Vile product of Welfare UK

[Dancing Queen]

In view of other comments, perhaps Philpott's heinous crime IS connected with the abuse of the welfare system and, as Moby said, the "man" has unwittingly opened up the whole subject for (hopefully) calm and reasoned debate.

As for whether his crime is murder or manslaughter... he says he didn't mean for this tragic turn of events to happen, which apparently downgrades it from murder to manslaughter. However, he did willingly put his children at risk. Didn't his mummy and daddy ever tell him you don't EVER play with fire?

I always thought anything pre-meditated was murder, whether this "animal" meant for the children to die or not should be irrelevant does that mean in the future if someone murders someone the crime can be reduced to manslaughter if they say they didn't mean to do it total twaddle

[Manoverboard]

It has to be man slaughter if only because that is what he was found guilty of, a murder charge may have failed to secure a conviction ... I will settle for that.

[Dancing Queen]

I never thought of that Moby, does that mean if he had been charged with murder and it couldn't be proved then he would have walked if so then I agree manslaughter was the only way to go.

[Capt Black]

Personally I think Philpott & co should have been prosecuted for murder. However, more intelligent people than myself have chosen to prosecute them for murder, and successfully convicted all three. Better to secure a conviction for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment anyway than take a chance on murder, for which although life is mandatory, the judge still has to specify a minimum term.

I and others may consider the sentencing somewhat lenient. The prosecution can appeal that the sentence is unduly lenient. Life sentence for Philpott with a minimum term that means he can't apply for parole till he's in his 70's, I don't think they will. Bear in mind, the parole board may refuse to release him. The other 2? When you take into consideration that they are eligible to apply for parole in 8 1/2 years, they'll both be under 60, maybe it is worth trying to get a longer sentence, though again, the parole board may determine that they remain in prison for 2/3rds (almost 12 years) of their sentence.

What minimum term would they have got on murder convictions? 5 years more maybe, with a risk of the intent defence working and being found not guilty.

I think the judge has been very careful and imposed sentences that judicially are neither very excessive, nor particularly lenient. Which lessens the likelihood of appeals. The minimum sentence for manslaughter is/was 2 years, which I think can be suspended.

Of course, there is the other justice that will be meted out by their new neighbours.

[Dancing Queen]

Personally I think Philpott & co should have been prosecuted for murder. However, more intelligent people than myself have chosen to prosecute them for murder, and successfully convicted all three. Better to secure a conviction for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment anyway than take a chance on murder, for which although life is mandatory, the judge still has to specify a minimum term.

I and others may consider the sentencing somewhat lenient. The prosecution can appeal that the sentence is unduly lenient. Life sentence for Philpott with a minimum term that means he can't apply for parole till he's in his 70's, I don't think they will. Bear in mind, the parole board may refuse to release him. The other 2? When you take into consideration that they are eligible to apply for parole in 8 1/2 years, they'll both be under 60, maybe it is worth trying to get a longer sentence, though again, the parole board may determine that they remain in prison for 2/3rds (almost 12 years) of their sentence.

What minimum term would they have got on murder convictions? 5 years more maybe, with a risk of the intent defence working and being found not guilty.

I think the judge has been very careful and imposed sentences that judicially are neither very excessive, nor particularly lenient. Which lessens the likelihood of appeals. The minimum sentence for manslaughter is/was 2 years, which I think can be suspended.

Of course, there is the other justice that will be meted out by their new neighbours.

And of course Capt B it is the other justice we will all look forward to hearing about.

[noddy10]

He could not be charged with murder because when he set fire to the house he had no intention of the children dying just to rescue them and become a "hero" for murder it has to be pre meditated.

[Silver_Shiney]

True, Noddy, but it was pre-meditated to put his children in harm's way. That he lost control of the situation so tragically does not alter the fact that he planned to put those kids at risk.

[Kendhni]

He could not be charged with murder because when he set fire to the house he had no intention of the children dying just to rescue them and become a "hero" for murder it has to be pre meditated.

I don't believe all the claptrap that Philpott and his lawyers have come out with ... the man is such a worthless piece of scum that he did this purely for himself to try be the hero and make some money (for himself) in the hope of selling his heroic escapades to a corrupt media that will pay a fortune for sensationalist gossip. To philpott his breeding program was to get him money ... nothing more and nothing less.

[noddy10]

I agree Ken completely and Philpott was the scum of the earth and hope he gets his comeuppance in jail but the law is the law and we cannot change the rules to suit and whether we like it or not if his lawyers convinced the judge and the jury that he did not intend to kill the children from the start then it can only be manslaughter.

[Silver_Shiney]

Perhaps this is one area where the Americans have possibly got it right? Degrees of murder?

The way I see it ( and I admit I may well be wrong ), although Noddy says we cannot change the rules to suit, it does appear to me that the rules are changed to protect the guilty rather than the innocent.

Maybe there are too many loopholes in law to be exploited? I'm reminded of a solicitor who was a feature of many courts martial. If you saw his name as defending officer, you knew two things: the accused was guilty as charged; he'd be acquitted.

[Boris+]

There is one bit I don't understand - it is said that Philpott did not intend to harm or kill his children. I have always understood that to control a blaze so that a show can be made of 'rescuing people' was firstly blasted dangerous, secondly foolish in the extreme and thirdly unless the perpetrator was a particularly skilled and experienced and well trained firefighter then the whole thing would be risky at the least and dangerous at the worst - and that's WITH a huge amount of careful preparation, planning and equipment.

Now then, who did this twit think he was Superman, Batman or Spiderman? Just what made this unintelligent specimen so sure that he could start the fire and get everyone out safely? What training had he undertaken, what special precautions did he have in place, what special equipment did he have? Was he 'off his rocker'? I don't think so - any rational human being would know that this was a stupid (to put it politely) thing to do, with high risks.

I suspect that he knew full well what the risks were, and he was willing to risk the lives of his children and neighbours. The only other alternative is that whilst he was living off the state he spend the majority of his time (when he wasn't trying to enlarge his family, that is) waching infantile purile stupid comic-strip type videos or playing games of the same ilk.

I cannot accept that anybody involved in this incident was completely certain that there would be no injuries or fatalities. If that is the case, then I can't accept that Philpott & Co 'didn't intend to harm or kill anyone'.

I apologise if that has offended anyone - it's just that is how I see it. I just wish that all three had each received 6 life sentences - not to run concurrently.

Em

[Silver_Shiney]

Em

Precisely

[Jacknian]

I don't think he intended to kill his children, -- not because he had any feeling for them or morals about setting the house on fire, but because if they were dead he would lose his meal ticket ! In my view it should still be murder because he was careless with their lives and took no steps to insure they would not be harmed however as he has been convicted of manslaughter he should at least serve the entire sentence and not get out after 15 years as he could do. I can't see him ever being rehabilitated so he will always be a danger to the public. Hopefully his fellow prisoners will mete out their own form of justice.

[Mo2013]

Who said the law is an ass? Much more learned people than us decided that, having seen all the evidence and digested all the statements, that the charge would be manslaughter and not murder. Whilst there is a consensus of opinion on here that the punishment did not go far enough to punish the act perpetrated, the fact is that the law is the law, and this case has been dealt with to the letter of the law, and that's that. What I would say is that if a life sentence is passed, then it should mean for rest of that person's life. But that begs a question - why not just give a lethal injection rather than paying to keep someone like that in prison for the rest of their life?

[Kendhni]

MO, I think the the lawyers took the easy way out and he should have been prosecuted for murder, however they decided that manslaughter was likely to get a conviction. I don't believe he intended to kill his children ... I believe he was out for money, fame and was basically too stupid and greedy to consider the possible consequences of his actions. I hope that the prison staff happen to be looking the other direction ... often.

All-in-all though I think it does highlight why there should be a cap on the breeding-for-benefits brigade and a limit of benefits for the first child only ... unless made redundant when an allowance is made for 6 months or so for all children. If people try breeding what they can;t afford then the parents should be forced to place the child up for adoption or made to take any job going to top up their benefits ... lets face it there are plenty of social projects that could benefit from a bit of additional labour.

[Boris+]

Well said Ken, and well said Mo.

Afterall - what sort of life does this 'trash' have to endure now ....... no worry about work or bills, no worry about not having enough heating. The tv licence is even paid for ..... and his laundry, food etc.

So why should the rest of us have to pay taxes to keep this blasted man in prison - a lethal injection is far more cost effective, and let him have a pauper's funeral in private with no media attention.

Em

[Silver_Shiney]

There is a vociferous lobby that says it is wrong to execute people. It is inhuman. Civilized people do not do this. There have been many tragic cases when an innocent person has been killed and this must be avoided at all costs. This is why the death penalty has been abolished

However, with modern methods of forensic science, DNA testing etc, the chance of a mistake is almost eliminated. In such cases, the convicted should be put away for life, on the slightest possibility there has been a wrongful conviction. On the other hand, there are cases where there is absolutely no room for doubt over guilt, such as this. In such, execution is, IMHO, warranted. There then remains the question of method. There will be those who say that a lethal injection or firing squad, is quick and relatively painless and would be too good for someone who caused immense pain and suffering - why should they be given an easy way out? (Incidentally, is it known if those kids died in the fire, or if the fumes got to them first?).

There is a "joke" going round about how senior citizens in care homes are treated worse than prisoners in jail. It's very well written and would be very funny if it wasn't true. Prisoners are well looked after. They have a warm cell. Three meals a day, satellite TV, medical care, recreational activities... the list goes on. I understand it costs around £37,500 pa to keep a prisoner in jail - I stand open to correction on that sum. You and I are paying for that out of our taxes. Personally, I object to paying that.

Everyone has "human rights" - but those rights can be forfeited. If you take away someone else's rights to whatever, why should you retain yours?

It is inhuman to murder someone. It is something civilized people do not do. If you want to act like this, you must be prepared to take the consequences.

I am fully aware that Philpott was convicted of manslaughter, not murder. However, the difference is, IMHO, academic. His evil scheme backfired (unfortunate choice of word but I can think of no other) but the fact remains that he INTENDED to put those children in the way of extreme harm.

[oldbluefox]

I wonder if the death penalty may not be an easy way out for him. I doubt whether he will be so arrogant and cocksure of himself when the other prisoners get to him, which they will. I wouldn't fancy watching my back for the rest of my life. He deserves whatever he gets.

[Silver_Shiney]

You are right, as usual, my friend, but I suspect he'll be in solitary for the rest of his life, or at least banged up with others of his ilk who wouldn't give a stuff.

[Onelife]

Hi Alan

Having had to put pet dogs down in the past I can see why the use of a lethal injection would be considered a humane way of putting another dog down, hence the reason I agree with your sentiments about the death penalty being reinstated for such cases as this.

I would go one step further and extend this service should the guilty party request it.

Regards

Keith

[Onelife]

Hi OBF

From what I have read Phipott will be kept segregated from those who would do him harm...that being said a packet of fags have been known to open doors...

Regards

Keith

[Silver_Shiney]

Hi Alan

Having had to put pet dogs down in the past I can see why the use of a lethal injection would be considered a humane way of putting another dog down, hence the reason I agree with your sentiments about the death penalty being reinstated for such cases as this.

I would go one step further and extend this service should the guilty party request it.

Regards

Keith

I agree, Keith, but would add the proviso that if it is not requested, then I would impose an existence on the bare necessities of food and water, and perhaps a change of straw at Christmas for good behaviour! It would be more than those kids currently enjoy.

[jacksparrow]

This is a case where you need the old hard labour and chain gangs....

[haveabeer]

I watched the program and felt sick seeing what that piece of crap had done to those children
there is no punishment to harsh for him and the others how a mother could go along with this i will never understand

[Dancing Queen]

You are right, as usual, my friend, but I suspect he'll be in solitary for the rest of his life, or at least banged up with others of his ilk who wouldn't give a stuff.

Peter Sutcliffe and Ian Huntley were both in solitary and they were got at ..where there's a will !!