The appalling Philpott case has rightly attracted a lot of interest and many comments in the press and elsewhere, those comments serving to point up the widespread public ignorance of the most basic principles of the justice system. Of course there is no reason why the man in the street should understand the niceties of the law, and parts of the press do their best to muddy the water in the interest of creating a good story. The justice system does itself no favours by choosing to ignore the effect of misleading terminology, such as a 'life' sentence that in most cases means nothing of the sort. So the impression has been given to some people that the life sentence with a 15-year minimum tariff handed to Philpott is somehow less than the 17-year determinate sentences on his accomplices.
Firstly, the charge was manslaughter, not murder, as the prosecution could not prove that there was an intention to kill the children. From reports of the trial, that appears to be the right charge. Secondly, the 15 year minimum is just that - a minimum time before he can be considered for parole. Given his previous convictions and his predilection for violent and controlling behaviour the parole board is going to be very cautious indeed before letting him out on licence. He might well serve a good deal more than his minimum term. The other two will be eligible for release after half of their sentences, but they will serve a good deal less than Philpott.
The two thousand and more comments on the Mail's website are predictable, and you can read them if you want a glimpse of what a lynch mob looks like. What is less excusable is the attempt by some politicians who ought to know better that this horrible case has anything to teach us about the welfare state.
In wholehearted agreement. Very well summed up.
ReplyDeleteI note en passant that one of those opportunistic politicians who so castigated those who struggle on benefits did not scruple to have his official car park on a disabled bay at a motorway service station. Will the baying Mail mob call for his blue blood?
ReplyDeletea) it was not his car, it was a police car
Deleteb) it was parked by a police officer, not by Mr Osborne
c) Would you like to comment on Ed Balls seen driving with a mobile phone to his ear?
Sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander.
But this case and the welfare state do go together. Were it not for this case I for one would have had no idea that this man fathered seventeen children, who were being paid for via the taxes that I and others pay as a result of working. What work did he ever do that resulted in him being able to save up for the now infamous pool table? Wasn't one of his motives the £1,000 in child allowance he was going to lose as a result of some of his children not living with him any more?
DeleteSLJP: The police car was part of his official entourage. He was aware it was on a disabled bay. No police car should use such bays without overwhelming operational justification. This is part and parcel of the arrogance of power that afflicts so many in such positions. He should have spoken up, but failed to. That is moral cowardice.
DeleteI'd add, respectfully, to South London JP's points that the Chancellor's Protection Officer probably told the driver to park as close to the building as possible, because he didn't want the body exposed crossing a large area of car park.
DeleteOddly there has been no comment as to whether there were any other disabled spaces vacant.
The vehicle was an unmarked police car on official business and was entitled to park there due to operational requirements. The officers (armed) are there to protect Osborne and need a clear line of sight for a quick getaway. It would be pointless if something happened and they had to go to a multi storey to fetch the car. I have no time for this government but this just seems to be a case of latching onto anything to bash the tories.
DeleteHaving read and learned from this blog since its inception, I was able to read between the lines and realise that Philpott had little chance of release after his 15 years. This is not the case with the masses who just tale the rantings of the news media verbatim. They are just ignorant of the deeper facts and act accordingly.
ReplyDeleteEvery paper gives his motives as just wanting to get back with his mistress, but there is another side. When she left him, the children left with her and so did the benefits he received for them. His real motive was to frame his mistress and so regain custody of these poor children.
One question. Would he be held under rule 46 or treated as a standard prisoner? If the latter, he has a prison full of those who will make his life hell - deservedly.
I think it was more a case of his motivation being to retain *control*, both of his former partner and the children. Control would have included control over the income his partner had, but looking at his history of very possessive, controlling and abusive behavior towards his partners I suspect that the money was a fairly minor part of the whole.
DeletePhilpott is to be held at the top security Wakefield prison, which has a vulnerable prisoners unit which includes child killers and sex offenders.
DeleteAnon 1 Whilst I think it is appropriate to review the evidence presented to the court and if it is clear that there is an issue with people like Philpot warehousing children to harvest benefits then action should be taken to address this issue.
ReplyDeleteAs for anon 2 surely a civilised society treats its prisoners in a humane way. I think it is quite wrong to take any pleasure from the prospect of Philpot being assaulted by any of his fellow prisoners.
As usual, both sides are shouting at each other and nobody is listening. The left are accusing the right of blaming the welfare state for a criminal act that resulted in the deaths of six children. The right are saying that without the welfare state a violent, controlling character like Philpott would not have been able to enjoy his ghastly disfunctional 'lifestyle'.
ReplyDeleteThe Mail is wrong if it seeks to insinuate blame onto the welfare state for the deaths; but the Guardian is wrong not to acknowledge that a tragic case has lifted a stone and shone some light onto a toxic segment of society.
Whether the Philpotts had 17 kids or 7, whether the arson had taken place or not, the situation with a serially violent man living off the benefits of the women in his thrall is not one which should have been allowed to exist. That family was a tragedy before anyone died.
Your blogpost would have been much better if you had avoided the politics of the matter, but you just couldn't resist it..
ReplyDeleteDoes a minimum term such as this qualify for the usual reductions and early release schemes, or does it mean what it says: Philpott cannot be released until he has spent a full fifteen years in prison?
ReplyDeleteShort of the usual over-riding prerogative power - Yes.
DeleteIt means that he will not be eligible for release until he has served a full fifteen years. Whether he gets it after that will depend on the parole board. He could be inside for a lot longer. The other two, who each got seventeen years, will be eligible for release after serving half of those sentences.
DeleteOne of the purposes of "English Justice" is to entertain and to intimidate. This is therefore a typical case.
ReplyDeleteDo not feel that I am trying to single out England in this respect, but those countries with 1% and 99% populations must make use of all possible institutions to maintain that status quo. Inevitably the creation and enforcement of laws must reflect the prime mores of an "unequal" society. Any society dedicated to low taxation and ascendancy of talent would have the same results.
In fact, I am very surprized that arson does not carry a maximum of a life sentence, as I thought it did? The likelihood is always high that a tramp or lawful occupant is present in any building. Discussion of manslaughter would then be unnecessary?
The concept of children being worth keeping for the state bounty must strike all well heeled readers with concern. It is not much and is likely to be reduced. The bounty effect will not be reduced as the guardians will continue to need their drugs.
Could it be that the welfare of the children will be forgotten despite the fact that it was at the centre of this case? Congrats to the Derbys police! Targetting these people might be worthwhile, so as to safeguard a future generation of children?
....but there IS a funamental flaw in 'our' welfare system that actually encourages a section of society to believe that they have the 'right' to bring children into this world in the full expectation that the state will provide (ponies for their daughters)
ReplyDeleteThere are certainly such people exploiting the system, but their number (and the total amount paid to them) is infinitely small. It is nonsense to skew the welfare system on the basis on such a vanishingly small and unrepresentative minority of claimants. Politicians and jounalists who suggest otherwise can justifiably be accused of "straining at a gnat". If (like Osborne) they are in a position to know the truth, then it is downright cynical and dishonest.
DeleteMy only concern here is the faith in the parole board. They do not have the best record in cases like this, where the individual has a track record of manipulation - of friends, family and the authorities generally. No doubt he will be the model prisoner, reformed by the time parole is considered, as if by magic. Somehow after his release we may see the recurrence of some of his more recent traits. Just a hunch, not an assertion.
ReplyDeleteWell said,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comment about the mob rule comments on the Mail's website. There is a similar thread being passed around facebook with thousands of comments such as 'bring back the death penalty 'let them burn in a fire' etc etc and it was all I could no not to add my own two pence worth that whilst I in no way condone what they have done, insisting on, what would amount to cruel punishments, are not acceptable in a civilised society.
I think BS points out some valid issues but I'm not sure I would agree with everything said.
ReplyDeleteYes, manslaughter was definitely the right charge - there is no doubt in my mind that he ever wished to cause death or serious injury to anyone. He was living in his own fantasy world where he thought he could recoup the benefits he had lost when his girlfriend(sic) let him and it all went horribly wrong.
However, he clearly was /is a nasty piece of work and his previous convictions and the fact that 6 people died is a terrible thing, I'm not sure that 15 years was enough to mark this. In my view 30 would have been a reasonable start.
Turning to oppotunistic politicians. Whilst the views might have been better phrased there is a point in there. I do not think GO was trying to get at the unfortunate, but rather the calculating and uncaring who seem to think that they can reproduce indiscriminately when it is patently obvious they will never be able to afford to bring up their kids properly.
The state should be there as a safety net , not the first point of call and as one sees daily there is a fair number of the precariat who do just this- whilst a small minority it is a problem and too many governments have just swept it under the carpet.
I have never begruged my taxes as I am happy to help others who are less fortunate than me but what pisses me off is politicians usuing my money to bribe the electorate to vote for them.
I don't think pensioners who are paying higher rate tax should get heating allowance
I don't think people should get child benefit for more than 2 kids
I don't think we should be the first port of call for any forigner who fancies a bit of benefit, notr do I feel we should be providing feee medical services for anyone who flies in.
Nor do I think anyone getting up to it would seem £150k should get help with nursey places- if you want to have kids pay for them yourself and get ri.d of the second car or foreign holiday.
So to summarise I think Osborne hits the nail right on the head.
Its not even that he had no intention to kill : you are also guilty of murder if you intend to cause really serious harm
ReplyDeleteSo by the charge the crown accept that he did not intend to cause the children really serious harm.
Which makes all these comments about evil etc a bit much. Reckless, manipulative, abusive maybe but if he didnt intend to physically hurt anyone then evil is the wrong sobriquet.
Sorry Bystander and team but think you set up a straw man here - the Judge's sentencing remarks were perfectly clear and even glancing at the mass of comments in all the press-no matter their political views - most people are more concerned with the sheer horror of this case than the niceties of English sentencing law. On the other hand for those of us who have worked with "difficult" families George Osborne's comments seemed perfectly in order. Of course the case throws up questions about the welfare state as did much of what Inspector Gadget used to report. Again I did not necessarily accept his views but recognised the pen picture he drew.
ReplyDeleteThe judge's remarks are here reported in full:-
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/04/mick-philpott-jailed-judge-remarks
Tiptop
ReplyDeleteHe wasn't sentenced to 15 years, he was sentenced to life. The judge is required to set a minimum term before he can be considered for parole. In doing that she has to take into account the sentence he would have got if he had not got life. In this case she said it would have been 30 years, therefore, on the basis that is enshrined in our criminal law that you become eligible for parole after half the sentence, he becomes eligible for parole after half that sentence - 15 years. The other 2 got 17 years and equally become eligible for parole after half - 8.5 years.
As he got life, if he gets released, he can be recalled to prison at any time if the authorities have concerns about his behaviour. NOT, please note, if he commits another offence, just if there are concerns. If that happens there is no trial, no consideration of whether those concerns are justified, he is just returned to prison and stays there until the parole board lets him out again. This applies for the rest of his life. The others have the same jeopardy, but only for the remaining 8.5 years.