Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

AIBU?

Mick and mairaid philpott.

109 replies

thebody · 02/04/2013 20:55

If you pour petrol over your house and light a match.

You know your 6 children are asleep upstairs and you make less effort to save them than your neighbours did.

If you try and smear another person with the crime.

If you habitually lie to avoid prosecution.

Why is that manslaughter?

I know posters will say they didn't mean it but seriously such reckless disregard for life is murderous.

OP posts:

Report

noblegiraffe · 02/04/2013 20:56

Because they didn't set out to kill them.

HollyBerryBush · 02/04/2013 20:57

Because it wasn't premeditated murder

stargirl1701 · 02/04/2013 20:58

Murder has a legal definition. This did not meet that.

AgentZigzag · 02/04/2013 20:58

I know they apparently didn't set out to kill them, but c'mon, did they really think everything would turn out with that prick as some kind of hero?

Hard to get your head round any of it.

landofsoapandglory · 02/04/2013 20:59

I totally agree with AgentZigZag.

HaDeHaDeHa · 02/04/2013 21:00

intent = murder, reckless = manslaughter

HaDeHaDeHa · 02/04/2013 21:02

And I haven't gathered when sentencing might be but I beleive manslaughter can also result in a life sentence.

MrsRajeshKoothrappali · 02/04/2013 21:04

I can't understand it either.

They started a fire while their children were asleep upstairs with their doorhandles removed.

Then they ran outside and watched the house burn.

I can't see how that's not murder.

Was a deliberate fire, not a knocked over candle.

rainyspells · 02/04/2013 21:04

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

thebody · 02/04/2013 21:05

I hope they all do get life. Poor children.

OP posts:

SunflowersSmile · 02/04/2013 21:09

Reckless endangerment
Absolute stupidity
So- although did not mean to kill stupidity combined with recklessness = tragic result...
Heartbreaking...

AgentZigzag · 02/04/2013 21:10

The photo of the children is bad enough, but the sight of all those little coffins at the funeral really brings it home.

Using and risking those children in his debauched games just sums up what kind of a person he is.

thebody · 02/04/2013 21:24

Just listened to young mortitians assistant.

She said mick was 'laughing' and joking' after viewing the bodies of his children.

Just beggars belief, such evil and sick narcisissim.

OP posts:

SunflowersSmile · 02/04/2013 21:28

Stupidity/ recklessness/ obsession with sex.... so depressing and awful.
Those beautiful children didn't stand a chance.

ImTooHecsyForYourParty · 02/04/2013 21:33

I think that, not just in this case but generally, if it can reasonably be - or should have been ! thought that an action may result or has the potential to result in death then it should be classed as murder.

If you know or should know when you do something that one of the possible outcomes is the death of someone, then how have you not murdered them?

If it was not reasonably foreseeable, then imo, it's manslaughter.

Not that my opinion means shit, of course, the legal system is what it is, but it really should be looked at. Just because something is a certain way, doesn't mean that's the best way for it to be.

HootShoot · 02/04/2013 21:39

The doorhandles were removed? Why? Surely to do that would be intent? I agree with Hecsy that if it is reasonble to forsee that an action may result in death it should be classed as murder.

I cannot understand how they could not only do what they did but then lie bare faced about it. If I had done what they did I would be begging to be put in prison so I could spend the rest of my life atoning for what I had done.

AgentZigzag · 02/04/2013 21:49

Murder and manslaughter might be legal definitions, but they have narrower meanings in lay peoples everyday lives, and saying this was manslaughter minimises it to me because you'd think of that as nigh on an accidental death.

It's not as simple as that I know, but if you're not a trained legal beagle it is quite simplified.

Do they carry similar sentences does anyone know? I heard that they could still get life, how many years maximum does that mean?

thebody · 02/04/2013 21:52

Yes totally hecksy,hoot and agent.

There must be a point where such naked reckless disregard which causes murder is regarded as murder. Surely.

OP posts:

SavoyCabbage · 02/04/2013 21:56

The doors were all open upstairs.

At the end of the 999 call Mick is all matey matey with the operator. Cheers mate, will do mate etc.

NorthernLurker · 02/04/2013 22:00

I think the horror of the offence will be reflected in the sentence. Given that inmates who kill children are reviled in prison, I think the sentences will feel more than long enough.

Good.

HootShoot · 02/04/2013 22:01

Ah ok - I thought you meant that the doors were closed with no handle. I guess the doors being open just accelerated the fire - poor poor children.

foslady · 02/04/2013 22:03

It's the rest of the family I feel sorry for - the childrens Aunts and Uncles....

AgentZigzag · 02/04/2013 22:04

And the childrens surviving siblings foslady.

What a burden to have to carry with them.

pigletmania · 02/04/2013 22:05

They murdered their children. If they did not tech their hose teir kids would still be here. I agree MrsRajesh, those Chidren are wjpho I feel for, those por poor little children, who were unaware of te cruel wicked thing their orients did to them

pigletmania · 02/04/2013 22:06

Meant if they did not torch teir house teir children would still be alive

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.