The Derby House Fire Trial

[district]

I do not think this has anything to do with the benefits system whatsoever. He was trying to act the hero by rescuing the children, in an attempt to influence a upcoming custody hearing. This happened because of his controlling personality and a warped sense of what is acceptable, not because of him claiming benefits.

 

[jon91]

One of the worst things to come out of this sorry, tragic saga is the horrific pile of rubbish the Daily Fail put on their front page on Wednesday. Truely disgusting.

Yep, and by the looks of things, a lot of people have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Although I don't deny that Philpott is a total scumbag and that the current system needs looking at, just not in the way Mr Osborne probably wants to...

Evil people come from all social backgrounds in life. Any publication that tries to suggest otherwise isn't worthy of being called a newspaper.

Spot on. It could be said that that not all Conservative politicians are inept birks but one glance at the current cabinet would have all apart the most blinkered individuals thinking otherwise...

 

[BlythPower]

A satirical take on Osbourne's coments and on the Daily Mail.

 

[Ferret]

I presume that the argument is that they were trying to "rescue" the kids, not to actually kill them, hence the diminished charge. Am not saying that they were innocent, just that I can see why "manslaughter" was the charge that was brought (as it may have been a lot harder to secure a conviction based on "murder").

Agreed - the Crown prosecuted the offence that would guarantee a conviction. I'd rather they did that than go for a murder charge that they couldn't prove and it ends with a not guilty verdict.

Okay, please explain why the death of these six kids is somehow linked to this?

Or is this just an excuse to trot out various other issues?

Well, like it or not, immigration and welfare are linked - but, that was just me and SS4 talking among ourselves.

 

[MattRobinson]

According to an ex-copper I know, it was manslaughter because murder requires the intent to kill. In this case, the intention was not to kill the children, it was a terrible consequence of the original plan of framing his mistress.

However, I was shocked to learn that he only got 15 years - I was expecting him to get 6 concurrent life sentences...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ainsworth74]

on the Daily Mail.

Brilliant Always like having a flick through Newsthump from time to time.

However, I was shocked to learn that he only got 15 years - I was expecting him to get 6 concurrent life sentences...

That's what happens when you're convicted of manslaughter. The judge followed the sentencing guidelines and that's what they come up with. Also it's not as if it's fifteen years and out, it's fifteen years and then life on license meaning that the police will require him to check in with them regularly, he might well be forbidden to have contact with children and, of course, if he commits another offence (or violates his license) it's back to jail with him. This all assumes that he is even released after fifteen years, the parole board might well decide that he's not ready yet.

 

[Ferret]

Brilliant Always like having a flick through Newsthump from time to time.

It's not always wise to be prejudiced about what's written in a newspaper. Even the Guardian and the Mirror are right about some things, as much as they are wrong about other things.

That's what happens when you're convicted of manslaughter. The judge followed the sentencing guidelines and that's what they come up with. Also it's not as if it's fifteen years and out, it's fifteen years and then life on license meaning that the police will require him to check in with them regularly, he might well be forbidden to have contact with children and, of course, if he commits another offence (or violates his license) it's back to jail with him. This all assumes that he is even released after fifteen years, the parole board might well decide that he's not ready yet.

Quite. The pragmatic among us will be aware that the chances are this bloke will never be released. And, being realistic but not condoning such behaviour - will he even survive being in prison?

For once, can we not just agree that the Police, the CPS and the Courts have done what we ask - they've taken a dangerous person off the streets and taken him to a place where he cannot do any harm. I'm happy to criticise their incompetence where it exists, but equally to tell them when they have got it right, and they have here - manslaughter was an appropriate charge because it was a charge that would result in a guilty verdict and in turn, an appropriate punishment.

 

[SS4]

One of the worst things to come out of this sorry, tragic saga is the horrific pile of rubbish the Daily Fail put on their front page on Wednesday. Truely disgusting.

And people fell for it too. I can see more than six children dying if the "reforms" the Mail wants are put through
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For once, can we not just agree that the Police, the CPS and the Courts have done what we ask - they've taken a dangerous person off the streets and taken him to a place where he cannot do any harm. I'm happy to criticise their incompetence where it exists, but equally to tell them when they have got it right, and they have here - manslaughter was an appropriate charge because it was a charge that would result in a guilty verdict and in turn, an appropriate punishment.

I'll drink to that

 

[jon0844]

He isn't going to live long in prison. The other prisoners will see to that, and even if they don't get him fairly soon - I expect he'll be living in such fear (for once, he won't have the upper hand) he may well kill himself.

It's just a matter of counting the days.

I don't condone this either, but I live in the real world and what he did will not be forgotten or ignored by the other inmates.

 

[ainsworth74]

It's not always wise to be prejudiced about what's written in a newspaper. Even the Guardian and the Mirror are right about some things, as much as they are wrong about other things.

Oh quite, I judge each paper on the coverage of a particular issue. I'd never dismiss it out of hand just because of reputation. Still I do think that piece of satire was very entertaining

For once, can we not just agree that the Police, the CPS and the Courts have done what we ask - they've taken a dangerous person off the streets and taken him to a place where he cannot do any harm. I'm happy to criticise their incompetence where it exists, but equally to tell them when they have got it right, and they have here - manslaughter was an appropriate charge because it was a charge that would result in a guilty verdict and in turn, an appropriate punishment.

I'll drink to that. I'm happy to beat the CPS (and Police and Courts) around the head, when they deserve it, but this is not one of those times. They've got a dangerous man off the street probably for life but even if not for a long time and with severe restrictions upon his release (if he makes it that far, as others have suggested the prison inmates may deliver their own brand of justice).

 

[ilkestonian]

I do not think this has anything to do with the benefits system whatsoever. He was trying to act the hero by rescuing the children, in an attempt to influence a upcoming custody hearing. This happened because of his controlling personality and a warped sense of what is acceptable, not because of him claiming benefits.

I disagree.

It seems that the only reason he wanted the kids back was because he was missing the child benefit and tax credits which came with them..

 

[Clip]

I disagree.

It seems that the only reason he wanted the kids back was because he was missing the child benefit and tax credits which came with them..

Which is exactly what the prosecution said during the case.

People seem to either forget this or overlook it because it doesn't fit in with either their hatred of the tories or they don't want to be seen to actually demonise someone on benefits all their lives as it will not make them fit in.

Its labour all over again with the immigration thing, calling anyone who mentions it an evil ******* but omitting the truth about it.

Whilst not everyone on benefits is like this odious wretch its about time, like osbourne said, to look at how people like this can spend a life on the dole and get away with it. Its morally wrong and whilst it may be a small amount of people doing so we need to stop it. Now.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Is that an "it seems" on the basis of reading the judgement, sentencing notes and hearing the evidence, or an "it seems" on the basis of an uninformed opinion?

The means by which you were to achieve the removal of Lisa Willis from the care of her children were outside the comprehension of any right thinking person. The plan, which you had plainly been considering for some time, was to set fire to your home on the night before the court hearing, making it look as though the fire had been set from outside. You would then rescue the children from upstairs via an external ladder. You would be the hero of the hour. Lisa Willis would be arrested and you would have achieved your aim. You had even arranged for the children’s school places to be held open for them for the Monday morning.
It was a wicked and dangerous plan

From the sentencing notes.

 

[Oswyntail]

Is that an "it seems" on the basis of reading the judgement, sentencing notes and hearing the evidence, or an "it seems" on the basis of an uninformed opinion?....

Was it not part of the case that he had stated he wanted to retain custody after the split because he would otherwise lose money? I confess I have not studied the evidence in detail.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Was it not part of the case that he had stated he wanted to retain custody after the split because he would otherwise lose money? I confess I have not studied the evidence in detail.

I read the sentencing notes as that he wanted to influence an upcoming custody hearing as well as getting Lisa Willis imprisoned. It didn't read to me that he wanted the kids because kids = money, more that he didn't want Lisa Willis to have the kids.

 

[Temple Meads]

Why do people have to make the deaths of six innocent children an arena for their bigoted political views (and that's on both sides)? That's something I'll never know..

As has been said above, the main thing is that a moronic desperate fool has been put somewhere where he can't harm any more children, the discussion of benefits can be done in a separate discussion.

 

[MattRobinson]

Manslaughter was an appropriate charge because it was a charge that would result in a guilty verdict and in turn, an appropriate punishment.

Did you not read what I posted above about it not being murder because of the lack of any intent to kill the children? From a (high ranking) retired police officer?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ferret]

Did you not read what I posted above about it not being murder because of the lack of any intent to kill the children? From a (high ranking) retired police officer?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Erm, what point are you trying to make?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Erm, what point are you trying to make?

Exactly the same as you are it seems! Murder may not have resulted in a guilty verdict due to the difficulty in proving intent, so they decided to charge with manslaughter as it was more likely to result in a guilty verdict.

(On a separate note, I like how it has gone from an ex-copper to a high ranking retired police officer!).

 

[Ferret]

Exactly the same as you are it seems!

That's what I thought!

 

[ilkestonian]

Is that an "it seems" on the basis of reading the judgement, sentencing notes and hearing the evidence, or an "it seems" on the basis of an uninformed opinion?


From the sentencing notes.

It's an "It seems" based on

• the prosecution's case, ie the evidence, including that relating to how much he did (or didn't do) for the children
• reported quotes from members of the families,
• watching two of the four or more documentaries shown after conviction and
• a reasoned weighing of the available information about his lifestyle from a range of sources in the public domain.

It galls me that one or two provocative headlines are generating so much "outrage", to the point where the genuine need for a separate and dispassionate debate about the rights and wrongs of the benefits system being seen as a lifestyle choice is in danger of being drowned out.

 

[MattRobinson]

Erm, what point are you trying to make?

If you have a small amount of drugs, you'd be charged with possession for personal use; whereas if you had a lot, you'd be charged with possession with intent to supply.

The point is that it wasn't murder because of lack of intent to kill, whereas you seem to be suggesting that it was manslaughter because it was an easy conviction.

BTW, what's wrong with clarifying the rank of your source? Proves they didn't just join up, serve a few years and leave...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[swj99]

Lunatics such as Philpot do their worst no matter what situation they're in. We've probably all met someone like him somewhere along the line. There's no way of knowing what he could or would, or might have done if circumstances had been different. People who have a propensity to do bad things will do exactly that, when or if they perceive the need to, and when the opportunity arises.
What we do know is that he crossed the line and thankfully now is not in a position to do further harm.

Chip wrapper manufacturers such as the Daily Hate exaggerate situations to stir up strength of feeling, manipulate public 'opinion' in favour of governments and to sell their publications. Falling for the hyped up stories and scaremongering in papers is the equivalent of someone tapping you on the shoulder and saying, "That bloke over there just spilt your pint and called it a c***, you believing them and wanting to take some sort of revenge when in reality he hasn't done anything.

Whilst not everyone on benefits is like this odious wretch its about time, like osbourne said, to look at how people like this can spend a life on the dole and get away with it.

I wouldn't view someone being on the dole for a long period of time as 'getting away' with anything. I'm sure most people would gladly do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay if the opportunity was there, rather than being stuck on the sidelines living on a pittance, wondering what sort of future they have, and getting bored enough to watch some of the sad rubbish and social conditioning that passes for daytime tv these days.

I'm sure people who milk the system are a lot more rare than the gutter press would have you believe. Unless the country achieved full employment then it's inevitable that some people will be unable to find work, in which case they are likely to need financial assistance in the form of state benefits.

If newspaper editors want to stir up hatred against people who kill children, I have no problem with that at all. But using the Philpot case for political or commercial ends, or to manipulate public opinion to fit their own or someone else's agenda, is unforgivable.

 

[Ferret]

Why do people have to make the deaths of six innocent children an arena for their bigoted political views (and that's on both sides)? That's something I'll never know..

As has been said above, the main thing is that a moronic desperate fool has been put somewhere where he can't harm any more children, the discussion of benefits can be done in a separate discussion.

No, politicians started a debate - it was mentioned on here, and the carried on. And then - lo and behold, as sure as the Pope is Catholic and bears crap in the woods, we get mention of the 'b' word, in an attempt to stifle debate. *facepalm*. If all you can do is talk about bigots, rather than have an intelligent discussion, then it does indicate that you either have no argument at all, or are on the wrong side of it. Now, which of those two options is it? *2nd facepalm*.

Moving on, MattRobinson - the CPS will always prosecute the offence that will secure a conviction - that's what we pay them for. You correctly state that murder was a non-starter when it came to charging these individuals so the CPS decided that manslaughter was an appropriate charge, it was in the public interest to proceed and there was a realistic prospect of a conviction. Can't see the problem meself.