I’m no advocate for the death penalty primarily because too many innocents have been put to death for crimes they didn’t commit, especially in the days before DNA tests were routine. However, on learning about a British married couple that killed six of their own children by deliberately setting fire to their home in hopes of pinning the blame on the husband’s former live-in mistress, my first instinct was that death is too good for those monsters undeserving of being called human.
Dubbed “Shameless Mick” by the media, 56-year-old Mick Philpott was a leach on society, fathering 17 children from different mothers so that he could live a feckless existence on welfare and child support. He ruled his three-bed, semi-detached home, courtesy of the state, with an iron fist. One of his cohorts, 32-year-old wife Mairead, mother of the six tiny, helpless victims, was entirely under his spell, allowing her husband to farm her out to other men, including the third defendant in the case. In her summing up, the judge told Philpott that women were “his chattels.” “You barked orders and they would obey. You were the kingpin, no one else mattered, she said. But, chattel or no, the idea that a mother would consent to incinerating her own young ones to please her man is nauseating in the extreme.
Their “defense”—although to my mind there is none—was that they did not intend for the children to die. When they started the fire, Philpott was supposed to climb up a ladder to rescue the sleeping kids from their bedrooms and emerge as the hero of the day. That didn’t happen as the fire consumed the home much faster than they had predicted. The children died from smoke inhalation, leaving behind their fingerprints on their bedroom windowpanes as a testament to their panicked efforts to survive.
In the aftermath of the conflagration, the couple put on a good act of being inconsolable. They were supported by kind-hearted members of their local community to the tune of £ 15,000 assistance with funeral costs. But this unrepentant pair used part of this sum to engage in a spending spree, lived it up in karaoke bars and they even auctioned the teddy bears passersby had left outside their house as a tribute to the little ones lost. In a sick letter Philpott wrote, he described seeing the charred body of his daughter Jade in which he calls her “My little golliwog” and expresses the desire to “rape” his wife on their kids’ graves.
Their attempt to stitch-up Philpott’s former lover failed. It emerges that police harbored suspicions about the couple following a press conference during which a chief constable considered Philpott’s behavior strange, like an actor playing a part. A hidden recorder placed in the couple’s hotel room which caught them conspiring on how best to fool the authorities, sealed their fate. In fact, all investigators had to do was to check the man abominable police record revealed in court at the end of the trial to make him suspect No. 1. When one looks at his history, it really was a no-brainer. He had been previously convicted for assault, wife-beating and had served jail time for stabbing a previous girlfriend 13 times and wounding her mother.
A nastier character would be hard to find, yet the female judge accepted that he had been “a good father” who did not intentionally kill his children. What nonsense is this? A man whose life revolved around fathering children so he could sponge off taxpayers, manipulating and beating women and indulging in immoral carryings-on within the family home can hardly be characterized as a good father by anyone’s standards. And what kind of human being, let alone father, lights a bonfire in a house where children are soundly asleep upstairs?
The judge’s sentencing reflects a society that is losing its moral compass. Philpott was sentenced to life for “manslaughter.” Sounds good, but, in reality, he could be out in 14 years; his wife and the third co-conspirator could walk free in just eight. To protect them from people’s ire, they’ll no doubt be provided with new identities, new homes and a means of income straight out of the public purse. Such sentences are an insult to those little kids whose parents have shown no remorse. In fact, Philpott quit the court with a two-fingered “salute.”
This case has had other ramifications, igniting debate on a welfare society that encourages cheats, criminals and malingerers like these killers. Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has caused a firestorm among the leftwing by linking this case to his efforts to trim state handouts as part of his austerity drive. Osborne suggested there should be a debate on whether the lifestyles of individuals like Philpott who claimed £ 54,000 annually in child benefit should be subsidized by the state.
Many posters on the Guardian website are outraged at Osborne’s connection between a man they contend is a sick exception and the nation’s poor deserving of a helping hand. Philpott is no exception. Years prior to his manslaughter conviction, he had been allowed a platform to boast about his free-wheeling way of life on reality TV such as The Jeremy Kyle Show, that titillates viewers with the exploits of the underclass. He also featured in a documentary called “Ann Widdecombe versus the Benefits Culture” welcoming a former Tory minister into his home.
The term “Broken Britain” has been used by the Conservative Party as part of its campaign to mend perceived social decay. As long as tree-hugging lefties, warm and fuzzy armchair psychologists—and, yes, weak kneed judges who fail to match the punishment to the crime—get off their anything goes bandwagon the UK’s future looks bleak.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
RSS
Britain too soft on child killers
Posted on April 11, 2013 by Linda S. Heard
I’m no advocate for the death penalty primarily because too many innocents have been put to death for crimes they didn’t commit, especially in the days before DNA tests were routine. However, on learning about a British married couple that killed six of their own children by deliberately setting fire to their home in hopes of pinning the blame on the husband’s former live-in mistress, my first instinct was that death is too good for those monsters undeserving of being called human.
Dubbed “Shameless Mick” by the media, 56-year-old Mick Philpott was a leach on society, fathering 17 children from different mothers so that he could live a feckless existence on welfare and child support. He ruled his three-bed, semi-detached home, courtesy of the state, with an iron fist. One of his cohorts, 32-year-old wife Mairead, mother of the six tiny, helpless victims, was entirely under his spell, allowing her husband to farm her out to other men, including the third defendant in the case. In her summing up, the judge told Philpott that women were “his chattels.” “You barked orders and they would obey. You were the kingpin, no one else mattered, she said. But, chattel or no, the idea that a mother would consent to incinerating her own young ones to please her man is nauseating in the extreme.
Their “defense”—although to my mind there is none—was that they did not intend for the children to die. When they started the fire, Philpott was supposed to climb up a ladder to rescue the sleeping kids from their bedrooms and emerge as the hero of the day. That didn’t happen as the fire consumed the home much faster than they had predicted. The children died from smoke inhalation, leaving behind their fingerprints on their bedroom windowpanes as a testament to their panicked efforts to survive.
In the aftermath of the conflagration, the couple put on a good act of being inconsolable. They were supported by kind-hearted members of their local community to the tune of £ 15,000 assistance with funeral costs. But this unrepentant pair used part of this sum to engage in a spending spree, lived it up in karaoke bars and they even auctioned the teddy bears passersby had left outside their house as a tribute to the little ones lost. In a sick letter Philpott wrote, he described seeing the charred body of his daughter Jade in which he calls her “My little golliwog” and expresses the desire to “rape” his wife on their kids’ graves.
Their attempt to stitch-up Philpott’s former lover failed. It emerges that police harbored suspicions about the couple following a press conference during which a chief constable considered Philpott’s behavior strange, like an actor playing a part. A hidden recorder placed in the couple’s hotel room which caught them conspiring on how best to fool the authorities, sealed their fate. In fact, all investigators had to do was to check the man abominable police record revealed in court at the end of the trial to make him suspect No. 1. When one looks at his history, it really was a no-brainer. He had been previously convicted for assault, wife-beating and had served jail time for stabbing a previous girlfriend 13 times and wounding her mother.
A nastier character would be hard to find, yet the female judge accepted that he had been “a good father” who did not intentionally kill his children. What nonsense is this? A man whose life revolved around fathering children so he could sponge off taxpayers, manipulating and beating women and indulging in immoral carryings-on within the family home can hardly be characterized as a good father by anyone’s standards. And what kind of human being, let alone father, lights a bonfire in a house where children are soundly asleep upstairs?
The judge’s sentencing reflects a society that is losing its moral compass. Philpott was sentenced to life for “manslaughter.” Sounds good, but, in reality, he could be out in 14 years; his wife and the third co-conspirator could walk free in just eight. To protect them from people’s ire, they’ll no doubt be provided with new identities, new homes and a means of income straight out of the public purse. Such sentences are an insult to those little kids whose parents have shown no remorse. In fact, Philpott quit the court with a two-fingered “salute.”
This case has had other ramifications, igniting debate on a welfare society that encourages cheats, criminals and malingerers like these killers. Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has caused a firestorm among the leftwing by linking this case to his efforts to trim state handouts as part of his austerity drive. Osborne suggested there should be a debate on whether the lifestyles of individuals like Philpott who claimed £ 54,000 annually in child benefit should be subsidized by the state.
Many posters on the Guardian website are outraged at Osborne’s connection between a man they contend is a sick exception and the nation’s poor deserving of a helping hand. Philpott is no exception. Years prior to his manslaughter conviction, he had been allowed a platform to boast about his free-wheeling way of life on reality TV such as The Jeremy Kyle Show, that titillates viewers with the exploits of the underclass. He also featured in a documentary called “Ann Widdecombe versus the Benefits Culture” welcoming a former Tory minister into his home.
The term “Broken Britain” has been used by the Conservative Party as part of its campaign to mend perceived social decay. As long as tree-hugging lefties, warm and fuzzy armchair psychologists—and, yes, weak kneed judges who fail to match the punishment to the crime—get off their anything goes bandwagon the UK’s future looks bleak.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.