[Closed] Mick Philpott

15 years for what he did is woeful but for a manslaughter conviction, with guidelines IIRC set at 4-7 years, is quite severe.

Fair point. It's just the circumstances that boggle the mind. Setting a fire in your own house when your kids are asleep upstairs is just horendous, whether you intended to harm them or not.

Is that because of his crime - or his lifestyle?

Is that because of his crime - or his lifestyle?

If that's to me, then I think it's a joke because of his crime, I couldn't care less about his lifestyle.

Agreed, even though I have issues with paying for his lifestyle, I think 15 years for setting fire to your house with your kids inside is horrific.

He should have got life without parole.

Its the minimum term, he got life, doesn't mean he'll be out in 15. Anyone else getting the Philpott facebook spam?

He'll be a marked man.
He doesn't look very healthy anyway, so it's only a matter of time......

Mick Philpott, 56, was told he would serve a [b]minimum[/b] of 15 years in prison.

He's been given life imprisonment. Not 15 years. He may get out after 15 years, but then, he may not.

As dreadful as his actions were, the court has decided he did not intend to kill his children. Hence the manslaughter conviction. And life for manslaughter is pretty much unheard of, I'd imagine.

What will his reception in prison be ? Will he be welcomed as a fellow a..e hole or duffed up for killing children?

He's unlikely to have a quiet life inside either, I would assume.

He'll die in prison, I'd put money on it. and no one will care. So a good result, really.

Apart from us taxpayers having to fund him for even longer. Hopefully he wont see much of that sentance

Yes I know much more about this case and the law than the judge does, based on what I've read in the Daily Mail.

Agreed, it's 15 minimum, but likely he'll only do 15 if he keeps his nose clean IMHO. Seems to be the way it goes.

Seems to be the way it goes.

Yes, there's a wealth of information about the criminal justice system in the tabloids - I find it brings a really keen insight and sense of perspective.

'Sentence' as someone else has said, he'll more than likely die inside anyway.

What's the alternative bland, kill him so that we save money?

grum - Member

Yes I know much more about this case and the law than the judge does, based on what I've read in the Daily Mail.

Me too, I don't know why we bother with a justice system, seems like a waste of money.

Dear Mr Philpott everything you eat for the next 15 years will have been spat in, pissed in or shat in - enjoy.

Inside he will be living like a nonce.
Not a gangster or a big man. Everybody knows what he looks like and what he did.
He'll be a target and a "prize " to whoever gets to him first.

6 lives to me should be 6 x his 15 year sentence?
so he should never come out? and because he should never come out why should us tax payers pay to keep him alive, burn him to death is my verdict
(this won't go down well with some on here)

It is a minimum term of 15 years and the chance of him surviving that in prison will be slim to none I suspect.

His pal got 17 which was surprising but I think he has the option of early release.

Esme, yes his lifestyle is(was) a joke also.

Why, do you have a problem with somone pointing that out ?

grum - Member

Seems to be the way it goes.

Yes, there's a wealth of information about the criminal justice system in the tabloids - I find it brings a really keen insight and sense of perspective.

Cool your jets crusader! I put IMHO and I meant it.

I'm much more bothered that he only got seven years for trying to kill his girlfriend. If she survived being stabbed 13 times then that is down to the prompt emergency treatment she received, but he should have been treated as if he had been successful.

Why should he have got a reduced sentence simply because he was unlucky ? Makes no sense to me.

It's one of the longest sentences ever given for manslaughter.

The bloke who killed and ate people got less.

God, whole thing is such a mess, those poor kids, and all the others that are left, imagine how awful it must be. Glad I don't have to sentence people to jail.

****ed up

imagine how awful it must be

I can't and don't want to.

I'm much more bothered that he only got seven years for trying to kill his girlfriend. If she survived being stabbed 13 times then that is down to the prompt emergency treatment she received, but he should have been treated as if he had been successful.

Why should he have got a reduced sentence simply because he was unlucky ? Makes no sense to me.

Very true - it should be the actions rather than the consequences that get the punishment.

I bet 15 years seems like a very long time when you wake up every day in the same prison cell though. Enough to make most sane folk mad.

Drop them in the North Sea, all three of them, just read the prosecution evidence in the paper.

Shakes head and goes home to his family...

How about a prison sentence equal to all the years this b*****d has robbed from all these poor children?

Very true - it should be the actions rather than the consequences that get the punishment.

takisawa2 - Member
Why, do you have a problem with somone pointing that out ?

Errr, no 😕
Do you have a problem with someone asking?

Inside he will be living like a nonce.

I suspect even most of the other nonces will hate him.

It's one of the longest sentences ever given for manslaughter.

Have you got a reference for that, www? Will be useful on FB 🙄

As others have said, he'll be a marked man in prison, I think his days of calling the shots and playing the hard man are behind him now.
I'm sure he'd never admit it, but he's probably scared s**tless right now, and if he isn't, he certainly should be.

I doubt Mrs Philpott will be very popular in jail either.

No more than the pair of them deserve though.

moral - if you really want to kill someone, use a car.

Though to be fair, if you ran over your wife's lover in your car the police might look into it a bit more carefully.

The judges summing up as it is an interesting read to really understand the story and sentencing. I am amazed he only got 7 years for attempted murder of an old girlfriend. seems like a self obsessed nutter.

I doubt Mrs Philpott will be very popular in jail either.

I'm not sure which one will have it worse - I'd assume in a female prison the tough nuts are a little bit less tough, but possibly not a lot. However every single other inmate will hate her.

From another perspective I reckon she has it a whole lot worse - I may be misreading her, but I get the impression she at least regrets what they've done and is devastated to have lost all her kids, whilst I'm not so sure about him.

Woody74 - who do you think you are with your bloody do-gooder facts, explanations and reasons? People like you make me sick. I want justice, and that comes quickly, without too much thought or too many words from naive, out of touch judges that spend all their time listening to evil and ****less people destroy themselves and others.

Worth reading the judge's summing up. Particularly the sentencing e.g
Mick Philpott 30 years

whilst I'm not so sure about him.

In response, Philpott smiled and made an obscene gesture as he was led from the dock.

Yeah, I probably put that a bit wrong - I am fairly sure that he doesn't feel that way.

I think the judge's reasons for sentencing are [b]excellent[/b]. Clearly put and with the right level of human emotion. I hadn't realised that both the innocent mother and the innocent next door neighbour had been arrested for murder - what a nightmare.

The following is v important if there is any reference to a sentence of 15 years:

[b]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.[/b]

[b]The law requires me to impose a period of years that you will serve before you are [u]considered[/u] for parole.[/b] 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. [b]The minimum period you must therefore serve before you are [u]considered[/u] for parole is one of 15 years[/b]. 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.

Thanks for the link, Woody.

+1 thanks for the link-clears up most of the Daily Wailesque hysteria.

Without wanting to in any way diminish Mrs Philpott's involvement and culpability in this sorry affair, I can't help but feel a little sympathy for her. From what I have watched and read she was an extremely vulnerable young lady, which was identified and preyed upon by him.