Anybody else watching this?

Errata

FatVonD wrote: »

I hope they give him a really horrible job in prison.

I don't, I hope he's kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours each day every day he's there.

sassyblue

Janepig wrote: »

There have been several cases over the last couple of years where people's responses to the early obvious has been the same. Karen Matthews, this case, the one whose name I can't remember now, where the little girl went missing last year and her body was eventually found in the gran's boyfriend's flat (remember?). Anyone suggesting that the family are involved is flamed for having a go at them because they are on benefits, live in social housing or because of their lowly status in general. Then it gets compared to the Portugese case that dare not speak it's name and how those parents got lots and lots of help because they were well off. It's always the same.

I'm off now to get PPR'd for mentioning Portugal. :D

Jx

Where do you think they got their ideas from? Philpott couldn't wait to get his grubby hands on the money that had been raised for his children.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the one we must not speak of goes the same way too.

FatVonD

Errata wrote: »

I don't, I hope he's kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours each day every day he's there.

I take your point but I quite like the idea of him having to work.

I'll settle for solitary confinement whilst cleaning other people's false teeth or something.

Errata

I wouldn't want him to do anything or hear anything. Let him spend his days in the inactivity and silence his dead children are experiencing.

coolcait

I hope that the papers publish Mrs Justice Thirlwall's statement in full.

Her analysis of all three parties is very astute. Her analysis of Mick Philpott especially is devastating in its accuracy.

It also shows that the media summaries of the sentences don't really do proper justice (pardon the pun) to her reasoning.

Some excerpts:

"I recognise as I must that the offences of which you have been convicted are offences of manslaughter and not murder. That means that I sentence on the basis that you did not intend either to kill your children or to cause them really serious harm.

But let me be clear; what you did intend, plainly, was to subject your children to a terrifying ordeal. They were to be woken from their beds in the middle of the night with their home on fire so you could rescue them and be the hero. Their terror was the price they were going to pay for your callous selfishness. In fact they paid with their six young lives. They had no chance of survival and I am quite sure that when you set that fire you were not thinking about them because you simply did not care. You were going to get your own way.

It has been said on your behalf that you were a good father. Lisa Willis said so as did others. They said you loved your children. I cannot give that description to a man who acted as you did."

Sentencing Mick Philpott:

"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 6 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."

So, the judge sentenced Philpott to life imprisonment. He has to serve 15 years before he can even be considered for parole. And then there's that damning statement at the end, which I have put in bold.

It looks to me as if there is a very real possibility that 'life' will mean 'life' in Philpott's case.

On Mairead Philpott, the judge pretty much covers various arguments which have been played out on this thread, and gives another devastatingly accurate assessment (IMO).

I might quibble slightly with the 'capable of standing up to Philpott' part of the statement. As I see it, Mairead stood up to Philpott when she felt that she was going to lose him. The rest of the time, she did as he told her, so that she wouldn't lose him.

But, it's a very tiny quibble. Especially compared to the brilliantly insightful analysis given by the judge.

On Mairead's sentencing she said:

"I am quite satisfied that a determinate sentence is appropriate in your case but it must reflect the magnitude of these offences. The sentence I pass is one of 17 years imprisonment. Of that you will serve one half at which point you will be released on licence. If you commit any further offences during the operational period of the licence you will be liable to be recalled and may have to serve the balance of your sentence."

The sentencing for Mosley is pretty much the same, since the judge saw "no proper basis upon which to distinguish between you and Mairead Philpott".

The full statement is here:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-philpott-philpott-and-mosley-sentencing-remarks.pdf



[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT]

sassyblue

coolcait wrote: »

Whether or not you are ever released will be a matter for the parole board.

Very astute statement. Whilst Philpott might be stupid l think he's far too cunning, I can see him fooling the parole board sadly.

marisco_2

I have great respect for the judge and her astute statements. It gave a little dignity and respect back to the children who died.

System

sassyblue wrote: »

Very astute statement. Whilst Philpott might be stupid l think he's far too cunning, I can see him fooling the parole board sadly.

.....and when he does, he'll go back to ruling with a rod of iron and knocking out kids (if he's physically able).

Errata

sassyblue wrote: »

Very astute statement. Whilst Philpott might be stupid l think he's far too cunning, I can see him fooling the parole board sadly.

Are you serious :rotfl:

Cooper18

Judi wrote: »

.....and when he does, he'll go back to ruling with a rod of iron and knocking out kids (if he's physically able).

I'm hoping the parole board have plenty of kids of their own and can see through Mick and his charade.

Having said that I don't think Mick will still be with us in 17 years time. He will have likely succumbed to some STI / lung disease / liver disease by then given the lifestyle he led.