Reply to: Derby House Fire

[shaunbhoy]

This scumbag is featured on Pick+1 in "Mick Philpott: Britain's Most Evil" right now.

Listened to a documentary about this winker recently. Seemingly the incident took place the night before he was due in court for a custody hearing.

His cunning plan was to start the fire and make it look like his ex had been responsible. Probably upset that she might get her mitts on some of "his" child benefit money.

He was then supposed to clamber up the ladder and rescue the poor innocent children and come out looking like the hero of the hour.
Tragically it all went horribly wrong at which point they attempted to cover it up.

There is a special dark corner of hell reserved for scumbags like him.

[DoctorStrangelove]

Mick Philpott who killed 6 of his children in fire complains about prison | Metro News

[Acme Thunderer]

How come those chaps that wanted to kill Joss Stone got nearly 11 years yet this ball bag got 15 for 6 lives.

They both got life. These are minimum terms to saw when they will be eligible to be considered for parole, not when they will be released.

I suspect and hope Philpot will die in prison

[EternalOptimist]

Here's a useful explanation of the sentence by a lawyer: The sentencing of Mick Philpott | Jack of Kent

TLDR:

"A straight thirty year sentence for Philpott would have sounded harsher; but he would only have to serve half before release.

"A life sentence with a minimum of fifteen years instead means only the possibility of parole after fifteen years. It is a paradox but life with a minimum of fifteen years is harsher than a straight sentence of thirty years."

mmm. thanks for the elaboration.
But I still feel that the correct sentance would be
Life with a minimum of fifteen years plus an additional Kyle tarrif*


* Jeremy Kyle get a kick in the bollx for every year. once a year

[FiveTimes]

How come those chaps that wanted to kill Joss Stone got nearly 11 years yet this ball bag got 15 for 6 lives.

Was it not possible to charge them with 6 counts of man slaughter ?

[NickFitz]

Here's a useful explanation of the sentence by a lawyer: The sentencing of Mick Philpott | Jack of Kent

TLDR:

"A straight thirty year sentence for Philpott would have sounded harsher; but he would only have to serve half before release.

"A life sentence with a minimum of fifteen years instead means only the possibility of parole after fifteen years. It is a paradox but life with a minimum of fifteen years is harsher than a straight sentence of thirty years."

[SueEllen]

Scum the lot of them, what some chavs will do to keep a hold of their benefits...

We aren't allowed to forcedly sterilise people and when social workers made judgements in the past they screwed a lot of people up like him

[SueEllen]

Should have been murder and life sentence for each child. The fact that he lied until the end. I hope he is beaten up every day of his sentence .

It's manslaughter because he didn't intend to kill them.

The CPS would have wanted to do him for murder but the way our justice system works would have meant he would have got off. So the best he could have got is a minimum sentence for manslaughter so he can only be released if he isn't a danger to the public.

Oh and giving him the death penalty is the easy way out for that scrum.

They can't claim they are mental any more, and if they are stupid enough to appeal they can end up with a longer minimum sentence and while they are appealing it means they can't be considered for patrol. Luckily for Philpott lots of women are on patrol boards.

[kal]

Scum the lot of them, what some chavs will do to keep a hold of their benefits...

[EternalOptimist]

Two blokes, one bird ?
I find it impossible to have any sympathy with her. I saw a few birds like her when I was a doley, we called them Parrots, because they liked a cockatoo.
Two blokes, free money, free fags, free blow, free cider, no responsibility.

weak willed ? easily led ? maybe. but living well and not fighting like hell for her kids

no sympathy at all

[formant]

From what I read, it sounds as if she was very much under his thumb - to the point of performing sex acts on his friend that she did not want to do. The whole premise of this thing was to fit up the mistress that had left him - he was clearly a nasty, vindictive individual. He was much older than her - and it's probable that he'd long since robbed her of any self esteem, self respect or self belief. She may even have been physically scared of him - he had a history of extreme violence. There's a world of difference between him saying "Let's set fire to the house" and her saying "great idea, I'll buy the kerosene" and her being bullied into going along with it against her better judgement because her judgement has been undermined so often it no longer exists. Of course, we don't know what actually happened, and maybe she was fully up for it in which case her sentence is very lenient, but yes, I do feel sorry for her - it seems she has lost her children because she was not strong enough to stand up to her violent, manipulative, scumbag husband. She could have and should have walked away a long time ago, but the very nature of psychological abuse makes the victim believe that they have no option but to stay - the concept of rational choice is not present. I think she's paid the price and eight and a half years in jail is a doddle compared to knowing your kids are dead and you could have stopped it.

Oh, I have no doubt that she was completely under his thumb, but it's also clear that she entered and remained in that relationship willingly and that, in fact, that was simply the type of guy/arrangement she was into. I don't think she's a victim and I think considering her a victim takes the p*** out of real abuse victims. She had a choice and she chose him, even after his outrageously stupid plan backfired and killed all six of her children. I find that about as incomprehensible as I find it revolting.
If she was as remorseful as she bloody should be, she'd have confessed. I mean, it's obvious that she isn't the sharpest tool in the box, but at least towards the end of the trial she should have realised (or been advised) that there's no point whatsoever in defending him anymore, as she probably won't be seeing him ever again.

I don't even think she's as weak of character as people make her out to be. It must take a tulip-ton of strength to keep up the lies, to 'stick to the story' after being (partly) responsible for the death of all of your children.

[Zippy]

BBC News - Philpott: What judge told couple who killed their children

A selection of the judge's comments.

How he must have hated that - a woman telling him he's a worthless,lying tosspot. Well done Mrs Justice Thirlwall

[proggy]

Should have been murder and life sentence for each child. The fact that he lied until the end. I hope he is beaten up every day of his sentence .

[OwlHoot]

Another reproach to the muddle-headed tosspots who in the 1950s abolished the felony murder principle (in the UK).

In America today he'd have copped a multiple life sentence, or even the chair, for arson which lead to several deaths.

[stek]

I don't. He's far too self centred. He's probably already planning how best to sell his story.

He'll never get the chance, I think the fear everyday of what the inmates will do to him will get him and he take the cowards way out like the coward he is. Fred West did and I reckon he's just as think and perverted.

Look at what inmates have done to Sutcliffe, only reason he's not done himself in is he's gone loopy (since being incarcerated, not when he was a large)