Derisory sentences in the Philpott case.

I along with probably many others am utterly disgusted at the pisspoor sentences handed out to the killers in the Philpott case.

Mick Philpott should have been given at least a life sentence with a 25 year minimum term instead of life with a minimum of 15 years.  As for how the Judge treated Mairead Philpott well, that is even more disgusting.  She has been given a 17 year sentence of which she will serve only HALF.  She colluded with Mick Philpott in hiding the arson even though it was her own children who were killed in the fire.  The 17 year sentence on Mosley was also far far too low and should also have got life.  All three should have got life sentences on the grounds that this was a joint enterprise.

Mrs Justice Kate Thirlwall, has made a mockery of justice in this case and I do hope that the Attorney General appeals these derisory sentences and see that justice is properly done.  Mrs Justice Thirlwell has also rode roughshod over the legal precedent set at Nuremberg in the case of Mairead which stated that ‘following orders’ as Mairead did was not a defence where such a heinous crime as this has been committed.

These three people who were reckless as to whether the lives of the six children would have been endangered should have got much, much longer sentences.

A disgusting set of sentences which are LESS than a person would get if they did a bank robbery or imported heroin or committed a major fraud.

Yet again our judiciary has failed to live up the inscription over the door of the Central Criminal Court in London which says ‘Defend the Children of the Poor and punish the wrongdoer’

Source http://news.sky.com/story/1073782/fire-deaths-philpotts-and-friend-jailed

 

 

 

6 Comments on "Derisory sentences in the Philpott case."

  1. I think that 17 years and life (with a minimum of 15 years) is about right, though that sentence should have been for each death and should have been consecutive. Knowing that anyone who commits crimes like this will die in prison should concentrate the minds of all those other parasites who contemplate similar ways of blagging even more from the long suffering taxpayers. Of course, the loony left and even loonier liberals would not allow the human rights of such pondlife being affected in this way. Some would suggest it’s time for lampposts and piano wire?

  2. Fahrenheit211 | April 4, 2013 at 12:36 pm |

    I’d have been happier if Mairead Philpott had had a 17 year sentence where she had to serve 17 and not less than ten which is the reality.

  3. Penseivat | April 4, 2013 at 4:45 pm |

    I understand that, under the current legislation, people serving more than 12 months have 50% of the sentence taken off ‘for good behaviour’ as they are driven through the gates of the prison. If they have served time in custody pre-trial, this is taken into account (before the 50% reduction). The only aspect of this sentencing to cheer me up is that all 3 will probably do their time under Rule 43 – away from the main wings of the prison and secluded amongst the other rapists, child murderers, paedophiles, etc – as otherwise they would be at risk of serious harm or worse from the other inmates. That they will not have an enjoyable time is not in doubt and is the only comfort for those seeking revenge, although it’s certainly not justice.

    • Fahrenheit211 | April 5, 2013 at 4:04 pm |

      I don’t think the 15 minimum will be TIC for Philpott though, it will as you say apply to the others sentences. I definitely agree that they will all be on the nonces wing. I certainly expected longer minimums and defined sentences all round. Maybe the Attourney General should become involved?

      Re the welfare issue: There is definitely a case to answer that an out of control welfare state allowed Philpott to have more children than he could afford if he was working. He would still have been a bully and and a violent abuser but he may not have been able to do it to as many women or for so long. The welfare system certainly did have a role in prolonging and in some way facilitating his behaviour.

      I know people who do have a large number of children but either the mother is a good earner or has a business and the man does a lot of the childcare or it’s the other way round. It helps that they have simple family orientated and non materialistic tastes though. One of the scandals about the welfare babyfather phenomenon is that such people end up with the large family that many would like but can’t afford and bling like big TV’s as well. The problem is the system appears biased to those who game the system rather than those who have worked and paid taxes and at some point need to avail themselves of welfare services. It appears to be a better earner if you skive than if you work and that cannot be right.

  4. I`m still astounded that in 1978 this useless piece of crap got just 8 years for attempted murder,he broke into the house of an ex-girlfriend and stabbed her over 20 times and her mother 11 times,and after all that he was let out after just 3 years.
    This revolting creature needs to be killed ASP.

    • Fahrenheit211 | April 5, 2013 at 4:17 pm |

      It’s highly unlikely that he would have been topped back when we had a death penalty and he is one of the few people who I wouldn’t grieve over if he disappeared from this earth. You are right the release after just three years was a travesty.

Comments are closed.