Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 11 Apr '13 02:58 / 6 edits
    Article-
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304944/Mick-Philpott-pictured-singing-Elvis-downing-shots-pub-days-killing-children-Derby-house-fire.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

    Facts
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Philpott - Gives some background incl previous attempted murder, and his 'Catch Me When I Fall' charity that got £11,000 from his childrens deaths.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_Me_When_I_Fall - A novel by the same name on a psychopath obtaining £11,000 by cruel deception. Some coincidence eh?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Nilsen - Sentenced to natural life for murdering 14 men, which he confessed to immediately and 1 boy who he lied about, he will die in prison, it was recently decided. Who should get longer?

    I Find this case disturbing, I get angry and think what should happen to him, but that anger is dangerous, like in the Bulger trial where it almost became ergotism / hysteria. You want to see him punished then you see the devil looking over your shoulder. Its just a tragic loss.

    George Osbourne has tried to link it to council housing and I think that is 2+2 makes 5, crime and council housing yes, but not this sort of crime. Nilsen had a bedsit / flat I'm sure london has some very shady characters right now made darker by tiny bedsits. And tragically killing your own family often comes as a mortgage / debt suicide, but in those cases they too commit suicide.

    Philpott is a unique case - I see it 3 ways - He plotted / pre meditated to burn his 6 children in a house fire and create a charity in there name and make a celebrity off himself, and continue his work free existence. - He should die in prison n hope theres no devil. - He was part of a wider conspiracy and cohersed somewhat. Murder. - He is innocent - I say this because if there was good proof he would of been convicted much sooner, it seems the police had little evidence and had to fish him out using press conferences.

    What shocks me is he got 15 years minimum for manslaughter not life for 6 premedidated murders - his accomplices got 17 years. People get more for driving a van full of drugs into the country. The sentencing is attrocious, I think it can only be possible because the prosecution had a week case. He has gotten away with an awful 'manslaughter by door' argument (pretorias) and i don't understand how it's possible.

    I think the police should not give up on philpott and try to ensure there is enough to lock him up for his natural life.



    What do you think of this case and its implications ?
  2. 11 Apr '13 13:19
    Originally posted by e4chris
    Article-
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304944/Mick-Philpott-pictured-singing-Elvis-downing-shots-pub-days-killing-children-Derby-house-fire.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

    Facts
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Philpott - Gives some background incl previous attempted murder, and his 'Catch Me When I Fall' charity that got £11 ...[text shortened]... im up for his natural life.



    What do you think of this case and its implications ?
    Are you absolutely convinced He intended to kill six of His children, I thought the plan was to get them out safe and get His other partner charged with arson/attempted murder and thus gain custody of his other children and the benefits that accompany them.

    I agree with your general sentiments on guarding against letting our outrage lead us into a social reality that we would regret, none of the perpetrators are worth that price.
  3. 11 Apr '13 13:58 / 6 edits
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    Are you absolutely convinced He intended to kill six of His children, I thought the plan was to get them out safe and get His other partner charged with arson/attempted murder and thus gain custody of his other children and the benefits that accompany them.

    I agree with your general sentiments on guarding against letting our outrage lead us into a social reality that we would regret, none of the perpetrators are worth that price.
    6 children died in this case, and 15 years makes them almost worthless. I'm a bit shocked by the sentence and think / hope its only possible because his plans were not fully found out.

    I am fairly convinced he murdered them with the intention of running a charity in there name. All the data points that way. And he has a previous conviction for attempted murder.

    He is one of the very few people I would never let out of prison, I believe in atonement, but in philpotts case its like explaining guilt to a crocodile.
  4. 11 Apr '13 14:32
    Originally posted by e4chris
    6 children died in this case, and 15 years makes them almost worthless. I'm a bit shocked by the sentence and think / hope its only possible because his plans were not fully found out.

    I am fairly convinced he murdered them with the intention of running a charity in there name. All the data points that way. And he has a previous conviction for attempted m ...[text shortened]... prison, I believe in atonement, but in philpotts case its like explaining guilt to a crocodile.
    Maybe as a father I am resisting your take on the case, it is easier for me if he is a callous halfwit, I find it difficult to grasp the level of depravity that would lead someone to burn their children alive for money.
  5. 11 Apr '13 15:13
    Originally posted by e4chris
    What shocks me is he got 15 years minimum for manslaughter not life for 6 premedidated murders - his accomplices got 17 years. People get more for driving a van full of drugs into the country. The sentencing is attrocious,
    The sentencing seems reasonable given the charge and the conviction. If he had been charged with and convicted of murder, then you might have a reason to call the sentence a light one.
    But the conviction is based on the assumption that he did not intend to kill the children even though his actions were clearly dangerous and criminal. Consider it as similar to someone drunk driving in a stolen car who runs into and kills some children.

    If you object to the charge, and think he is guilty of murder then that is fine, but that is a separate issue from whether or not the sentence is reasonable given the conviction.
  6. 11 Apr '13 16:00
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    Maybe as a father I am resisting your take on the case, it is easier for me if he is a callous halfwit, I find it difficult to grasp the level of depravity that would lead someone to burn their children alive for money.
    It is hard / horrible to believe but you look at his behaviour - see the daily mail article, the shoe fits.
  7. 12 Apr '13 03:50
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The sentencing seems reasonable given the charge and the conviction. If he had been charged with and convicted of murder, then you might have a reason to call the sentence a light one.
    But the conviction is based on the assumption that he did not intend to kill the children even though his actions were clearly dangerous and criminal. Consider it as simil ...[text shortened]... ut that is a separate issue from whether or not the sentence is reasonable given the conviction.
    Agree if this was a drink driving case 'manslaughter' would be correct and they probably would not serve the full time. but if you read that daily mail article, his flippancy, the fact he set up a charity for the kids, the fact he has already been locked up for attempted murder, it all points one way to me - I don't want to comment on the pistorias case as its coming up. but this is a bit like him / OJ getting a not guilty vote.
  8. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    12 Apr '13 12:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by e4chris
    It is hard / horrible to believe but you look at his behaviour - see the daily mail article, the shoe fits.
    Ah yes. The Daily Mail is the guardian of our morality of course. Such couragous reporting from the front line.

    To be quite clear: the shoe will fit if you rely on the Daily Mail because the Daily Mail lines up the information to fit its prejudices. You are, in other words, a gullible reader of a trash paper, written to keep you in a froth of righteous indignation and to prevent a critical thought ever clouding your little mind. Propaganda for the masses to keep you enthralled to the interests of the rich.
  9. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    12 Apr '13 12:50
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Ah yes. The Daily Mail is the guardian of our morality of course. Such couragous reporting from the front line.

    To be quite clear: the shoe will fit if you rely on the Daily Mail because the Daily Mail lines up the information to fit its prejudices. You are, in other words, a gullible reader of a trash paper, written to keep you in a froth of righteous ...[text shortened]... your little mind. Propaganda for the masses to keep you enthralled to the interests of the rich.
    If the DM printed this on its front page, it'd make no difference.
  10. 12 Apr '13 13:10
    Originally posted by e4chris
    Agree if this was a drink driving case 'manslaughter' would be correct and they probably would not serve the full time. but if you read that daily mail article, his flippancy, the fact he set up a charity for the kids, the fact he has already been locked up for attempted murder, it all points one way to me - I don't want to comment on the pistorias case as its coming up. but this is a bit like him / OJ getting a not guilty vote.
    I didn't read the Daily Mail article, I read the Wikipedia page. I have no idea how accurate it is, but ultimately this sort of thing must be left to the courts not popular opinion. Even if he did intentionally murder them, the criminal justice system is such that one must prove it. (innocent until proven guilty).
    If you have evidence that was not available in court, then by all means present it to the police. But I am sure the police, or prosecutors, have access to as much evidence as the Daily Mail and considered it not sufficient to prove his guilt.
    My guess, based on the Wikipedia article, is that he would have wanted to keep the children alive because he was receiving benefits for them. I don't think he planned ahead as far as the charity and fame that came after the event.
  11. 12 Apr '13 15:21
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Ah yes. The Daily Mail is the guardian of our morality of course. Such couragous reporting from the front line.

    To be quite clear: the shoe will fit if you rely on the Daily Mail because the Daily Mail lines up the information to fit its prejudices. You are, in other words, a gullible reader of a trash paper, written to keep you in a froth of righteous ...[text shortened]... your little mind. Propaganda for the masses to keep you enthralled to the interests of the rich.
    Thats not fair - I always read papers that disagree with my opinion thats why i buy them - I don't buy the guardian because i agree to much with it - and there is more hypocrisy in the guardian then the daily mail - i read all papers there is not one i have not bought. what do you read?
  12. 12 Apr '13 15:23 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I didn't read the Daily Mail article, I read the Wikipedia page. I have no idea how accurate it is, but ultimately this sort of thing must be left to the courts not popular opinion. Even if he did intentionally murder them, the criminal justice system is such that one must prove it. (innocent until proven guilty).
    If you have evidence that was not availa ...[text shortened]... them. I don't think he planned ahead as far as the charity and fame that came after the event.
    I used to work in investigations - so am very suspicious of that charity he set up.
  13. 13 Apr '13 07:13
    Originally posted by e4chris
    Thats not fair - I always read papers that disagree with my opinion thats why i buy them - I don't buy the guardian because i agree to much with it - and there is more hypocrisy in the guardian then the daily mail - i read all papers there is not one i have not bought. what do you read?
    If you read a lot of papers then you will know that the Daily bigot/Mail never misses an opportunity to tell us how unworthy benificiaries of welfare are, only one level above immigrants and two above Muslim immigrants.

    Remember to order your copy of the 'Gypsy horde' special addition later in the year they are expecting a higher than usual demmand in Middle England.
  14. 13 Apr '13 08:06
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    If you read a lot of papers then you will know that the Daily bigot/Mail never misses an opportunity to tell us how unworthy benificiaries of welfare are, only one level above immigrants and two above Muslim immigrants.

    Remember to order your copy of the 'Gypsy horde' special addition later in the year they are expecting a higher than usual demmand in Middle England.
    You shouldn't dismiss the Daily Mail so quickly. After all, it's those lazy foreign, benefit scrounging, immigrants that are coming over here and stealing our jobs.....

  15. 13 Apr '13 10:17
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    You shouldn't dismiss the Daily Mail so quickly. After all, it's those lazy foreign, benefit scrounging, immigrants that are coming over here and stealing our jobs.....

    Fair enough, next time I dismiss the Daily Mail I shall savour the experience,

    "After all, it's those lazy foreign, benefit scrounging, immigrants that are coming over here and stealing our jobs....."

    The daily mail must know better than anyone that our benefit scrounging super rich layabouts dont want the jobs anyway, why would they when they can get a 15 bedroom house and £30,000 a year staying at home and 'knocking out' the next generation of the criminally insane...