(UK) Man loses 5 of his kids in a fire

Smidge

micropig wrote: »

I got addicted to real life there for a while, It just sucked me right in and kept me AFK*. It was 24/7, Rough going:D




*AFK- Away From Keyboard

I was thinking something like that(or else a stint as a mexican wrestler):D

Back to normal eh???

Sw recipients are child crispers????;)

EGAR

goodie2shoes wrote: »

no of course i am not saying "all people on SW who have more than 3 children are capable of incinerating them just to get a bigger house". that's just plain silly.

however what i am saying is the SW system incentifies people to have large families and needs to be changed. if these people had to earn ie work in order to have & rear their kids, then they wouldn't have so many. most folk i know have 2, 3 kids max 'cos they cant afford to have any more.

i know these concepts may be difficult to grasp, but please try.:(

How many men/families/lone parents do you know with 17 kids or even 10?

Not every large family lives on SW.

micropig

mishkalucy wrote: »

I was thinking something like that(or else a stint as a mexican wrestler):D

Back to normal eh???

Sw recipients are child crispers????;)

Applied but didn't get it, they said I was too mid-west:rolleyes:

I don't agree that all SW recipients are child crispers. I think it's unfair to generalise;)

EGAR wrote: »

How many men/families/lone parents do you know with 17 kids or even 10?

Not every large family lives on SW.

he had kids by 5 different women

1) How dumb are these women?

2) Most people short of money ration what little they have and don't have more children. Some people short of money carry on regardless and demand more from the state while giving nothing back.

fallen01angel

5 innocent kids died in a fire....IF the Father/Stepmother are guilty of causing the fire,no matter their reason for doing so,they deserve to be charged with murder.....irregardless of their reasons for doing it in the 1st place,bigger house whatever.If they were stupid enough to make a decision to set the house on fire with so many people occuping it at the time in the 1st place then they deserve the consequences.:mad::mad:

Smidge

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i agree this is the most plausible explanation.
had their little "stunt" succeeded the attendant publicity, another appearance on chav TV etc. would also have been very tempting for them.

social welfare rules need changing so as not to encourage people like this from having so many kids in the first place. personally i feel that all benefits ought to be frozen after the 3rd child.

Do you mean child benefit???

To which everyone with children in Ireland is entitled to???

I assume this is what you are referring to as the amount per child under any other payment does not increase per child as you have claimed.

So under this proposed theory you submit, everyone in receipt of child benefit in this country is capable of this???

Just trying to keep up;)

Smidge

micropig wrote: »

Applied but didn't get it, they said I was too mid-west:rolleyes:

Sheeaattt boy, I could just see those North Tipp men in Yellow and Red spandex with luninous blue masks jumping all over the place

micropig

mishkalucy wrote: »

Sheeaattt boy, I could just see those North Tipp men in Yellow and Red spandex with luninous blue masks jumping all over the place

& Hurley's, don't forget about those.

It's be fair good.

Could this be the solution to ridding overpopulated houses of some SW benefit claimers? There's an idea in there somewhere. You wouldn't be too active in the bedroom after the lick of a hurl:D

Smidge

I have always found it funny and to be honest sad that these threads always develop into "SW scum, rid the world".

Only people with limited life experience would ever make these statements.



On a side note..........

Micro,

I see the spandex got you thinking:p

micropig

mishkalucy wrote: »

I have always found it funny and to be honest sad that these threads always develop into "SW scum, rid the world".

Only people with limited life experience would ever make these statements.

True, but sometimes it's the people with limited life experience who are the 'SW scum'. Can't loose sight of the chimney of their house, never got a job etc....

Now, the vast majority of SW recipients are not like this of course and decent people only use it as a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. Those that have never worked usually receive the most in benefits imho

Houses should be limited to 3 bed.

How many children where living in this house at the time.
Do the other 4 mothers all have individual houses aswell?

mishkalucy wrote: »

On a side note..........

Micro,

I see the spandex got you thinking:p

As always:D

Smidge

micropig wrote: »

True, but sometimes it's the people with limited life experience who are the 'SW scum'. Can't loose sight of the chimney of their house, never got a job etc....

Now, the vast majority of SW recipients are not like this of course and decent people only use it as a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. Those that have never worked usually receive the most in benefits imho

Houses should be limited to 3 bed.



As always:D

In fairness they cant receive more than others based on means as you know.

But I do agree that people who have NEVER worked should not abuse the system(and you and I both know this is not just Irish recipients, very un-pc I know but also true)

I hate when people generalise and say "cut dem off they 'ave more than 3 kids"

What about "Jim" who is married to "Ann" and they have 5 kids.
Jim is 53 and has worked in the local factory for 28 years.

Job gone

Does he now say to Ann.............


"Sh1t Ann we best get rid of 3 of dem damn kids cause the country will see us a scum otherwise"
"They were crammpin me style anyway, feck dem out on the road"

No.

Of course not.

The whole damn country has been so turned on it's head that we are savaging each other

Smidge

HAHA

@ Micropig

I just said North Tipp as random when you said Mid West

Didn't know that was your locale lol

Fluke methinks???

micropig

mishkalucy wrote: »

In fairness they cant receive more than others based on means as you know.

But I do agree that people who have NEVER worked should not abuse the system(and you and I both know this is not just Irish recipients, very un-pc I know but also true)

I hate when people generalise and say "cut dem off they 'ave more than 3 kids"

What about "Jim" who is married to "Ann" and they have 5 kids.
Jim is 53 and has worked in the local factory for 28 years.

Job gone

Does he now say to Ann.............


"Sh1t Ann we best get rid of 3 of dem damn kids cause the country will see us a scum otherwise"
"They were crammpin me style anyway, feck dem out on the road"

No.

Of course not.

The whole damn country has been so turned on it's head that we are savaging each other

Jim & Ann deserve social welfare.


or

If Jim & Ann's daughter is able(over 12ish), they could encourage her to get pregnant, she could get her own house

or

Daughter & baby could live in Jim & Anns house & receive benefits. Ann could claim carers allowance. And don't forget about Jim's bad back, disability?

Smidge

micropig wrote: »

Jim & Ann deserve social welfare.


or

If Jim & Ann's daughter is able(over 12ish), they could encourage her to get pregnant, she could get her own house

or

Daughter & baby could live in Jim & Anns house & receive benefits. Ann could claim carers allowance. And don't forget about Jim's bad back, disability?

Ah now micro, behave!!!!

i said Jim lost his job, not that he went on disability

You are being purposely silly:rolleyes:





I am not even going to mention the encouraging paedoplhilia thing:eek:

MagicMarker

John Doe1 wrote: »

Anyone mention gerry and kate mccann yet?

Jesus, you don't think they did it, do ya?

Dudess

goodie2shoes wrote: »

no of course i am not saying "all people on SW who have more than 3 children are capable of incinerating them just to get a bigger house". that's just plain silly.

however what i am saying is the SW system incentifies people to have large families and needs to be changed. if these people had to earn ie work in order to have & rear their kids, then they wouldn't have so many. most folk i know have 2, 3 kids max 'cos they cant afford to have any more.

i know these concepts may be difficult to grasp, but please try.:(

Nice. Sad face added for extra passive aggressiveness.

Micky Dolenz

Mod

Can we not let this turn into a welfare recipient bashing thread please. It's an extra ordinary case.

the_syco

iguana wrote: »

At least the other children have different mothers so they won't be 'orphaned' or have to go into care.

Thankfully, aye.

seamus

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Intent to kill plus the physical act are needed.

Actually the UK definition of murder appears to be the same as here.

In this country it only has to be shown that the offender intended on causing death or serious harm to a person in order to have them convicted of murder.

Manslaughter allows for intent, but only in the case of "harm". So if, for example, a mugger decks their victim and causes a clot in their brain leading to death.

There is a further charge of aggravated manslaughter, I think it's "Gross Negligence Manslaughter" in the UK, where the offender did not intend to cause death or serious harm, but it was reasonably foreseeable that their actions would lead to death or serious harm.

I suspect the latter would be more appropriate in this case but maybe the CPS have more on it. Or perhaps it's simply down to detention/interrogation - that is, if they're charged with murder the police are entitled to detain them and question them for longer than if they were only charged with manslaughter.

Dub Ste

As awful as this,it's not the first time something like this has happened.
I remembered a similar thing happening in Leeds when I was still living over there.

A tragic life brought to a tragic end in Leeds



Wednesday July 08 2009
THERE wasn't a huge crowd to say goodbye to Amanda Hartley last Wednesday, just after 2pm at Cottingley Hall cemetery, not far from the shadow of Leeds United FC at Elland Road.

She had died in mid-May, her body found in an end of terrace house on Bismarck Drive in Holbeck. She was 35. Some days later a 29-year-old man was charged with her murder.

Teams of police had descended on the house. Seeking clues and searching, they had enough to indicate that a prime suspect was responsible and he was swiftly brought to court.

Months earlier Drogheda native Amanda Hartley had been rescued from the River Aire in Leeds by a passer-by. She was detained in a local hospital under the Mental Health Act but later discharged.

Who knows what was going through her mind in those final months before her death?

But Amanda Hartley's story, the path that would impact so much on her everyday life, really began on an October night in 1994.

She escaped a house fire at South Parkway in the Seacroft Estate in Leeds with her partner Michael Cunningham (25).

But trapped inside were their two little boys, Billy (six months) and Jimmy (20 months).

The emegency services arrived and got the two lads out, but they were badly burned.

Just 12 agonising days later, tears of grief and heartbreak flowed down the cheeks of nurses in the burns unit of the Pinderfields hospital in Wakefield.

A spokesperson revealed that Jimmy Cunningham's young life was over.

'He fought long and he fought hard to survive. The staff of the burns unit showed enormous care and devotion. The fight has been lost and they are so distraught,' a spokesperson told the Drogheda Independent.

He had suffered 50% burns – his brother, Billy, still fought on with 30% burns to his body.

The residents of Seacroft were shocked and although many might not have had too much money, they began a trust fund for the family.

But then the whole story took a new twist. There had been reports of arson attacks on the Cunningham home before.

In February 1994, their home at Upper Seacroft, Leeds, had been set on fire. In advance of the fire that claimed Jimmy's life, there had been more attempts.

The pair went on TV to plead for assistance with the investigation. Days later, the police arrested both Michael Cunnigham and Amanda Hartley (then McKenna) on suspicion of setting the fire themselves.

There were reports of huge debts, or that they hoped to gain financially from any fire fund that would be set up, but the death and injuries to the boys were not part of the plot.

Back home in Drogheda, there was disbelief. They were both Drogheda natives who had gone to live in Leeds a number of years earlier but in truth, never really settled.

Amanda Hartley's first child died from cot death in 1991 when just nine months old.

The two young lads reportedly suffered from a heart defect and had to be treated at home on special cardiac machines that cost the couple £800. It was stolen in a robbery at their home in 1993.

She was expecting again when the fire broke out, the child born in March 1995 and taken into care. She would have another child, a boy, in 2000, but again he was taken by the authorities.

The pair appeared before Leeds Magistrates Court on manslaughter charges in October 1994.

Moments after returning to HM Armley after the appearance, Michael Cunningham was attacked by a fellow inmate.

In May 1995, three further charges of arson were added to the list the parents would face.

However, as the trial beckoned later that summer, they pleaded guilty to the charges before them. Michael Cunningham would get seven years, Amanda McKenna five years.

She was released in 1998 and returned to live in Leeds and became Mrs Hartley. She remained anonymous until 2002 when a news crew doing a documentary found her.

She told the Yorkshire Evening Post at that time that she still 'felt the guilt' of what had happened.

'I know a lot of people will not like me for what happened, you can't blame them. I have to live with my actions ... until the day I die.'

- Hubert Murphy

Jester252

Its sick that they did this but they will get off lightly (in the eyes of the law)
They will admit guilt to arson to make it easier
Wife will get 2 years Husband will get more
(I do hope I'm wrong)

goodie2shoes

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Mod

Can we not let this turn into a welfare recipient bashing thread please. It's an extra ordinary case.

well said!
not all SW recipients have a couple of dozen kids, and not all attempt to burn their council houses down.
many are highly productive members of society and enrich our lives on a daily basis.

goat2

EGAR wrote: »

How many men/families/lone parents do you know with 17 kids or even 10?

Not every large family lives on SW.

you are right, i come from a family of 10, my father worked hard to make sure mother saw after our needs, and we in turn started summer holiday and weekend work along with christmas and easter work at age 14, and they made sure we all did our leaving cert, we had little but never went hungry, depended on hand me downs from relatives which was fine,
and our parents would say that i dont want to see any of ye on dole or lazing about,
and not one of the ten of us ever drew the dole or socail welfare, we were given the impression,
we are rearing families, and they again do and never did draw socail, they would rather pick stones,
but i must also say that with the past 3 yrs there are many great workers had to go on socail welfare due to our economic climate we are now in, and i do know that from speaking to these people, they would rather have something to get out of bed for, a better reason to live, they feel helpless,

goat2

has it been proved that it were the parents that started the blaze, i cannot beleive that they did it,
was it said that it was started inside the front door below the letter box, maybe someone poured in some flammable liquid and a match after it,

Dudess

goodie2shoes wrote: »

not all SW recipients have a couple of dozen kids, and not all attempt to burn their council houses down.
many are highly productive members of society and enrich our lives on a daily basis.

Or just regular people who have lost their jobs (could happen to lots of us) and are in receipt of social welfare while looking for work.

seamus

goat2 wrote: »

has it been proved that it were the parents that started the blaze, i cannot beleive that they did it,
was it said that it was started inside the front door below the letter box, maybe someone poured in some flammable liquid and a match after it,

They obviously determined that it was a petrol fire started in the hallway, so the initial reports from the press were that someone had poured petrol through the letterbox and set it alight. Who knows where they picked that up from, maybe Phil himself suggested it.

It would seem to me that there are so many things that could go wrong with "petrol-in-the-letterbox" process, that someone who wanted to attack the family would be more likely to go with the tried and tested method of a glass bottle filled with petrol, set alight and thrown through the window.

goodie2shoes

Dudess wrote: »

Or just regular people who have lost their jobs (could happen to lots of us) and are in receipt of social welfare while looking for work.

see there is a tsumani of difference between those "regular" folk that as you rightly point out "who have lost their jobs", and those types who NEVER had a job, NEVER will have one, whose parents NEVER had and whose kids will in all probability follow the family tradition of parasitism & SW scrounging.

it is because of these folk that the rules need to be changed.:eek:

Dudess

Of course there's a huge difference between the above and those who have lost their jobs (quote marks not needed) - you were the one who didn't seem to acknowledge that difference though.

Ellis Dee

Whatever or whoever caused the fire, this is a tragedy of rare proportions. I think people should allow the police, the prosecution authorities and the courts to do their jobs before they jump to any conclusions and grab the pitchforks. This is not a time to allow one's views of benefit-recipients to override the all-important principles of due process of law and presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Let us not become like the man and woman mentioned in the passage bolded below. Those two should be jailed for contempt of court and might learn not to act like a lynch mob in future.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/31/derby-fire-mick-mairead-philpott-court

Mick Philpott, 55, and his wife Mairead, 31, made a brief appearance at Derby magistrates court on Thursday morning. On Wednesday evening, police revealed that they had been charged with the murders of their children – aged between five and 13 – who died following the house fire at their home in Victory Road, Allenton, Derby, in the early hours of 11 May.

They were remanded in custody. A man and woman had to be escorted from the court by police and court officials after they interrupted proceedings and shouted out "scum" and "bastards" during the 10-minute hearing.

The couple are accused of murdering Jayden Philpott, five, Jessie, six, Jack, seven, John, nine, and Jade, 10. They are also charged with the murder of a sixth sibling, Duwayne, 13, who died from his injuries two days later at Birmingham children's hospital.

The Philpotts, who showed no emotion as they stood in the dock, will appear before Nottingham crown court on Friday.

The children were asleep in their beds upstairs when the fire broke out at the semi-detached property in the early hours.

The murder charges were confirmed on Wednesday night by Derbyshire police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), following a recent appeal for information from the police.

Assistant Chief Constable Steve Cotterill, the officer leading the investigation, emphasised that the charges should not be seen as the end of the inquiry.

He said: "We are determined to get to the truth of what happened and still want people to speak to us to tell us what they know about this tragedy."

goodie2shoes

Dudess wrote: »

Of course there's a huge difference between the above and those who have lost their jobs (quote marks not needed) - you were the one who didn't seem to acknowledge that difference though.

i fully appreciate the difference. i do feel it's slightly annoying that most posters on here cannot seem to be capable of differentiating though, and that one has to spell it out for them.

for most folk being out of work is something that befalls them, but for these types it is a conscious 'er rational (and i hesitate to use that term to describe them) choice.
that anyone could confuse "normal" folk with these neanderthals is beyond me.:(

goat2

when they say that they are taking them to court with the charge of murder, and they are still looking for people who know anything to come forward,
could this mean that they are not certain that they did not do it,

as in most cases when a parent kills a child, it is only one parent that does it, while i think that the other would not dream of that, how could two people be of the same insane mind at the same time,