If you take away the evil deeds that this ba****rd has done setting the house alight, what makes me sick and fizz is the fact that WE have funded his lifestyle, paid for him to sit on his arse all day for years watching telly and paid for his booze, getting up every day to go to work, to pay taxes, so the stupid government can give it to stupid evil idiots like Philpott who has contributed jack to the country.
If you take away the evil deeds that this ba****rd has done setting the house alight, what makes me sick and fizz is the fact that WE have funded his lifestyle, paid for him to sit on his arse all day for years watching telly and paid for his booze, getting up every day to go to work, to pay taxes, so the stupid government can give it to stupid evil idiots like Philpott who has contributed jack to the country.
The government has identified 120,000 problem families for intervention but they clearly hadn't got round to dealing with the Philpott parents.
note that Wakefield Prison on Wiki has been updated to include Philpott:D
There are some terrible samples in there.
I can remember being out one night in Selby with my girlfriend and some friends in the summer of 2004 and wondering why the place was swarming with police, they were looking for Mark Hobson
15 years minimum, what an effing joke, you know for a fact he'll get out at his first attempt at parole with the way are justice system is, should have had a public hanging for all 3 of the bastards.
15 years minimum, what an effing joke, you know for a fact he'll get out at his first attempt at parole with the way are justice system is, should have had a public hanging for all 3 of the bastards.
I don't think he will, as I said earlier whoever is Home Secretary in 15 years time wont want the wrath, should he be considered for release so there will be ways of keeping him inside. Remember he will have to be a goody goody from now on. To stand a chance of parole, he won't be his heads too big. Also he's due to stand trial for some other offences they will add to his time should he be found guilty.
15 years minimum, what an effing joke, you know for a fact he'll get out at his first attempt at parole with the way are justice system is, should have had a public hanging for all 3 of the bastards.
I have always been against the death penalty, but i am begining to think there might be times that it fits the crime
I don't think he will, as I said earlier whoever is Home Secretary in 15 years time wont want the wrath, should he be considered for release so there will be ways of keeping him inside. Remember he will have to be a goody goody from now on. To stand a chance of parole, he won't be his heads too big. Also he's due to stand trial for some other offences they will add to his time should he be found guilty.
pardon me but isnt that for a parole board and not the home secretary to decide who gets released?
As far as I'm aware the judge handed out pretty much the toughest sentences available without flagrantly breaking sentencing guidelines. Life sentences are available for manslaughter, but are very rarely given, and 17 years is also a very much longer sentence than normal.
I have to admit that I find it strange that there isn't more focus on the crime Philpott actually meant to commit. He never meant to kill his children, but he meant to frame an innocent woman for trying to kill them. That actually seems the most reprehensible thing of all because it was intentional.
I must admit I do feel some pity for Mairead. I don't think she was coerced, exactly, but I think she was (because of her history) a person who was easily dominated by a bully like Mick Philpott, and that she would never have attempted something like this without him. And I think she's in for a living hell inside, maybe worse even than Mick will get.
people didnt think traci andrews would be released after the 14 year minimum term and she was. she didnt have to admit her guilt either for stabbing that guy 30+ times for her to be released by the parole board. prisons are overcrowded etc and he'll be released after only serving 15 years, the bare minimum.
I did think she'd be released. By all accounts she'd been a model prisoner. Remember, the parole board aren't conerning themselves with punishment; the judge does that when he sets the minimum tarriff. Their concern is public safety. If they are convinced the prisoner is unlikely to re-offend, they shoud grant parole regardless of how they feel about the original crime.
As far as I'm aware the judge handed out pretty much the toughest sentences available without flagrantly breaking sentencing guidelines. Life sentences are available for manslaughter, but are very rarely given, and 17 years is also a very much longer sentence than normal.
I must admit I do feel some pity for Mairead. I don't think she was coerced, exactly, but I think she was (because of her history) a person who was easily dominated by a bully like Mick Philpott, and that she would never have attempted something like this without him. And I think she's in for a living hell inside, maybe worse even than Mick will get.
Having heard about her actions and behavior after the fire I don't have any sympathy for her - she is equally vile and disgusting and I'm glad her family have seemingly disowned her because of her individual reaction to the deaths.
I still don't quite understand what the 17 year sentence truly means. Reports are quoting she and Mosley will 'serve half' so is this when they can at the earliest apply for parole or will they definitely be let out pending good behavior? 8 years is nothing but I do think doing the full 17 years would be 'fair' because one would hope that it would suddenly all dawn on her as to what she has done despite me describing her as vile and disgusting.
Having heard about her actions and behavior after the fire I don't have any sympathy for her - she is equally vile and disgusting and I'm glad her family have seemingly disowned her because of her individual reaction to the deaths.
I still don't quite understand what the 17 year sentence truly means. Reports are quoting she and Mosley will 'serve half' so is this when they can at the earliest apply for parole or will they definitely be let out pending good behavior? 8 years is nothing but I do think doing the full 17 years would be 'fair' because one would hope that it would suddenly all dawn on her as to what she has done despite me describing her as vile and disgusting.
As far as I understand (and there's been changes, and I know the Scottish system better, so I could be wrong) they'll be eligible to apply for parole after eight and a half years, but won't then be guaranteed it. They would be paroled automatically after two thirds of their sentence (between 11 and 12 years) if they hadn't been successful earlier.
As far as I understand (and there's been changes, and I know the Scottish system better, so I could be wrong) they'll be eligible to apply for parole after eight and a half years, but won't then be guaranteed it. They would be paroled automatically after two thirds of their sentence (between 11 and 12 years) if they hadn't been successful earlier.
Thanks for the explanation and you answered another thought I had as to how many times they can apply for parole.
I assume prisoners have access to newspapers and are allowed to to watch the news on TV so in these highly coveraged cases the three of them would be instantly recognizable when they arrived earlier today and thus hands would be starting to rub?
Comments
I suspect that both Philpott and Mosley will be ending up in a place like this for their sins ---> http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hm+prison+frankland&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=-_ldUcT_Eqag0QXB2IGwBg&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=600
The government has identified 120,000 problem families for intervention but they clearly hadn't got round to dealing with the Philpott parents.
As for their new lifestyle, I think the Prison Service are phasing out Sky TV and perks like that so they shouldn't get all that much inside. All three of them deserve 1944 prison conditions as this photo illustrates here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wakefield_Training_Prison_and_Camp-_Everyday_Life_in_a_British_Prison,_Wakefield,_Yorkshire,_England,_1944_D19198.jpg
Wouldn't argue with that! Was worried about seeing the scissors till I realised that the pic included items for sewing mail bags
edit...note that Wakefield Prison on Wiki has been updated to include Philpott:D
His sister, the whole family's as rough as a badgers bum
There are some terrible samples in there.
I can remember being out one night in Selby with my girlfriend and some friends in the summer of 2004 and wondering why the place was swarming with police, they were looking for Mark Hobson
He can get used to being addressed by his Surname only
'philpott... social time over, get back in your cage'
he won't get social time, even the other lags will want to snuff his lights out
I don't think he will, as I said earlier whoever is Home Secretary in 15 years time wont want the wrath, should he be considered for release so there will be ways of keeping him inside. Remember he will have to be a goody goody from now on. To stand a chance of parole, he won't be his heads too big. Also he's due to stand trial for some other offences they will add to his time should he be found guilty.
I have always been against the death penalty, but i am begining to think there might be times that it fits the crime
pardon me but isnt that for a parole board and not the home secretary to decide who gets released?
I have to admit that I find it strange that there isn't more focus on the crime Philpott actually meant to commit. He never meant to kill his children, but he meant to frame an innocent woman for trying to kill them. That actually seems the most reprehensible thing of all because it was intentional.
I must admit I do feel some pity for Mairead. I don't think she was coerced, exactly, but I think she was (because of her history) a person who was easily dominated by a bully like Mick Philpott, and that she would never have attempted something like this without him. And I think she's in for a living hell inside, maybe worse even than Mick will get.
I did think she'd be released. By all accounts she'd been a model prisoner. Remember, the parole board aren't conerning themselves with punishment; the judge does that when he sets the minimum tarriff. Their concern is public safety. If they are convinced the prisoner is unlikely to re-offend, they shoud grant parole regardless of how they feel about the original crime.
Having heard about her actions and behavior after the fire I don't have any sympathy for her - she is equally vile and disgusting and I'm glad her family have seemingly disowned her because of her individual reaction to the deaths.
I still don't quite understand what the 17 year sentence truly means. Reports are quoting she and Mosley will 'serve half' so is this when they can at the earliest apply for parole or will they definitely be let out pending good behavior? 8 years is nothing but I do think doing the full 17 years would be 'fair' because one would hope that it would suddenly all dawn on her as to what she has done despite me describing her as vile and disgusting.
As far as I understand (and there's been changes, and I know the Scottish system better, so I could be wrong) they'll be eligible to apply for parole after eight and a half years, but won't then be guaranteed it. They would be paroled automatically after two thirds of their sentence (between 11 and 12 years) if they hadn't been successful earlier.
Thanks for the explanation and you answered another thought I had as to how many times they can apply for parole.
I assume prisoners have access to newspapers and are allowed to to watch the news on TV so in these highly coveraged cases the three of them would be instantly recognizable when they arrived earlier today and thus hands would be starting to rub?