Spot on. Why they downgraded the charges to manslaughter is beyond me. Arson itself on inhabited property for me is already intent to kill, never mind at 4am when the inhabitants were asleep. The Manslaughter charges were sheer laziness because they wanted the sentencing done as soon as possible to appease the public, had they spent the time, I'm sure they could have explored the idea of pushing for murder.
Agree Spurf. Also the charge was manslaughter so the sentences were much heavier than normal I think.
They would have had an easy defence to murder - there was a ladder outside the house so they meant to rescue the children so it wasn't pre-meditated killing so it wasn't murder. Imagine the uproar if they had got off completely. Also the charge has nothing to do with the judge so Totsfan should be criticising the Prosecution if anyone.
People who have got away with murder: Amanda Knox OJ Simpson Lizzie Borden Oscar Pistorius* Plenty of people have gone unnoticed by the police for years, such as Harold Shipman, Dennis Nilsen or Fred & Rose West, whilst in the case of John Christie they were unaware of his activities whilst investigating his house for a murder they (wrongly) arrested and hung someone else for. People who haven't been arrested for murder: Jack the Ripper Bible John Zodiac Mad Butcher of Kingsbury Run The Croydon Poisoner
That's because both parents are middle class professionals so had the backing of the right wing press i.e The Sun, Mail etc. If the parents were cleaners and lived off some run down council estate in Peckham do you honestly think press reception wouldn't have been different? I mean, who leaves a 3 year and two 2 year old twins on their own? Sheer negligence and they'd have been hounded for it if they weren't middle class and calls for social services to come in. Blood on the back seat etc. They and the media have completely covered it up, the press had the audacity to criticise Portuguese Police and call their methods backward.
Add to your list of people who have not been arrested for murder the worlds dictators and our very own Margaret Thatcher and her disciple Tony Blair.
The Met Police also set Colin Stagg up for the murder of Rachel Nickell to cover up their own incompetence which had caused her death in the first place.
There's two obvious comparisons. Firstly, Karen Matthews - she certainly didn't get the sympathetic hearing from the press the McCanns did, and that was before Shannon turned up and it was revealed as a scam. Secondly, a couple of months after Madeleine "disappeared", a working class Northern Irish family lost their child when on holiday in Spain, and the press called them negligent parents - yet never have with the McCanns, even though their version of events involves extreme neglect on their behalf (i.e. they spent all night on the piss with their friends, and never once paid a few Euros for the resort's nanny service - despite both being on doctor's salaries)
Akin to the Megan's law business a few years ago. When it was working class mothers in Portsmouth concerned about the welfare of their children it was "riots" caused by "vigilantes" but when it was middle class mothers in suburban Balham it was a "rally" caused by a "crowd" of "concerned mothers"
He was trialed for manslaughter not murder hence a minimum of 15 years before he can be considered for Parole, would have been 25 for murder. My argument is that he should have faced murder charges not manslaughter. I'd have given the wife and "friend" manslaughter but not him.
Said my bit on the McCanns, will leave that now (except to say that using their priviledged position should be expected, what were they supposed to do, not campaign for her return on the grounds it was unfair on others in that position) When Judges set a "life" tarriff, they specify the minimum number of years that means in practice, depending on the circumstances. In this case Phillpott has been sentenced as if it was murder (he'd have got the same sentence), his wife and the friend got manslaughter sentences. Judge probably felt the wife was bullied into it (he had stabbed a previous girlfriend). Not saying rightly or wrongly, but I suspect he was the driving force. Important to say it is a minimum of 15 years, and he will be in his 70s by then. The parole board would have to have clear evidence of his contrition and to date he bizarrely thinks he has done no wrong.
I have a mate who did four weeks for TWOC (Taking [car] without owners consent). It was his girlfriend's car. This was 12 months ago. No previous. I know someone who got three months for throwing a drink in someone's face. This was recent too. No previous. She was as shocked as anyone. Normal person. Works 9-5, 48 weeks of the year. Wouldn't say boo to a goose normally. Common assault was the charge. What about those convictions?
it was pre-meditated killing,as they had sat and planned it,if they meant to rescue the children,they could have got them fully awake and standing by the window ,plus they could set the place alight earlier in the night,so it's murder
I have a mate who got assaulted outside of a bar. When it went to court, despite CCTV showing him running away and a friend having witnessed the event from inside the bar, the guy charged with the assault had rich parents who got him an expensive lawyer and tore my two mate's evidence to shreds based on them having been drunk(who isn't at a bar at 1am?) and got off. It wasn't exactly crime of the century that he got away with but it's frustrating that it's so easy to buy your way out of trouble, my mate even asked the police whether it was even worth pursuing and he was told they were fairly sure he'd get done for it so he proceeded. The law is an arse and those that work for it aren't much better(sorry HIAG).
They were downgraded to avoid that dreaded word - technicality (often used in the phrase "acquitted on a...") As the judge said in the summing-up, he didn't intend to kill his children so any intent, malice and motive could have been dismissed by any halfway competent lawyer who'd just say his intention was to rescue his kids and be seen as the "hero" whilst his ex-mistress went to jail for starting the fire. There were enough ways for his defence to argue Mick shouldn't have been charged with murder and try to get a reduced sentence, which would've led to the judge (wrongly) being lynched by the press for bungling the trial. I'd add something else to this - if they went for a murder charge against Mick, it is likely Paul Mosley and Mairead Philpott would have got lesser charges, the latter possibly acquitted (given she was clearly looking to stitch up Mick to save her own skin in court last week, her defence team knew this as well), so a manslaughter charge against all three would have seen them jailed. And, let's be honest, it's highly unlikely Mick will be released. Of course, all this will be ignored by people demonizing the benefits system to push their agenda, a bandwagon that George Osbourne has just jumped on. I don't recall any right wing agendas being pushed when Fred West or Harold Shipman were in court, do you?
I don't have any political agenda to push, left wing or right. I do believe, however, that manslaughter was the only viable option left to the prosecution, given the circumstances. You have to remember that we are not dealing with the Intelligentsia here. That's not meant to be elitist, it's just the facts.
Over on The Book of Faces (no, not Lovecraft's Necronomicon, the other one...) every post about the Philpotts is taking shots at Gordon Brown, the benefits system, or anything else - just like how, with the girl stabbed to death on a bus in Birmingham, there were tons of anti-immigration posts. It's blatant manipulation by the right wing to suit their agenda - in the case of the Philpotts, The Big Lie is based on Mick appearing on Jeremy Kyle in 2007 demanding a bigger council house, and spreading the story that he burned down the house for the same reason.
I don't want to get political about this as I detest politics & politicians in general. I don't believe any right minded person objects to some of the taxes they pay going to support people who genuinely need a hand up - NOT a hand out. In the case of this sack of ****e, I would object to one penny of my money going to support the lifestyle of a lazy, violent, womanising, total arsehole, like him.
