Forum menu
As the OP, yes cheers for the link. I will now wait 15 years before returning to this thread.
Judge's summing up is interesting. Quite clearly it's nothing to do with the welfare state enabling a luxurious lifestyle - a clear case of a psychopath manipulating people for his own ends, nothing more complex than that. He'd have been like that with or without a welfare state... that was just what he figured was the easiest way to get cash without working...
Shame on George Osbourne for trying to make political capital out of it, it just muddies the waters...[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035 ]BBC[/url]
Osbourne took a small fortune in parliamentary expenses to buy a sodding horse paddock. It's a long scramble back to any sort of moral high ground from there.
I'd agree with that greatape. My mum works in a school that educates those on a similar life path to the Philpotts-what she has done is very very wrong, but she seems to have been a very vulnerable young adult when she met him. I'd guess that her upbringing wasn't brilliant.
I'd guess that her upbringing wasn't brilliant.
So I've read. It seems to have been one that resulted in her thinking that he was going to be her knight in shining armour.
I think her sentence reflects the judge's opinion.
i.e.half of her husbands sentence
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.
I agree with you and i think self-evidently that to live in the way she did she must have been a very damaged and vulnerable person (this wasnt a free love commune of German hippies or anything) BUT I was also swayed by something the judge said - she had stood up to him in refusing to get a divorce before so why couldn't she refuse to go along with this patently dangerous and awful scheme?
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.
So as I understand it the judge gave him the maximum sentence allowed and it is reduced to a minimum of 15 years because the politicians made the sentencing law that way.So the public should stop bashing the judiciary and direct it's ire elsewhere i.e. politicians.
Not quite - i think it's just a mechanism for setting the non-parole period of the sentence. You can't say "he will be eligible for parole after he's served half his life sentence because we don't know how long his life sentence would be. But I'm willing to be corrected by anyone that knows better.
The justice system is pants....
Lets hope natural justice rules in prison!,!!!!
Well reasoned judgement and pretty much the maximum she could have given him.
The appalling sentence we should reflect on was the seven years he got for attempted murder on his former partner all those years ago.
konabunny, I read that bit too, and also agree with what the judge said. Perhaps the fact that divorce was the only thing she ever refused him shows how dependent she was on him, despite the way he treated her.
It was pre-meditated murder
When you douse the stairs with lit petrol with 6 kids (with doors open) asleep upstairs then the ONLY outcome is death at the hands of their parents
Not manslaughter (I would like to point out I haven't been to law school, I'm just a fully paid up member of society)
cbmotorsport - Member
As the OP, yes cheers for the link. I will now wait 15 years before returning to this thread.
Should make an interesting aside to debating if 24" or 26" wheels are better than 650b and reminiscing about the old 29" standard
(I've nothing to add to the Philpott debate, as a Derby resident Who has read every days court reporting in the local paper I only hope he considers using the pink tie he was wearing every single day in court as a noose, sick of reading about that pink tie)
Maybe the gruesome mofo is loving all the attention he receives in the media and on places like this...? Just a thought...
It was pre-meditated murder
apart from that bit where they planned to rescue them 🙄
When you douse the stairs with lit petrol with 6 kids (with doors open) asleep upstairs then the ONLY outcome is death at the hands of their parents
or rescue
Not manslaughter
It was hence the charge
Not manslaughter (I would like to point out I haven't been to law school
The second part is obvious from the first.
The second part is obvious from the first.
+1
The intention was never to kill them, no matter how daft the actions afterwards, hence manslaughter...
It was pre-meditated murder
When you douse the stairs with lit petrol with 6 kids (with doors open) asleep upstairs then the ONLY outcome is death at the hands of their parents
Not manslaughter (I would like to point out I haven't been to law school, I'm just a fully paid up member of society)
I agree with your post, broadly. Even if the people who did it didn't mean to kill anyone, it was so bleeding obvious that it was so bleeding dangerous that anyone who did it was so negligent or badly behaved that they deserve to be punished by the criminal law. And that's what manslaughter is for: even if you didn't mean to kill someone, it was so fing obvious that you should be locked up for a long time, maybe even for life, depending on the circumstances.
Never mind manslaughter.... the ****er has been on Jeremy Kyle, a crime which in my view should lead to immediate neutering and the potential for the culprit to also be melted down and body fats used as a means of energy production. win : win
apart from that bit where they planned to rescue them
Oh that makes it all alright then. That and the fact they didn't rescue them.
As above, I shouldn't worry about justice prevailing anyway, he'll be dealt with accordingly by his [i]house-mates[/i] in Wakey prison.
Oh that makes it all alright then.
Not sure where anyone's argued that.
apart from that bit where they planned to rescue them
Oh that makes it [s]all alright[/s] manslaughter then.
[i]He'll die in prison, I'd put money on it. and no one will care. So a good result, really.[/i]
If it requires a Home Secretary (ie Politician) to authorise his release, he ain't coming out.
If it requires a Home Secretary (ie Politician) to authorise his release, he ain't coming out.
It would. As I understand it, for a Life Term Prisoner to get out (in his case,after the 15 years mandatory part of his 30 years) the Parole Board need to recommend it firstly, and the Home Secretary needs to Authorise it.
He would then be out on "Life License" rather than Parole.
As above, I shouldn't worry about justice prevailing anyway, he'll be dealt with accordingly by his house-mates in Wakey prison.
Highly unlikely. The Prison Authority is legally responsible for his safety and will do all they can to keep him safe. More likely he kills himself like Harold Shipman.
apart from that bit where they planned to rescue them
Oh that makes it all alright then. That and the fact they didn't rescue them.
I was explaining why it was not legally murder. Are you really suggesting I think the deaths of 6 children in a fire at their parents hands is alright
Why would you think that from what I posted ?
Do you think you could find anyone who thinks its alright?
I agree....how many notorious inmates are murdered inside? Didn't Huntley lose an eye or such like? I can't recall that many being murdered though? We're talking British prison here, not one in the US of A
Yeah, it never Happens.
Prisons are safe places for child killers.