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

goodie2shoes

goat2 wrote: »

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,

personally i dont believe they set out to murder their children, rather this was part of a stunt which they felt would allow or enable them to get a bigger house to which they felt was their entitlement.

let's be honest their whole raison d'etre (and that of their kids also) was to screw the UK taxpayer/SW Dept out of as much freebies ('er apologies) entitlements as possible.

if you look at their photos during the press conference, their expressions (her's in particular) were thoroughly unconvincing. she constantly used her hair to hide her face and her eyes appeared not to crying. one policeman paid particular attention to her antics.

cats.life

well they better keep them in cos if they let them out their neighbours will kill them, it was them neighbours who raised all the money to bury them poor little kiddies...

Lollipops23

cats.life wrote: »

well they better keep them in cos if they let them out their neighbours will kill them, it was them neighbours who raised all the money to bury them poor little kiddies...

that's true, but even if they did it those kids deserved a proper burial. it wasn't their fault they were conceived and born into insane circumstances and reared by 2 people who cared more about getting a nice big house than investing in a vasectomy.

mikemac1

They're better off in custody, life would be hell for them on the outside

People in public gallery shouted 'b*******' and 'scum' as charges were read to Mick and Mairead Philpott

With these high profile cases I wonder how they choose a jury.
If you live in Derbyshire it's impossible you've not heard about this case and read different media reports

Would they move the trial to another county?

SEPT 23 1989

Its hard to get your head around something like this:(

goat2

my god, all it is just insane how he in his fifties and she in her thirties could be so childish and not see that their country is going through tough times as it is, and they wanting more, instead of seeking less and helping out a bit, i wonder are those of his children who have finished school in jobs, and pruchased their own homes, they were lucky not to be there on that horrible night,

iguana

goat2 wrote: »

i wonder are those of his children who have finished school in jobs, and pruchased their own homes, they were lucky not to be there on that horrible night,

His children who weren't there had other mothers and lived elsewhere. They didn't live with him and his current wife. Only Philpott, his wife Mairead, their 5 children and her son from a previous relationship lived in that house at the time of the fire.

Cunning Stunt

It's a tragic, tragic case. I was of the suspicion that they started it themselves, but after watching the Jeremy Kyle video posted by Egar, I wouldn't be surprised if it actually was started by someone who was angry at this guys antics (flaunting his wife and live-in gfriend on national TV and then selling his ''gimme a bigger house'' story to the papers) - I'd say it p'd off a good few in the area....Still no excuse for torching someones house though. Poor kids

Scruffles

Deleted User wrote: »

I doubt they'll go for the murder charge in the end but if they set the fire and claim that they had no intent to harm anyone the only way that could be true would be if they're so ahem, mentally challenged, that they could never be integrated into society.

no offence is meant with this,but as common as it is for people to put intelectual or learning disability as a factor,it shows a lack of understanding of either of them and how they affect people.
every aspect of these peoples lives shows people who are far to high functioning to be impaired even mildly.
global learning disability and intelectual disability affects the ability to the follow 'steps' of doing something that most people consider basic and dont have to think about,majority of us require visual help [PECS step routines] as well as having someone there verbaly and/or physicaly helping,however-many of us struggle with cause and effect and can make bad actions without realising-but we do not manage to have the sort of lives,relationships et al that these guys have.

speaking of possibilities,mental illness coud be a possibility.
if all they have done for much of their lives is being stuck in the house with many kids, that really must affect peoples MH?

were both of them involved in it,or is it possible just one was?
they coud have been trying to get rid of some kids?
anyone sane may think that is impossible but if have had a mental break or perhaps even a personality disorder which creates different thinking its possible,and it seems to happen every so often in america judging by the big court cases we hear about.


poor kids,disgusting how anyone can do that to little ones who cant get themselves out a house let alone anyone.

token101

mikemac1 wrote: »

Would they move the trial to another county?

Saudi Arabia would be my pick

MistyCheese

mikemac1 wrote: »

They're better off in custody, life would be hell for them on the outside

Quite probably on the inside too if they are convicted of killing their kids in a fire.

goat2

if they did do it, they would have to be mentally insane, no one in their right mind would do what has been done to these little helpless children, too young to fend for themselves, and vunerable

goat2

they will not be attending their childrens funerals, how very sad, i guess that it would be dangerous for them, people are angry,
safer for them to stay away,
but must be awful that they cannot say a proper farewell,
i know they have been charged, but is it proved yet, that they are the cause of their childrens deaths

The_Kew_Tour

goat2 wrote: »

they will not be attending their childrens funerals, how very sad, i guess that it would be dangerous for them, people are angry,
safer for them to stay away,
but must be awful that they cannot say a proper farewell,
i know they have been charged, but is it proved yet, that they are the cause of their childrens deaths

Whole story just gets worse.

I hope they did not do it.

If they are proven to have not done it then the fact they could not go to Funeral will make it all the worse.

Madam_X

Innocent until proven guilty out the window for the neighbours. Why so anxious to convict them? It's as if they WANT them to be guilty.

MagicSean

Onixx wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty out the window for the neighbours. Why so anxious to convict them? It's as if they WANT them to be guilty.

We live in a blame culture. Everyone has to have someone to blame for everything and feels uncomfortable until someone is held responsable.

goat2

did i hear that they have to wait till january for the trial to begin, and i wonder have the athorities ruled out any other person or people doing it if that is the case,

Pedro K

Didn't see any update on here about this. The parents and a friend of theirs were today found guilty of the manslaughter of the children.

dark crystal

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0402/379442-mick-mairead-philpott-derby-court/

Absolutely horrific case. Those poor children

Smidge

Just out of curiosity, have the parents or others involved ever given any "reason"(as in a form of an explanation etc) of why they did this?

PizzamanIRL

Smidge wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, have the parents or others involved ever given any "reason"(as in a form of an explanation etc) of why they did this?

Something about the father was trying to the frame the mother so he would have custody of the kids.

MarkyMark22

Just been documentaries on both ITV and BBC.

He wanted a bigger house. Had a wife, "mistress" and numerous kids in one house.

He was taking a former partner to court to get custody of the kids in hope that the council would give him a larger house if he had more kids under the roof. He planned to frame the former partner by burning the house.

The fire quickly got out of control and he couldn't save the children as planned.

He then acted like he wasn't grieving and the police got suspicious. They then secretly recorded him and he slipped up whilst talking to his wife.

Frito

The father Mick had his mistress and their children living in the same house with his wife and kids. The mistress took her children and left. The police believe the Philpotts and a friend set the fire to blame the mistress so Mick could gain custody of his children. The fire occurred the night before a family court hearing to decide custody.
As per Panaroma special on beeb and the local news for past few months.

Smidge

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

Just been documentaries on both ITV and BBC.

He wanted a bigger house. Had a wife, "mistress" and numerous kids in one house.

He was taking a former partner to court to get custody of the kids in hope that the council would give him a larger house if he had more kids under the roof. He planned to frame the former partner by burning the house.

The fire quickly got out of control and he couldn't save the children as planned.

He then acted like he wasn't grieving and the police got suspicious. They then secretly recorded him and he slipped up whilst talking to his wife.

Cheers for that.

So what that says is this guy thought that if he filed for custody of other children from a former relationship(this is other children than the ones who were killed I take it?)he would get a bigger house.
That part I can understand, more children=bigger house.

But why try to "frame" the former partner for the fire?
What purpose would that have served?
And doing it WHILE the children were at home?

Something SERIOUSLY amiss there I reckon, the mind boggles

MarkyMark22

Smidge wrote: »

Cheers for that.

So what that says is this guy thought that if he filed for custody of other children from a former relationship(this is other children than the ones who were killed I take it?).
That part I can understand, more children=bigger house.

But why try to "frame" the former partner for the fire?
What purpose would that have served?
And doing it WHILE the children were at home?

Something SERIOUSLY amiss there I reckon, the mind boggles

I think the argument he planned to make in court was that she started the fire and was unsafe to take care of children.

He started the fire the night before the court date. One of the six was still on life support yet he was still determined to go to court the day after five of his kids were killed.

Smidge

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

I think the argument he planned to make in court was that she started the fire and was unsafe to take care of children.

He started the fire the night before the court date. One of the six was still on life support yet he was still determined to go to court the day after five of his kids were killed.

Well in that case, that man should never see the light of day again.
Not only was he willing to set fire to the house while the children slept but wanted to frame someone else(obviously just for the fire but what dafuq did he think would happen if they set a blaze while the kids were there?)

All for a bigger house?
The description of reprobate is barely fitting imo

MarkyMark22

Smidge wrote: »

Well in that case, that man should never see the light of day again.
Not only was he willing to set fire to the house while the children slept but wanted to frame someone else(obviously just for the fire but what dafuq did he think would happen if they set a blaze while the kids were there?)

All for a bigger house?
The description of reprobate is barely fitting imo

He planned to rescue them from the fire so he'd look like a hero and the former partner would be a villain.

He started the fire with petrol which causes thick black smoke.

He thought all the kids where in the upstairs backroom so he left a ladder at the back window before starting the fire.

Turns out they weren't all in that room.

When they were dragged from the house and lying in the front garden he didn't even bother staying to see if they were ok.

He walked across to his neighbours house across the road.

Grand Moff Tarkin

Madam_X wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty out the window for the neighbours. Why so anxious to convict them? It's as if they WANT them to be guilty.

It has been shown beyond any shadow of a doubt that they were guilty. It was not a case of wanting them to be guilty but they would have known the type of person shameless Mick was better than anyone else. It is a really upsetting and a shame that six children had to die to end his scrounging ways.

Grand Moff Tarkin

Smidge wrote: »

Well in that case, that man should never see the light of day again.
Not only was he willing to set fire to the house while the children slept but wanted to frame someone else(obviously just for the fire but what dafuq did he think would happen if they set a blaze while the kids were there?)

All for a bigger house?
The description of reprobate is barely fitting imo

Also to get the other kids back for the handout money he was losing out on. An utter piece of scum who should never see the outside world again.

dark crystal

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

He planned to rescue them from the fire so he'd look like a hero and the former partner would be a villain.

He started the fire with petrol which causes thick black smoke.

He thought all the kids where in the upstairs backroom so he left a ladder at the back window before starting the fire.

Turns out they weren't all in that room.

When they were dragged from the house and lying in the front garden he didn't even bother staying to see if they were ok.

He walked across to his neighbours house across the road.

That's really upset me. What sort of bastard just walks off and leaves his children alone on the lawn after being pulled out of a burning house?

I hope they get the maximum sentence possible and their conscience never rests.