Anybody else watching this?

marisco_2

Cooper18 wrote: »

It's hard to believe they could both be out in ten years - when they are both still capable of creating more babies....:(

Oh god that is just such a chilling thought isn't it. I wonder what Micks other 12 children make of all of this?

Cooper18

islandgirl8 wrote: »

Heartbreaking that there are people out there like this.

More heartbreaking they are allowed to breed and ruin their kids lives. Or indeed, as in this case, TAKE their lives.

marisco_2

Janepig wrote: »

It's not often something I read takes my breath away, having seen and heard most things and being fairly unshockable, however I read today that Mairaed was supposedly planning on wearing something "unsuitable" to the funeral (when she clearly thought she was still going) and was told, by a friend I think, that she mustn't wear whatever it was, so she said that she would wear it instead to the "after party". After party??? That someone could be so brainless, ignorant, insensitive or all of those to describe the wake following the funeral of her six children as an after party. <wrings hands>

Jx

:eek:

That has actually brought a tear to my eye. What kind of mother kills her children then expects to go to their funeral at all let alone in inappropriate dress. I cant believe she referred to the gathering after her children had been buried as an 'after party'

A funeral is a time to say goodbye respectfully to people you cherish and love. I am very thankful they were not there to make a mockery of their childrens final journeys.

Ballabriggs

LondonDiva wrote: »

What ground did social services have for doing anything? From what I can see/have read, the children were in school, clean etc - the teachers who saw them day to day (and other relatives) did not have any immediate concerns.

Given this, it's a bit much to lay blame on social services after the incident - particularly as they would likely have faced criticism for 'judging' alternative lifestyles if there had been no concerns raised.

I would argue they had the following grounds to at least monitor the situation and recognise an escalation in violence:

The Police were called to the house following a domestic violence incident involving Meiread and Philpott (just heard this on the Jeremy Vine show). So clearly it was an unstable environment.

There were numerous times the Police were called to the house regarding the friction between Philpott and Lisa - claims of threats and erratic behaviour - didn't she get some kind of restraining order against him? So it must have come before a judge.

Based on the first point and his previous conviction for stabbing his ex, there were major red flags about the stability of Philpott.

The fact that he was going on television boasting about his sex life and drug taking. The 'alternative lifestyle' argument doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

If the relatives had no concerns why did mairead's sisters try to get her to leave the house with her kids whilst he was out? Why did the aunt make the comment on the Channel 5 report about the eldest being underfed? Some conflicting reports from the school/family/neighbours/friends on all this.

The list goes on and on. They should have at least been regularly visiting. I agree there's no way that they could have foreseen this event, but it still raises some questions.

delain

Children's services are notified every time the police are called to a domestic disturbance where children are present, so they would have had some involvement at least.

Also the drug taking should have been of concern to them, that's two triggers already without the odd family setup even coming into it.

FatVonD

fluffnutter wrote: »

I vote we all just simply report it (as spam or otherwise) but don't bother replying or quoting because it just drags interesting threads off into boring tangents about sjc3 and her/his issues.

No point stroking a narcissist's ego. Let's just keep to the topic. The posts get removed eventually and he/she will get PPRd soon enough.

Sorry to quote you but let's hope the mods do a little search of all user names coming from that same IP and name and shame/delete all accounts. In my experience those kind of posts usually come from another member who's too scared to post it in their own name.

As you were...

marisco_2

I gave my children an extra big hug, kiss and cuddle when putting them to bed tonight.

My ten year old has been sat watching the news with me when this has been reported. He takes all this in at his own level of course but he has been sad and annoyed that other people treat their children so badly. I didn't let him watch the documentaries but discussed with him areas of it that I felt appropriate for him to be aware of.

He knows right from wrong and asked me lots of relevant questions about it. Out of the mouth of babes 'It is just so wrong mum, they should have been loved and cared for'. Cant argue with that.

coolcait

Cooper18 wrote: »

...
when you're too involved in something it becomes your normal. And abuse of any sort should never be anyone's normal.

I agree.

It's going against the flow of opinion on the thread - and to an extent it's going against the grain of my own emotions - but I do think that it is quite possible that Mairead Philpott had been ground down by so much abuse, over so much time, that her view, and grasp, of 'normality' was completely skewed.

Also, as a couple of posters have alluded to, she doesn't come across as the brightest button in the box. Nor does Philpott himself - for all his would-be scheming.

It is an act of extraordinary stupidity to set a fire in a house full of children. Yet, having seen the Philpotts in the various TV clips, and having read details of the trial, I don't have any difficulty in believing that they are both stupid enough to have genuinely thought that there would be a few flames, and a heroic rescue.

I don't think that it ever occurred to either of them that they would end up killing their children. No matter how obvious it seems to everyone else in the world. Especially with the benefit of seeing how things actually happened.

I think Philpott also has enough arrogance, in addition to his stupidity, to believe that his plan would work - his children would be rescued, he would be depicted as the loving and heroic father, his ex would be accused of starting the fire, and vilified for it, Mick would get his kids back.

That's why I think that manslaughter was the correct charge. It doesn't seem to me that the Philpotts meant to kill their children, so it's not murder.

Guilty of manslaughter was also the correct verdict. The highest sentence possible seems right to me - for Philpott at least. Even allowing for the factors above, I still think that a long sentence for Mairead would also be in order.

If stupidity were a valid defence in a court of law, there would be a lot less prison overcrowding.

Given some of the comments on the thread, I feel obliged to point out that I don't think that mothers can't be evil, or incapable of causing deliberate harm to their children, etc. I can think of quite a few cases which clearly demonstrate that mothers can be chillingly evil.

At the same time, I don't believe that 'stupid' necessarily equates to 'evil'. Although that does happen in some cases. Mick Philpott, for example - plus all of his other character flaws. All of which went ignored, even when he was in the media spotlight long before the fire.

Far easier to mock the 'welfare scrounger' aspect of his life, or take a prurient interest in the sexual aspects of his unconventional household.

coolcait

Cooper18 wrote: »

I think Erratta meant AFTER the fire she could've shopped him. But was too busy thinking of her own skin.

But, shopping him would actually have been the best way to save her own skin.

Get her defence case out there straight off.

Offering an alternative viewpoint again, you could also say that Mairead Philpott appears to have built her life around, and for, her husband.

Was she simply trying to save her own skin by keeping quiet, or was she trying to save what was left of her life (as she saw it)?

We have no way of knowing what her motives were. That holds true for the harshest judgements as well as the more alternative ones.

Cooper18

coolcait wrote: »

I agree.

It's going against the flow of opinion on the thread - and to an extent it's going against the grain of my own emotions - but I do think that it is quite possible that Mairead Philpott had been ground down by so much abuse, over so much time, that her view, and grasp, of 'normality' was completely skewed.

Also, as a couple of posters have alluded to, she doesn't come across as the brightest button in the box. Nor does Philpott himself - for all his would-be scheming.

It is an act of extraordinary stupidity to set a fire in a house full of children. Yet, having seen the Philpotts in the various TV clips, and having read details of the trial, I don't have any difficulty in believing that they are both stupid enough to have genuinely thought that there would be a few flames, and a heroic rescue.

I don't think that it ever occurred to either of them that they would end up killing their children. No matter how obvious it seems to everyone else in the world. Especially with the benefit of seeing how things actually happened.

I think Philpott also has enough arrogance, in addition to his stupidity, to believe that his plan would work - his children would be rescued, he would be depicted as the loving and heroic father, his ex would be accused of starting the fire, and vilified for it, Mick would get his kids back.

That's why I think that manslaughter was the correct charge. It doesn't seem to me that the Philpotts meant to kill their children, so it's not murder.

Guilty of manslaughter was also the correct verdict. The highest sentence possible seems right to me - for Philpott at least. Even allowing for the factors above, I still think that a long sentence for Mairead would also be in order.

If stupidity were a valid defence in a court of law, there would be a lot less prison overcrowding.

Given some of the comments on the thread, I feel obliged to point out that I don't think that mothers can't be evil, or incapable of causing deliberate harm to their children, etc. I can think of quite a few cases which clearly demonstrate that mothers can be chillingly evil.

At the same time, I don't believe that 'stupid' necessarily equates to 'evil'. Although that does happen in some cases. Mick Philpott, for example - plus all of his other character flaws. All of which went ignored, even when he was in the media spotlight long before the fire.

Far easier to mock the 'welfare scrounger' aspect of his life, or take a prurient interest in the sexual aspects of his unconventional household.

Taken on board.

But - like someone said earlier - if Mairead was just a bit dim, and a bit under the control of an abuser why didn't she confess sooner, admit what she did, go to the kids bedside etc etc? Her actions AFTER the fire were just self serving. And that's too much a trait of someone in control of their life rather than someone being controlled. Jmho.