Kes Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 We'll be back on hanging shortly ! I cant say in this case its inappropriate, based on all the evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TbirdX Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Last time I checked, the average time served for people given a life sentence is 14-15 years. Hardly life is it. Thats the problem with 'life' sentences, it doesn't really reflect what most of us Joe Public would think a 'life' sentence should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 It's a rubbish result... He could still be alive and out for 10-30 years!!! And 17 what will they actually serve?? She'll do at least half of the 17 years. He cannot be considered for release before 15 years and he probably won't get released for a couple of years after that, at the very least. I think that he's 52 now and has done about a year on remand so, realistically, he'll be inside until he's at least 69 or 70. That's if he's still alive by then! J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 I do not understand how they can be given life but be out after 17 years. She has been sentenced to 17 years. She will be elligible for relase after half of that. That's not a guarantee that she will get out though and she could well do the full term. He was given a life sentence with a minimum term of 15 years before he can even apply to be released. When/if he is it will be on life licence as a life sentence doesn't end when you are released. A person on life licence can be recalled to prison for any transgressions later on. When someone is sentenced to say ten years that is what they should serve. I entirely agree. Being let out before serviing your full term should be for things like being an exceptional prisoner or similar. If you get ten years but you are really only going to do five is a bit of a con on the rest of society. If you want someone to do five then sentence them to five. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpkiller Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 So what we are looking at maybe 1-2 year per dead child. Did he get a multibuy discount or something? and this is a guy who has already been to prison for attempted murder, and people wonder why criminals arnt that bothered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 When they say a Life Sentence it should mean Life!!! I agree. I think this is especially true in the case of murder (which they haven't been convicted of so nto entirely relevant). When we aboloshed the death penalty the public were told that it would be replaced with life imprisonment and I'm sure that people took that to mean that a murderer would never be released. That isn't what happened though. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bongaanie Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 well going by what mick philpot said that he hed a high sex drive and so have the boys in prison the lads in prison are going to think that cristmas has come twice as they dont take kindly to child molesters and child killers see how long his sex drive last now lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpkiller Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 the awful thing is the muppet will probably enjoy prison he will be better off and not have to put up with lots of kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bongaanie Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 na pimp he is used to giving not tacking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Galore! Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 slightly unrelated but did you hear about the policeman who's just been sentenced today for dealing drugs? 24years he got and he didn't even kill anyone! na pimp he is used to giving not tacking he's gonna need to keep that goatee to hide the stretch marks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old rooster Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 slightly unrelated but did you hear about the policeman who's just been sentenced today for dealing drugs? 24years he got and he didn't even kill anyone Beat me to it, how the hell do the two crimes compare leaving the bent copper with a bigger prison term? Admittedly his actions probably led to the deaths of others but that wasn't what he was tried for. Apparently he was flogging confiscated drugs and made £600,000 from the dealing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 The thing is everybody probably knows somebody like Philpot. I'm not talking about killing his kids, I'm just talking about his attitude to life. A plasterer I was talking to told me he had six kids by six different women and didn't pay any support for any of them. He was however buying them all an Easter egg so thats all right then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Galore! Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 The thing is everybody probably knows somebody like Philpot. I'm not talking about killing his kids, I'm just talking about his attitude to life. A plasterer I was talking to told me he had six kids by six different women and didn't pay any support for any of them. He was however buying them all an Easter egg so thats all right then. yep i've known several over the years, abuse the system and ruin it for everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flynny Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 I'm sorry but that comment doesn't belong on this site. I was being nice mate!!!!! Nothing is too sinister and violent for them 2. Point taken, but just think of them little uns being burnt and asphyxiated alive and the fear and terror they went thru, Jesus it's boiling my blood thinking about it, Flynny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapp Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 This is repugnant to every normal person in the country. It doesnt make it ok to make obscene posts though, so dont please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flynny Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 (edited) This is repugnant to every normal person in the country. It doesnt make it ok to make obscene posts though, so dont please. Point taken, Flynny Edited April 4, 2013 by flynny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 I see the chancellor has caught it in the press for highlighting the fact that the Philpots lifestyle was funded entirely by tax payers. I think it's a fair point. It's not as though Mr Philpot was hiding anything under a bushel was he? He'd been on telly twice and was quite proud of his morally bankrupt way of life. I'm no fan of any of "the spotty never done a days work or run a business themselves" government but old George appears to be calling it how the rest of the tax paying Country see it. I am beginning to see how the concept of "shame" helps glue a well ordered society together. There is no shame anymore. I await the Mick Philpot book and mini series Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxie Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Both of the Philpot women went to work so their lifestyle wasn`t entirely funded by the taxpayer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Both of the Philpot women went to work so their lifestyle wasn`t entirely funded by the taxpayer. Are you on the proverbial crack pipe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPARKIE Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 (edited) he was taking £4000 a month in benefits for the kids nevermind the fact the house was paid for and bills by the council. someone at work tried to work it out and that was like being paid £80000 a year no wonder he didnt want his ex misses to take half the kids. Edited April 4, 2013 by SPARKIE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpkiller Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 thing is they will just make it harder for the truly disabled people by making the tests harder, the people milking the system get the money automatically for their poor little children and they wont touch that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 He had a dozen kids and was larging it up on telly. I reckon the local dole office would have loved to tell him to f-off, but oh no, the legislation is there and they are "entitled" to all the dosh they got. That "entitlement" and the system is completely and utterly wrong, end of. Another reason to stop children / family related benefits beyond 2 kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 I see the chancellor has caught it in the press for highlighting the fact that the Philpots lifestyle was funded entirely by tax payers. I think it's a fair point. It's not as though Mr Philpot was hiding anything under a bushel was he? He'd been on telly twice and was quite proud of his morally bankrupt way of life. I'm no fan of any of "the spotty never done a days work or run a business themselves" government but old George appears to be calling it how the rest of the tax paying Country see it. I am beginning to see how the concept of "shame" helps glue a well ordered society together. There is no shame anymore. I await the Mick Philpot book and mini series In the mining areas where I used to live anyone caught or suspected of thieving or kiddy fiddling would be at best ostracised by the community or at worst severely dealt with by some of the younger hard men. They would not be tolerated. These days the thieves and cheats have the upper hand. Society, I use that work because community in those areas ceased to exist when the pits went, are running scared of the scum. No one dare stand up to them or grass on them. That is the biggest change I noticed in the last thirty years or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxie Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Mick Philpot was an absolute tyrant,he used his family as a cash generating business.All the benefits and his wives wages went into his bank account to be spent as he saw fit.I doubt if much was spent on the family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 he was taking £4000 a month in benefits for the kids nevermind the fact the house was paid for and bills by the council. someone at work tried to work it out and that was like being paid £80000 a year no wonder he didnt want his ex misses to take half the kids. It's not just the money the State pays them. they also use services to a far higher level than most people. They are never away from the doctors demandig all sorts of pain killers and tranqulisers to sell on, have their own social workers and council housing workers, take up a lot of police time, make extra demands on the education system. The list goes on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.