The Derby House Fire Trial

[Heinz57]

So this week was the Philpot trial, and today saw them sentenced.

For those who don't know already, Mr Philpot got life but could be out in 15. His partner and his cronie got 17 years each, but could be out in half that time.

From the BBC:

A father convicted of killing six of his children in a fire at his Derby house has been jailed for life.

Mick Philpott, 56, was told at Nottingham Crown Court he would serve a minimum of 15 years in prison.

He was convicted of manslaughter along with his wife Mairead and friend Paul Mosley, who were told they would serve half their 17-year sentences.

Mrs Justice Thirlwall told Philpott he was "the driving force behind this shockingly dangerous enterprise".

The trial heard he plotted to set his house alight to frame his former mistress Lisa Willis, with whom he was fighting a custody battle over their children.

If he gained custody, he hoped Miss Willis would return to live with him

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

Justice has been served, and they've been taken down.

However, for what they did, life should mean life. For all three of them. The actions were thoughtless and heartless and resulted in the death of 6 inocent children, there very own kids.

 

[ainsworth74]

Whilst I don't disagree it's worth bearing in mind that the judge has to act within the sentencing guidelines for manslaughter and that's what they've been convicted of committing. Also worth bearing in mind that Mr Philpott even when he's released (and it might not be after fifteen years, he has to convince a parole board that he's no longer a threat to society, so could be longer) he'll be released on a life long license.

 

[SS4]

Remember it's manslaughter not murder and AFAIK the law makes no distinction between an adult and a child. I'm more disgusted by the way the Press have treated the verdict as though we're unable to decide for ourselves and the less said about the daily mail's "headline" the better!

Nothing like the death of children to produce knee-jerk reaction and nothing like a knee-jerk reaction to sell papers
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Justice has been served, and they've been taken down.

This line interests me. I understand a guilty verdict means beyond reasonable doubt but would you have said the same had a not guilty verdict been made. Something tells me the answer is no which says a lot about the impartiality of how we report trials

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

He does appear to be a most evil and controlling individual. It was not just this case that he has been involved in and I have noted what actions that he had taken earlier in his life against a girl friend and her mother, which showed how ruthless an individual he was in those days when matters were not to his liking. I am currently listening to a transcript of what was said by the judge about him in her sentencing pronouncements on Radio 4 as I am typing this.

 

[richw]

I'd be surprised if fellow inmates dont give him a good seeing to. Tends to happen with child killers.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

His own sister shouted out "die, Mick, die" has he was been led down to the cells after sentencing. Rather an unusually strong statement of indictment of his actions by a fellow family member.

 

[Harlesden]

The mission statement for HMP's emphasises the rehabilitation component of the sentence handed down. It is totally up to the individual prisoner whether he
(a) cooperates fully with the requirements of the establishment's regime which includes attendance at courses aimed at determining the extent of the prisoner's remorse and his current state of mind. This type of prisoner has an excellent chance of release at or after the halfway point of his sentence.
(b) fights the system all the way and considers it some sort of achievement to be put on report and placed in segregation. This is a person who definitely won't be given Parole.
If a prisoner does serve his full sentence, he is someone who has repeatedly challenged the system and shown absolutely no remorse for his crime.
Having watched a few videos on conditions in Russian jails, I can confirm that deapite the harsh conditions inside a Russian jail, early release on Parole is as much a part of the Russian prison system as it is in the UK and US.

 

[Clip]

He's up in court again for another attack soon anyway isn't he? Do we have sentences that run concurrently in this country?

 

[Ferret]

Osborne has waded in now asking for a debate effectively on whether this disgusting story was a by-product of the welfare state.

Not sure where I sit on that tbh, for it seems clear that an irresponsible attitude to life, backed up by there being no consequences of that attitude because the state will pick up the tab has clearly contributed. Of course, you still have to add in a deeply evil individual to the mix, so what Osborne is suggesting is not the be all and the end all.

 

[ilkestonian]

He's up in court again for another attack soon anyway isn't he?

And he's the subject of another rape allegation currently being investigated by Derbyshire Constabulary...

 

[SS4]

Osborne has waded in now asking for a debate effectively on whether this disgusting story was a by-product of the welfare state.

That's the most absurd thing I've heard in the whole sorry tale. The Chancellor exploiting the death of innocent children and in doing so forcing more innocent children into poverty (you can bet your backside he doesn't think benefit should be raised)

 

[Ferret]

Probably a bit of poor timing on the part of the Chancellor, but at some point we need to confront some harsh realities - we can't keep paying people to have unlimited numbers of children. We don't have the resources... Not that we should do a China as such, but at least only provide benefits for 3 kids (and not retrospectively either). Trouble is, Labour wouldn't contemplate such an idea - and the howls from the champagne socialist Guardian readers about nasty Tories will probably prevent them doing it either.

And no, Osborne clearly doesn't think benefit should be raised - neither do much of the rest of the working population either - me included!

 

[SS4]

Probably a bit of poor timing on the part of the Chancellor, but at some point we need to confront some harsh realities - we can't keep paying people to have unlimited numbers of children. We don't have the resources... Not that we should do a China as such, but at least only provide benefits for 3 kids (and not retrospectively either). Trouble is, Labour wouldn't contemplate such an idea - and the howls from the champagne socialist Guardian readers about nasty Tories will probably prevent them doing it either.

And no, Osborne clearly doesn't think benefit should be raised - neither do much of the rest of the working population either - me included!

Without wishing to derail this thread I quite agree that we can't keep paying people to have a large amount of children yet how do we avoid punishing children because their parents kept popping out babies? Perhaps child benefit should be in the form of vouchers after the first three kids but then you need retailers on side.

It's the implication that he is representative of those on benefits that sickens me, it'd be like saying Harold Shipman was representative of doctors.

 

[Ferret]

It's the implication that he is representative of those on benefits that sickens me, it'd be like saying Harold Shipman was representative of doctors.

That's very true, and I totally agree.

 

[newbie babs]

I have 4 children and soon 5 grandchildren, none of my children who are all adults are on benefits. They were brought up to work and their children mean the earth to them as mine do to me.

They should have hung all 3 of them for their depraved lifestyle they had and I hope the inmates give the children the justice they deserve and deal with them they way the courts should have.

 

[Johnuk123]

I have 4 children and soon 5 grandchildren, none of my children who are all adults are on benefits. They were brought up to work and their children mean the earth to them as mine do to me.

They should have hung all 3 of them for their depraved lifestyle they had and I hope the inmates give the children the justice they deserve and deal with them they way the courts should have.

Oh dear you'll really upset the Liberals.

 

[newbie babs]

I am a responsible parent and I don`t care who I upset.

 

[12CSVT]

How does deliberately setting fire to a house, knowing that six children are inside asleep constitute manslaughter and not murder ?

There is something very wrong with the British justice system when doing what Philpott did warrants the same penalty as a Merseyrail guard's split-second lapse of concentration.

 

[SS4]

I have 4 children and soon 5 grandchildren, none of my children who are all adults are on benefits. They were brought up to work and their children mean the earth to them as mine do to me.

Yay for irrelevance. Unless you're suggesting that he's representative of benefit claimants. I don't deny there are those who take the **** but it's a necessary evil so the majority can have enough to live and maybe give their kids a chance of a better life

JSA is a drop in the ocean at £5,149m especially when compared to state pension which is £79,809m (source). I'm not saying we should go after pensions because they've been paid into over decades but it's worth dissociating it from the rest of the DWP benefits.

They should have hung all 3 of them for their depraved lifestyle they had and I hope the inmates give the children the justice they deserve and deal with them they way the courts should have.

Hanging for a lifestyle you disagree with? Seriously?

 

[Oswyntail]

.....It's the implication that he is representative of those on benefits that sickens me, it'd be like saying Harold Shipman was representative of doctors.

This comparison has been trotted out so many times I do wonder whether the party machine is spreading it :roll:.
I don't believe that was implied at all - it is really the usual chatterers who are making the inference. There are questions to be asked how the benefits system could arrange for the entitlements of two families were channelled into the sole account of one man with a known history of domestic violence without DWP, social services or the police raising even an eyebrow. The Chancellor is a part of the Government that is itself responsible for the system, and it would be failing in its duty if it did not review that system in the light of this case.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Hanging for a lifestyle you disagree with? Seriously?

Hanging at all is what concerns me. Despite being right wing (probably didn't need to tell you that :P) I don't agree with the death penalty at all - it is inhumane, barbaric and unjustifiable in any decent, lawful, democratic country. Killing them is the easy way out of their crimes, they should have to serve the time / punishment for their wrongs. Killing them also makes them rather dangerous martyrs for others, especially in religious / terrorist cases. A state has no right to take one person's life as far as I'm concerned. The only time I would ever, ever even contemplate it being allowed would be for treason, and then again only in very extreme cases, like assassinating a monarch or willingly revealing state secrets to enemies. As for the case in hand here, making the three involved here go to prison is the only way they will ever possibly gain remorse. But there are three people prisoners do not like - paedophiles, wife beaters and child killers. I don't expect their time to be easy, and certainly anyone seeking revenge in the form of cold hard payback via hanging should be rest assured that this is much more of a suitable, and likely effective, punishment.

 

[Heinz57]

How does deliberately setting fire to a house, knowing that six children are inside asleep constitute manslaughter and not murder ?

There is something very wrong with the British justice system when doing what Philpott did warrants the same penalty as a Merseyrail guard's split-second lapse of concentration.

I agree.

There must be something seriously wrong with him to wake up one day and decide 'I know, to get back at my ex, and using petrol I'll set fire to my house whilst our kids are asleep upstairs'

He wanted to look the hero and save them. However the programe on C5 the other day had witnesses who were there on the night, who say that he made no valient effort to do so

 

[swj99]

Wasn't the plan to get some kind of sick revenge on his ex girlfriend who'd walked out on him, by fitting her up for arson so he'd get custody of the kids he'd got with her, rescue the ones in the house and get more money in child benefit while the ex was inside, and qualify for a bigger house ?

Moral panic sells newspapers. And as an added bonus, here we get two moral panics for the price of one, where they can tar child killers and benefit claimants with the same brush. This sadly plays right into the hands of the tories. The comments on faceache are true when they say this is a case of rich people paying rich people to tell middle class people to blame poor people.

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

 

[90sWereBetter]

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.

 

[Clip]

That's the most absurd thing I've heard in the whole sorry tale. The Chancellor exploiting the death of innocent children and in doing so forcing more innocent children into poverty (you can bet your backside he doesn't think benefit should be raised)

He was asked a question surrounding the events whilst giving a speach about the welfare state. He said it was very bad what Philpott and his cohorts had done but he was also mentioning that Philpott had indeed spent his whole life living off the welfare state and that people who do so should be looked into how that occurs.

Its also worth noting that even in court it was mentioned that not only did Philpott do this to try and frame his ex who left him - and thus reduced the income he would recieve - he also wanted a bigger house for his family. All paid for by the welfare state so given that our chancellor has the task of how we spend our taxes I do believe he was quite right in claiming that we should look at those who spend their life on benefits and how we should get them off them

 

[table38]

Whilst this is all "dog whistle" politics at it's finest, I was musing yesterday that Labour were trying to shut down the debate, similar to the way that they tried with immigration by labelling anyone who didn't agree with them as a "racist" or "bigot".

Even Owen Jones' "Harold Shipman" line was a bit of an odd comparison, unless people think that society shouldn't need to do anything about the odd rogue GP because it happens so rarely. I'm sure the family and friends of those Shipman dispatched don't look at it that way.

This morning it would appear that our favourite newspaper's leader column sort-of agrees with me [1]

Yesterday, as Mick Philpott was quite rightly jailed for life for manslaughter, the Chancellor was asked if this horrific case raised questions about the welfare state which sustained the killer’s odiously degenerate lifestyle.

George Osborne’s reply was calm and measured.

He said Philpott himself must take responsibility for starting the council house fire which snuffed out six lives, including five of the 17 children he produced to increase his welfare benefits.

Mr Osborne added: ‘There is a question for government and for society about the welfare state, and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state, subsidising lifestyles like that. That debate needs to be had.’

It was a reasonable statement to make about an increasingly bankrupt Britain’s unsustainable £180billion-a-year welfare bill which, while providing a humane safety net for the genuinely needy, is indisputably abused on a major scale.

Mick Philpott was quite rightly jailed for life for manslaughter and now questions have been raised about the welfare state

Barely had the Chancellor finished speaking than Ed Miliband, who is rapidly emerging as one of the shallowest, most opportunistic Labour leaders, rushed out a condemnatory press release.

Then that preposterous social engineer Ed Balls – one of the main architects of Britain’s economic debacle – accused Mr Osborne of a ‘cynical’ and ‘desperate’ act which had ‘demeaned’ his office.

Meanwhile, aided and abetted by the BBC, the Left-wing commentariat hysterically demonised anybody who dared suggest the over-generous welfare system had allowed Philpott to live a vile, base life, while his taxpayer funded existence – the equivalent of a salary of almost £100,000 – was cynically ignored.

Thus, the Left tried to censor the debate on welfare that the Chancellor said Britain needs to have.

In the same way, the Left has tried to silence criticism of Labour’s open door immigration policies – this despite the social damage, as Frank Field so bravely points out, inflicted on Britain’s poor, white working class.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2304266/Mick-Philpott-George-Osborne-welfare-reform-Once-Left-censors-vital-debate.html


[1] this doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the Daily Mail though, although it is a little worrying

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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.

You just cannot compare any words in a newspaper article as "one of the worst things" to what exactly has occurred that caused the deaths of these children and try to make a justifiable comparison between these.

 

[Ferret]

SS4, you miss the point if you just talk about the cost of welfare in terms of what we spend on it. Even Brown seemed to understand towards the end of his tenure that large scale immigration does not guarantee growth, and that you have to get the current residents working as well to move the economy forwards and grow it - hence his British jobs for British workers quote.

As an aside - the elite members of the left always shut down debate when they know they are on the wrong side of the argument. Much like bears do their business in the woods!

 

[tbtc]

How does deliberately setting fire to a house, knowing that six children are inside asleep constitute manslaughter and not murder ?

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").

I really despair at people who have used this tragic situation to further their agendas - the idea of calling someone "the shallowest, most opportunistic" when you are making shallow opportunistic points yourself seems a little hypocritical!

By all means lets have a debate about "bankrupt Britain’s unsustainable £180billion-a-year welfare bill" (most of which is spent on pensions and pensioners), but lets not get confused about different things - Mr Philpot was someone who shouldn't be used as somehow representative of all those on benefits.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

large scale immigration does not guarantee growth

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?

 

[jon0844]

[1] this doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the Daily Mail though, although it is a little worrying

Statistically, the Daily Mail is going to get a story pretty much spot on every now and then. I am not sure their front page was that wise, however, as it did seem to imply that the welfare state created these sorts of people - rather than vile people abusing the welfare system.

By contrast, George Osborne didn't say anything offensive - but people now like to take offence all the time, and twist things when it's someone or something they do not like. In this case, George can never do anything right in the eyes of many. The welfare state DID allow him to abuse the system without a care in the world and not having to deal with something we all do on a daily basis; responsibility.

(To be honest, for a lot of news the DM is quite inoffensive but that's not enough to make me ever want to read it for anything but comedy value).