did not consider, value, empathise etc with those kids at all in the process. Worse, "saving" the kids was clearly something thought about, which means that they had clearly realised that the kids were going to be at risk of harm. They might not have set out to kill them, but they did for some pathetic egotistical endpoints. I trust the justice system will give them life sentences, and at least in Philpott's case, I would hope if our justice system allows that life will mean life.

In reply to marsbar:


What are the "similar killings" to which he refers?!

In reply to Jimbo W: have they been sentenced yet?

In reply to andy:


Not so far as I know.

In reply to andy:

tomorrow morning, she delayed sentencing till then.

In reply to off-duty:
Perhaps I worded that wrong, I'm fine with it, I was commenting on the fact that others on this site (who frequently appear anti police methods) had not commented.

Love the fact that Mick Philpott was portrayed yesterday by his defence team as a very good dad who hadn't been able to grieve, then a short time later was making obscene hand gestures and snarling at his in-laws who were baiting him from the public gallery.

Grand!

Mick Philpott - sentenced to min 15 years

Mairead Philpott - sentenced to 17 years but to serve min half

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

He's really someone society could do without.

Paul Mosley sentenced to 17 years will serve half at least

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

That is just the min he has to serve - he has a life sentence.

In reply to Submit to Gravity: Come on.. have you seen facebook..

'let him free to the public, they'll rip him to shreds'
'hang hin.. save public money'

and the best..

'we'll never get what we want with dictators in charge'.

Aye as dictatorships are so lovely to live under.. public hangings like in Iran.. using crude execution tools like cranes on the street.. do we really want that?

These knee jerk reactions are not good to see.. you understand how crowd mentality happens.. it does shock me that people still think 2 wrongs make a right..

The guy was obviously an odious person, he's got a hefty sentence.. he's likely to die in prison or be released an elderly man after a more than likely 20 years of constant attacks.. or fear of attack..

He's got his punishment, fair and just. The system worked well, the police worked well, I'm not a fan of them at all, but credit where credit is due.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

How does that work? 17/2 = must serve 8.5 minus a third for good behaviour = 5.5 years or less than a year per child murdered?

In reply to Indy: They weren't murdered..

In reply to Indy:

corrected that for you.

Dunno about the good behaviour bit as judge has set a minimum tariff.

In reply to IainRUK: You may have misinterpreted your "best" quote.
And one man's crowd mentality is another's democracy.

In reply to IainRUK: I wasn't commenting on the length of the sentence, or advocating his public lynching, just commenting on his lack of use to the rest of society as a human being.

I suppose there's always been people like him and there always will be.

And well done to the Police for catching him.

In reply to Sir Chasm: Really.. ripping people to shreds.. public stonings..

Jesus christ... maybe I'm just turning into a pinky liberal in my old age.. quite frankly I'm disgusted when I see these threads..

How can just sane people value life so cheaply yet be so angry at the loss of life..

Of course.. before you say.. I'm more disgusted by the Philpotts.. you'd think that wouldn't need to be said..

Democracy happens slowly and with thought.. crowd violence doesn't..

In reply to Submit to Gravity: I agree.. I'm just against the death penalty, which I thought you were getting at sorry, I'm against in now.. and regardless of the crime..

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

Legal semantics but point taken.

In reply to Indy: It is not a semantic.. its a clear distinction..

In the intent behind the act..

In reply to IainRUK: Its more the comments on articles than this thread really I should add..

In reply to Indy: And before you say it I am not defending the guy. He's got a long sentence, rightly, but for manslaughter. He did not intend to kill the kids. I think that was pretty clear. He had callous disregard for them, needlessly endangered their lives, caused their deaths. He's obviously pretty screwed up, and a very nasty violent person.

He'll have a horrific time in prison, I think thats fair to say.

In reply to IainRUK: As I said, you might be (well, you have in one instance) misinterpreting quotes. They may be crudely expressing a desire for the death penalty, which, fair enough, you disagree with. But more people wanting something doesn't make it mob rule just because you disagree with what they want.

In reply to Sir Chasm: No.. I was talking about the quotes.. I took from newspaper articles.. or was it facebook..

About let him to the public and they'll rip him to shreds.. I think it ended with there won't be enough to fill a carrier bag..

If that's democracy fair enough... for me thats mob rule..

In reply to Sir Chasm: So yes you misinterpreted.. difference is I apologised to Submit.. you on the other hand will continue with your supposedly witty cowardly anonymous sniping..

In reply to IainRUK: Well you misinterpreted the dictator quote, didn't you?
I'm not making, or trying to make, witty quotes. People are clumsily suggesting that he should be killed I.e. that there should be a death penalty.

In reply to IainRUK:

but if he fancies himself as the alpha male type, he might just be able to defend his own position. depends on the people he's housed with i'd have thought? (not being a prison expert you understand lol)

In reply to IainRUK:

What I posted was by no means clear - it was just an idle musing.

In reply to IainRUK:

I'm sure your right and the law is an ass.

I think that most people would consider manslaughter to be something that was unforeseeable like a freak accident. You have an argument a person they come towards you you push them away they slip and hit there head on a table going down and die. Surely setting fire to a house with children in it it is entirely foreseeable that your physical actions will lead to there deaths how can intent come into it.Because they didn't mean to do it they get some brownie points hence less time in jail?
Any parent at least would say the law is an ass.

In reply to Indy: I donn't think it is an ass here..

He did something stupid and dangerous and intentionally risked their lives. But he did not set out to kill them. Was murder ever even on the cards for the prosecution?

It seems like the judge correctly viewed the serious ness of the siutaion and the intentional aspect of it. Manslaughter can carry far shorter sentences than this.

Rallymania.. aye maybe, I just think being the nasty guy on some estate is different to being that in a high security prison.. again though no expert..

In reply to dale1968:

15 years minimum with a life sentence I think is insufficient. I dont condone the death penalty and in this case, the death penalty would be too strong anyway even if it was still being used, unlike Huntley/Sutcliffe et al.

What he did was the absolute pits but it wasnt driven by murderous intent, rather a deranged and deluded plan gone horribly wrong.

Philpott is now nationally infamous and will be known to all other inmates as soon as he lands in prison and I have no doubt that there will be many who will see him as a trophy for a beating. When he is released, he will suffer once again. The same for his friend.

Now his wife I struggle with and cant make up my mind how much coercion was applied and how much she was really a party to this or a passenger. This is not to excuse her actions but from what has been shown on the various media portrayals over the last two days, I just cant make up my mind whether I feel complete derision or total sympathy. Unlike Myra Hindley or similar, whom was very much the partner in crime, I just dont see her in the same light as Mr P. She just seems incapable of making her own decisions and probably didnt have the foresight, strength or willpower to say anything against Philpott. What kind of woman would allow her man to do what he did to her with his mistress?

She should be punished but I suspect the loss of her kids will become her life sentence whereas Mr P probably feels nothing.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Someone who's been ground down by years of domestic abuse in all its myriad forms?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: I'm not sure.. I suspect you are right.. low IQ probably plays a part here.. in all aspects..

In reply to IainRUK:


Pretty obvious, I'd have thought, espeically if you rewrite it as:

How can sane people value the life of a violent bully and rapist who has never contributed anything of worth to society and who has now killed six people so cheaply, yet, be so angry at the loss of the lives of six inocent children.

In reply to Indy:


When was he tried for murder?
jk

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

56 year old Philpott will be 71 when he can first apply for parole.

In reply to jkarran:

See replies just after that post

In reply to Tall Clare:



Surprising that her defence didn't try (or did they?) to use marital coercion. It would appear that she had a much stronger claim to it than Vicky Pryce.

In reply to RCC:

Considering Mick Philpott had already been investigated for dragging her out of the house by her hair...

In reply to Tyler:


Alleged rapist

In reply to Tall Clare:

Exactly, she probably lost the ability to make her own decisions years ago. A bit like the people in North Korea.

In reply to dale1968:

My concern is that Mrs Philpot will be out in time o have more children (she'll be out at about 40), and yes, social services will keep a very close eye on her, likely remove her children at birth, but then you have more children growing up in the care system, the judge should have taken this into account when sentencing her. IMHO

In reply to jkarran:


Yes, well done, you are correct. Prehaps now you can tell me what bearing that has on my point that not everyone values every life the same?

In reply to jenniwat001:

I'm not sure compulsory sterilisation is a route we as a nation want to head down.

In reply to Tyler:

My point is that presumption of innocence is not just a legal nicety, it protects you and me just the same as it protects scum who burn their own children to death. If you recognise that you should also respect it.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Yes, but my rewording of Iain's sentence was illustrative only. Although based on Philpot the example I used was really hypothtical to point out that people will not view all lives equally. Someone as bright as you would have realised this which leaves me wondering why you felt the need for such pedantry?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: I think that the wife is one for a new thread.

In reply to jenniwat001:


More chance of having a disabled child after 40, so more benefits ?

In reply to jenniwat001: Children removed at birth are much more adoptable and unlikely to end up in care, and any social worker with half a brain would persuade her to get an implant or an abortion rather than that.

In reply to Tall Clare:

not forgetting..
In July 1978, aged 21, while absent without leave from the Army, Philpott attempted to murder his girlfriend Kim Hill, with whom he had been conducting a two-year relationship, which began when Hill was 15. Philpott had previously been violent to his girlfriend, including shooting her in the groin with a crossbow because he felt her dress was too short, and cracking her kneecap with a hammer when she paid too much attention to a baby she was minding.

Philpott attempted to kill Hill because she sent him a letter, saying she was splitting up with him. He stabbed her over a dozen times; he stabbed her mother when she came to her daughter's aid. Hill suffered collapsed lungs, and a punctured bladder, kidney and liver, which she believes caused her subsequent liver cancer. Philpott was convicted of attempted murder of Hill, and grievous bodily harm with intent against her mother,[6] and was sentenced to seven years in prison in December 1978.[7][8][9] Philpott was released after 3 years and 2 months

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Philpott

In reply to subalpine:

Chillingly Philpott said in one of the TV shows that it was a "moment of madness" and (presumably trying to allude to it being a crime of passion) "if this had happened in France nothing would have happened to me".

Clearly showing no remorse or even responsibility for his actions.

In reply to subalpine:

The bit about Mairead getting pregnant again whilst the couple were out dogging... just sordid...

In reply to Tyler:

I understand that.. but why support the death penalty..

In reply to IainRUK: will he be able to watch the kyle show in solitary?

In reply to dale1968:
Full judgement here, if anyone is interested with what the Judge had to say: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/04/mick-philpott-jailed-judge-remarks

In reply to marsbar:

persuading people not to breed is pretty tricky, take a look around you...

D

In reply to danwilliams99:

"The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment. You are a disturbingly dangerous man. Your guiding principle is what Mick Philpott wants he gets. You have no moral compass. I have no hesitation in concluding that these six offences are so serious and the danger you pose is so great that the only proper sentence is one of life imprisonment and that is the sentence I impose upon you.

The law requires me to impose a period of years that you will serve before you are considered for parole. To reach that period I must identify the determinate sentence you would have served had I not imposed a life sentence. The determinate sentence would have been one of 30 years' imprisonment. I am required by parliament to halve that to reflect that were this a determinate sentence you would serve only half. The minimum period you must therefore serve before you are considered for parole is one of 15 years. From that I deduct 307 days to reflect the time you have already served on remand to give a term of 14 years and 58 days. Whether or not you are ever released will be a matter for the parole board."

Quite clear the judge used his full force.. highly likely he will never be released.. so very unlikely a 15 year sentence.. and unlikely the law was an ass..

In reply to IainRUK:

Fixed that for you.