There is no evidence of the former. There is, however, evidence of Philpott's history of problems with women leaving him.
That is what lead to his last prison sentence.
In this case, Lisa Willis had left & taken her children with him to a refuge.
On the morning after the fire, Philpott had been due to face Lisa Willis in court over access to his four children with her.
The police reckoned the fire was an attempt to frame her.
It was a rhetorical question Si. There is no evidence of the former.
The prosecution made that assertion during the trial.
Look at it this way; whenever a person gets shot and killed, does the trial judge comment that guns should be banned?
If not, does that mean that all the people who seek to ban guns are talking out of their arses or does it just mean, y'know, that the judge chose not to address that issue?
Either that or the judge just didn't see any need to make reference to something so contentious.
But it would be the MOTIVE, right? Contentious or not, I'd think the judge might mention that. That's what you were implying earlier in this thread when I brought up the fact that the judge hadn't mentioned benefits except in the context of control, wasn't it?
I mean, if that really WAS the case, then the judge not mentioning it hasn't really worked, has it? And she's not exactly stupid. Given that all that stuff was being reported anyway, because it was part of the prosecution, and given that people will give credence to what the tabloids say anyway... do you really think the judge would effectively perjure HERSELF by giving us a different motive for reasons of diplomacy, when that alleged diplomacy was doomed to failure in terms of avoiding contentious issues? What would be the point?
The prosecution made that assertion during the trial.
Look at it this way; whenever a person gets shot and killed, does the trial judge comment that guns should be banned?
If not, does that mean that all the people who seek to ban guns are talking out of their arses or does it just mean, y'know, that the judge chose not to address that issue?
Actually the prosecution argued that the fire was started in a bid to "frame" Mr Philpott's former lover Lisa Willis, 29, but it had gone "tragically and disastrously wrong".
It was reported after the trial that Mr Philpott had sought to bully volunteers and control a £15,000 funeral fund raised by the local community in Allenton, Derby, in the aftermath of the tragedy demanding money left over from the ceremony be paid out to him in Argos vouchers. Locals said he treated the fund as an opportunity to "get rich quick".
But it would be the MOTIVE, right? Contentious or not, I'd think the judge might mention that. That's what you were implying earlier in this thread when I brought up the fact that the judge hadn't mentioned benefits except in the context of control, wasn't it?
I mean, if that really WAS the case, then the judge not mentioning it hasn't really worked, has it? And she's not exactly stupid. Given that all that stuff was being reported anyway, because it was part of the prosecution, and given that people will give credence to what the tabloids say anyway... do you really think the judge would effectively perjure HERSELF by giving us a different motive for reasons of diplomacy, when that alleged diplomacy was doomed to failure in terms of avoiding contentious issues? What would be the point?
The judge doesn't have to give a different reason or perjure herself. She simply has to avoid speculating about anything not directly concerned with the case.
She comments that Philpott wanted Willis and her children back in his life and that IS acknowledgement of motive and she doesn't need to go on to speculate about why he might have wanted them back.
I think in his twisted mind he had many reasons for the fire and one of those was to blame his mistress and get custody of the children - to him children = more benefits. I don't think it was the main reason, possibly he just wanted to be the hero and gain attention, but I do think benefits were a part of it no matter how distasteful that sounds.
However I am applying that to him and him alone. I don't think people on benefits are more likely to do these things than wealthy people.
I suspect that the result will be further skewed to some extent by illogically placing "No" before "Yes" in the poll (some will therefore click the wrong box).
The judge doesn't have to give a different reason or perjure herself. She simply has to avoid speculating about anything not directly concerned with the case.
She comments that Philpott wanted Willis and her children back in his life and that IS acknowledgement of motive and she doesn't need to go on to speculate about why he might have wanted them back.
Judges have a legal duty to comment on the evidence presented before them. Diplomacy is irrelevant, as evidenced by the 100s of undiplomatic comments made by judges over the years.
If no evidence is presented that this crime was to do with benefits, then the judge won't comment on it.
That analogy makes no sense... what's the "gun" in this scenario? What is the judge pointedly not calling to "ban"?
Of course it makes sense.
A judge might be critical of the availability of guns for their part in a murder case in exactly the same way that a judge might be critical of the benefit system for enticing a person to commit a crime as a means of procuring money.
The judge doesn't have to give a different reason or perjure herself. She simply has to avoid speculating about anything not directly concerned with the case.
She comments that Philpott wanted Willis and her children back in his life and that IS acknowledgement of motive and she doesn't need to go on to speculate about why he might have wanted them back.
So why did you bother asking me if she'd mentioned motive earlier on then, when I was saying about how she hadn't mentioned benefits? What was the point of that little conversational cul-de-sac?
OK, so what evidence is there for the motive that she didn't mention, which seems so obvious? More to the point, WHY does it seem "obvious"? I think that's the key question here.
Judges have a legal duty to comment on the evidence presented before them. Diplomacy is irrelevant, as evidenced by the 100s of undiplomatic comments made by judges over the years.
If no evidence is presented that this crime was to do with benefits, then the judge won't comment on it.
I already said, the judge commented on him wanting the woman and kids back.
That IS commenting on motive.
Why he wanted them back is still open to speculation.
So why did you bother asking me if she'd mentioned motive earlier on then, when I was saying about how she hadn't mentioned benefits? What was the point of that little conversational cul-de-sac?
OK, so what evidence is there for the motive that she didn't mention, which seems so obvious? More to the point, WHY does it seem "obvious"? I think that's the key question here.
Why do I think that a guy who was living off the money provided by his wife and kids might want more money from another woman and her kids?
A judge might be critical of the availability of guns for their part in a murder case in exactly the same way that a judge might be critical of the benefit system for enticing a person to commit a crime as a means of procuring money.
No, it makes no sense.
How can a benefits system 'entice' someone to crime: it's providing money!
Thus the relation between guns to crime is no parallel to a relation between benefits & crime, for which there was no evidence.
Quite apart from the fact that a gun is a physical object forensically tested for a court case.
A judge might be critical of the availability of guns for their part in a murder case in exactly the same way that a judge might be critical of the benefit system for enticing a person to commit a crime as a means of procuring money.
Nope. Someone using a gun to kill someone irrefutably involves guns. A gun DEFINITELY played a part in that case. There's no doubt about it. It was the murder weapon.
That's not quite the same here, is it? The idea that the benefit system contributed is arguable- you can't take it for granted, hence this whole argument. That's not the same thing at all. Your analogy only has any relevance if we are to agree that your initial assertion- ie that the benefit system was a contributory factor- is a given. Which we don't.
Nobody's talking about whether the judge expressed a wider moral opinion on the case (ie calling for a ban on guns, in your scenario)- just what she thought the motive WAS. And given that even in your example, a gun is the means rather than the end (which is a pretty important distinction), it doesn't really stack up.
Why do I think that a guy who was living off the money provided by his wife and kids might want more money from another woman and her kids?
Hmmm, that's a tough one...
Why do I think that a guy who was obsessed with his power over women and with the idea of getting revenge on his ex-wife might want to get revenge on his ex-wife?
Hmmm, that's also a tough one...
Of course, a hypothetical "why do I think" is not a particularly good basis for an answer to a question beginning "what evidence is there...". It's more like the answer to a "why do you think..." question.
Why DID you ask me whether she'd mentioned motive, if whether the judge mentions the motive or not is so irrelevant, by the way?
I already said, the judge commented on him wanting the woman and kids back.
That IS commenting on motive.
Why he wanted them back is still open to speculation.
You're confusing motive & evidence. I didn't say that the judge wouldn't comment on motive, but that she would not comment on evidence not presented at the trial.
Thus the judge commented that Philpott had a history of violence, abuse and controlling women, whom he treated as "chattels".
Nope. Someone using a gun to kill someone irrefutably involves guns. A gun DEFINITELY played a part in that case. There's no doubt about it. It was the murder weapon.
That's not quite the same here, is it? The idea that the benefit system contributed is arguable- you can't take it for granted, hence this whole argument. That's not the same thing at all. Your analogy only has any relevance if we are to agree that your initial assertion- ie that the benefit system was a contributory factor- is a given. Which we don't.
You seem to be missing the point.
If a person gets murdered with a gun it's likely that a judge will comment on what the defendant intended to do and why.
The judge is unlikely to comment on whether or not something like the legal availability of guns was a factor.
The point is that, regardless of no such comments from a judge, people will still form an opinion of whether the legality of guns is a good thing or not and, in such a case, trying to suggest otherwise simply on the basis that the judge didn't mention it wouldn't deter people from their opinions.
You're confusing motive & evidence. I didn't say that the judge wouldn't comment on motive, but that she would not comment on evidence not presented at the trial.
Thus the judge commented that Philpott had a history of violence, abuse and controlling women, whom he treated as "chattels".
Evidence doesn't really form any part of this discussion.
You're saying that Philpott treated his women and kids as "chattels".
Do you think he liked having them around as decoration?
Perhaps he liked having somebody to do his cooking and fetch his newspaper?
Perhaps the addiional money they brought into the household was also a reason?
If a person gets murdered with a gun it's likely that a judge will comment on what the defendant intended to do and why.
The judge is unlikely to comment on whether or not something like the legal availability of guns was a factor.
The point is that, regardless of no such comments from a judge, people will still form an opinion of whether the legality of guns is a good thing or not and, in such a case, trying to suggest otherwise simply on the basis that the judge didn't mention it wouldn't deter people from their opinions.
Same thing here.
Hang on, do you think I've been saying that nobody THINKS benefits were a factor? Of course some people do. I'm saying that I don't think there's any evidence for that. The fact that people "will still form an opinion" on it isn't something I've ever denied, is it?
I'm just wondering why, apart from already assuming it to be the case, we should assume the judge just didn't mention it due to diplomacy rather than due to irrelevance.
Otherwise what was the point in asking me whether the judge mentioned motive?
I can't see how anybody can genuinely say that they don't believe the thought of extra benefits and/or a new house didn't motivate Philpott.
what are you basing that on?
I mean, I'm obviously cool with people not agreeing with me; that's the whole point of discussion, after all. But not actually believing that people can even hold different opinions is just weird.
Hang on, do you think I've been saying that nobody THINKS benefits were a factor? Of course some people do. I'm saying that I don't think there's any evidence for that. The fact that people "will still form an opinion" on it isn't something I've ever denied, is it?
I'm just wondering why, apart from already assuming it to be the case, we should assume the judge just didn't mention it due to diplomacy rather than due to irrelevance.
Otherwise what was the point in asking me whether the judge mentioned motive?
I'm saying that it'd be pretty daft to argue against benefits being a factor if you think they actually were.
It'd also be a bit silly to vote "no" if you thought they were, simply because the judge didn't mention it.
I'm saying that it's likely that the judge didn't mention benefits because it wasn't neccesary to speculate on why he had the motives she did comment on.
The point of asking you about motive was that I hadn't read the judges comments at the time.
I mean, I'm obviously cool with people not agreeing with me; that's the whole point of discussion, after all. But not actually believing that people can even hold different opinions is just weird.
Do you think the people who manufacture "I can't believe it's not butter" actually refuse to accept that the contents of the tub isn't butter?
I'm saying that it'd be pretty daft to argue against benefits being a factor if you think they actually were.
It'd also be a bit silly to vote "no" if you thought they were, simply because the judge didn't mention it.
Thing is, quite a lot of us didn't think they were.
(Although, to be fair, I didn't vote either way because I can't stand polls).
I'm saying that it's likely that the judge didn't mention benefits because it wasn't neccesary to speculate on why he had the motives she did comment on.
The motives she did comment on seemed to me to be enough... maybe not to you, but are we now speculating about motives for having motives?
Do you think the people who manufacture "I can't believe it's not butter" actually refuse to accept that the contents of the tub isn't butter?
No, because I'm not dumb enough to take advertisers at face value, and don't really class being told stuff on a box as "discussion". I kind of valued you a bit higher than that, however.
Evidence doesn't really form any part of this discussion.
You're saying that Philpott treated his women and kids as "chattels".
Do you think he liked having them around as decoration?
Perhaps he liked having somebody to do his cooking and fetch his newspaper?
Perhaps the addiional money they brought into the household was also a reason?
Of course evidence is part of the discussion: this was a court case!
It was the judge commented that Philpott treated his women like "chattels".
The additional money brought in by Lisa's cleaning job may have been a factor given that he filched all of it; but child benefit is only £13.40 per week per child, so they would cost more in outgoings than they would bring in.
Either way he was previously convicted of trying to murder a woman for leaving him & attacking her mother. According to the victim he was violent to her throughout their relationship. At that point he was in the army & the girl was 17, so the issue then does not seem to have been about money.
Thing is, quite a lot of us didn't think they were.
(Although, to be fair, I didn't vote either way because I can't stand polls).
The motives she did comment on seemed to me to be enough... maybe not to you, but are we now speculating about motives for having motives?
Well, it does all start to get a bit "motives for motives", doesn't it?
The fact remains, however, that if we accept that he wanted them back it must have been for some reason, right?
It seems likely, to me, that part of that reason was for the income they provided.
Fair enough. You could have just said it didn't matter, though, and saved me the effort.
How would I know it didn't matter until I asked?
Of course, I haven't said it doesn't matter. All I've said is that the judge seems to have managed to comment on the motives without expanding on the subject very much.
No, because I'm not dumb enough to take advertisers at face value, and don't really class being told stuff on a box as "discussion". I kind of valued you a bit higher than that, however.
I'm sorry that you should have to find out that I sometimes employ hyperbole.
I'm saying that it'd be pretty daft to argue against benefits being a factor if you think they actually were.
It'd also be a bit silly to vote "no" if you thought they were, simply because the judge didn't mention it.
I'm saying that it's likely that the judge didn't mention benefits because it wasn't neccesary to speculate on why he had the motives she did comment on.
The point of asking you about motive was that I hadn't read the judges comments at the time.
As she did speculate on the motives she did comment on, it's more likely that if she thought benefits a factor she would have mentioned it...
Comments
It was a rhetorical question Si.
There is no evidence of the former. There is, however, evidence of Philpott's history of problems with women leaving him.
That is what lead to his last prison sentence.
In this case, Lisa Willis had left & taken her children with him to a refuge.
On the morning after the fire, Philpott had been due to face Lisa Willis in court over access to his four children with her.
The police reckoned the fire was an attempt to frame her.
The prosecution made that assertion during the trial.
Look at it this way; whenever a person gets shot and killed, does the trial judge comment that guns should be banned?
If not, does that mean that all the people who seek to ban guns are talking out of their arses or does it just mean, y'know, that the judge chose not to address that issue?
But it would be the MOTIVE, right? Contentious or not, I'd think the judge might mention that. That's what you were implying earlier in this thread when I brought up the fact that the judge hadn't mentioned benefits except in the context of control, wasn't it?
I mean, if that really WAS the case, then the judge not mentioning it hasn't really worked, has it? And she's not exactly stupid. Given that all that stuff was being reported anyway, because it was part of the prosecution, and given that people will give credence to what the tabloids say anyway... do you really think the judge would effectively perjure HERSELF by giving us a different motive for reasons of diplomacy, when that alleged diplomacy was doomed to failure in terms of avoiding contentious issues? What would be the point?
That analogy makes no sense... what's the "gun" in this scenario? What is the judge pointedly not calling to "ban"?
Actually the prosecution argued that the fire was started in a bid to "frame" Mr Philpott's former lover Lisa Willis, 29, but it had gone "tragically and disastrously wrong".
It was reported after the trial that Mr Philpott had sought to bully volunteers and control a £15,000 funeral fund raised by the local community in Allenton, Derby, in the aftermath of the tragedy demanding money left over from the ceremony be paid out to him in Argos vouchers. Locals said he treated the fund as an opportunity to "get rich quick".
The judge doesn't have to give a different reason or perjure herself. She simply has to avoid speculating about anything not directly concerned with the case.
She comments that Philpott wanted Willis and her children back in his life and that IS acknowledgement of motive and she doesn't need to go on to speculate about why he might have wanted them back.
However I am applying that to him and him alone. I don't think people on benefits are more likely to do these things than wealthy people.
However, the answer is "no".
I suspect that the result will be further skewed to some extent by illogically placing "No" before "Yes" in the poll (some will therefore click the wrong box).
Judges have a legal duty to comment on the evidence presented before them. Diplomacy is irrelevant, as evidenced by the 100s of undiplomatic comments made by judges over the years.
If no evidence is presented that this crime was to do with benefits, then the judge won't comment on it.
Of course it makes sense.
A judge might be critical of the availability of guns for their part in a murder case in exactly the same way that a judge might be critical of the benefit system for enticing a person to commit a crime as a means of procuring money.
So why did you bother asking me if she'd mentioned motive earlier on then, when I was saying about how she hadn't mentioned benefits? What was the point of that little conversational cul-de-sac?
OK, so what evidence is there for the motive that she didn't mention, which seems so obvious? More to the point, WHY does it seem "obvious"? I think that's the key question here.
I already said, the judge commented on him wanting the woman and kids back.
That IS commenting on motive.
Why he wanted them back is still open to speculation.
Why do I think that a guy who was living off the money provided by his wife and kids might want more money from another woman and her kids?
Hmmm, that's a tough one...
No, it makes no sense.
How can a benefits system 'entice' someone to crime: it's providing money!
Thus the relation between guns to crime is no parallel to a relation between benefits & crime, for which there was no evidence.
Quite apart from the fact that a gun is a physical object forensically tested for a court case.
Nope. Someone using a gun to kill someone irrefutably involves guns. A gun DEFINITELY played a part in that case. There's no doubt about it. It was the murder weapon.
That's not quite the same here, is it? The idea that the benefit system contributed is arguable- you can't take it for granted, hence this whole argument. That's not the same thing at all. Your analogy only has any relevance if we are to agree that your initial assertion- ie that the benefit system was a contributory factor- is a given. Which we don't.
Nobody's talking about whether the judge expressed a wider moral opinion on the case (ie calling for a ban on guns, in your scenario)- just what she thought the motive WAS. And given that even in your example, a gun is the means rather than the end (which is a pretty important distinction), it doesn't really stack up.
Why do I think that a guy who was obsessed with his power over women and with the idea of getting revenge on his ex-wife might want to get revenge on his ex-wife?
Hmmm, that's also a tough one...
Of course, a hypothetical "why do I think" is not a particularly good basis for an answer to a question beginning "what evidence is there...". It's more like the answer to a "why do you think..." question.
Why DID you ask me whether she'd mentioned motive, if whether the judge mentions the motive or not is so irrelevant, by the way?
You're confusing motive & evidence. I didn't say that the judge wouldn't comment on motive, but that she would not comment on evidence not presented at the trial.
Thus the judge commented that Philpott had a history of violence, abuse and controlling women, whom he treated as "chattels".
You seem to be missing the point.
If a person gets murdered with a gun it's likely that a judge will comment on what the defendant intended to do and why.
The judge is unlikely to comment on whether or not something like the legal availability of guns was a factor.
The point is that, regardless of no such comments from a judge, people will still form an opinion of whether the legality of guns is a good thing or not and, in such a case, trying to suggest otherwise simply on the basis that the judge didn't mention it wouldn't deter people from their opinions.
Same thing here.
Evidence doesn't really form any part of this discussion.
You're saying that Philpott treated his women and kids as "chattels".
Do you think he liked having them around as decoration?
Perhaps he liked having somebody to do his cooking and fetch his newspaper?
Perhaps the addiional money they brought into the household was also a reason?
Hang on, do you think I've been saying that nobody THINKS benefits were a factor? Of course some people do. I'm saying that I don't think there's any evidence for that. The fact that people "will still form an opinion" on it isn't something I've ever denied, is it?
I'm just wondering why, apart from already assuming it to be the case, we should assume the judge just didn't mention it due to diplomacy rather than due to irrelevance.
Otherwise what was the point in asking me whether the judge mentioned motive?
When you say
what are you basing that on?
I mean, I'm obviously cool with people not agreeing with me; that's the whole point of discussion, after all. But not actually believing that people can even hold different opinions is just weird.
I'm saying that it'd be pretty daft to argue against benefits being a factor if you think they actually were.
It'd also be a bit silly to vote "no" if you thought they were, simply because the judge didn't mention it.
I'm saying that it's likely that the judge didn't mention benefits because it wasn't neccesary to speculate on why he had the motives she did comment on.
The point of asking you about motive was that I hadn't read the judges comments at the time.
Do you think the people who manufacture "I can't believe it's not butter" actually refuse to accept that the contents of the tub isn't butter?
Thing is, quite a lot of us didn't think they were.
(Although, to be fair, I didn't vote either way because I can't stand polls).
The motives she did comment on seemed to me to be enough... maybe not to you, but are we now speculating about motives for having motives?
Fair enough. You could have just said it didn't matter, though, and saved me the effort.
No, because I'm not dumb enough to take advertisers at face value, and don't really class being told stuff on a box as "discussion". I kind of valued you a bit higher than that, however.
Of course evidence is part of the discussion: this was a court case!
It was the judge commented that Philpott treated his women like "chattels".
The additional money brought in by Lisa's cleaning job may have been a factor given that he filched all of it; but child benefit is only £13.40 per week per child, so they would cost more in outgoings than they would bring in.
Either way he was previously convicted of trying to murder a woman for leaving him & attacking her mother. According to the victim he was violent to her throughout their relationship. At that point he was in the army & the girl was 17, so the issue then does not seem to have been about money.
Well, it does all start to get a bit "motives for motives", doesn't it?
The fact remains, however, that if we accept that he wanted them back it must have been for some reason, right?
It seems likely, to me, that part of that reason was for the income they provided.
How would I know it didn't matter until I asked?
Of course, I haven't said it doesn't matter. All I've said is that the judge seems to have managed to comment on the motives without expanding on the subject very much.
I'm sorry that you should have to find out that I sometimes employ hyperbole.
As she did speculate on the motives she did comment on, it's more likely that if she thought benefits a factor she would have mentioned it...