I am not posting this to say Phil should have Lexi or there are not other factors like Ben but to make a factual point.

Phil has not been convicted of anything in decades. He has been arrested sure but in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. So why do people keep bringing up his record? When was the last time you remember Phil Mitchell being convicted of something serious?
The last time I can remember was back in 2004 when he was set up by Den. That conviction however was overturned on appeal.

Billy and Lola have recent convictions. Lola has had a string of fresh convictions.

Obviously Lexi should be with Lola but let us not pretend that its Phil with the huge record here when in reality it has been a very long time since he has done anything. In his backstory when he joined he had only like Lola done petty crimes.

What was Billy convicted for recently my mind's gone blank?

Phil was never convicted of armed robbery, it was the trial he got off at not an appeal.

That whole plot was silly as we know he was caught on the premises with a gun and money, not to mention going on the run and beating up several police officers when caught.

A criminal record is not just about convictions though as everything is logged and there are all sorts of reasons why the police may not have been able to convict someone of an offence - that doesn't make them innocent of it. And even if it wouldn't stop him getting Lexi, other factors would. I would say Phil's unstable home life and the fact his son who also happens to be the baby's father is inside for murder would be bigger factors than his criminal history.

This plot should not even be happening as the social would not have removed Lexi in the first place. EE made that social worker look like a villain, Mad May territory, the sooner this plot is over with the better it reeks of the previous producer.

I remember Phil being in court over something in the mid 90s during his marriage to Kathy, I cant remember what he'd been charged with though i think it was something minor. Other than that he hasnt been convicted of anything, he's been arrested many times but is never charged. On the couple of occasions he has been charged (Stella's murder this year and the armed robbery in 2005) both cases against him collapsed and all charges dropped.

Was Billy not done for benefit fraud a couple of years back? We are talking pre Lola but it is still much more fresh then anything Phil has been convicted of it was certainly post 2004. You are right about that 2004 thing he was never even convicted then but wow that plot was just as unrealistic as the social workers the way he got off lazy.

You by law are allowed to access social worker reports about yourself (not sure why there was a issue with Lola seeing hers) if they are judging him on something he has not been convicted of but purely arrested then he can sue. Innocent until proven guilty is more than just a slogan. What is scary is even now a man can work with children if he has been arrested many times for sex offenses but if he has not been convicted there is nothing you can do. You usually find another angle but you can not cite that as the reason. So unless your suggesting the social workers lie then again it can not be held against him other factors could however...

But the realism thing has been done to death. I was merely pointing out a factual comment in response to Phil being in trouble compared to them simply not true.

That is the point I am making we are talking decades and minor charges. You can not legally judge someone on something they have not been convicted of. And Phil compared to Lola has a much cleaner sheet.

I think people sometimes forget that people inside the show don't have the same insight into characters that we, as viewers, have gained over the years.

It's all well and good saying Phil should never be given custody of a child and that it's 'ridiculous' to suggest that Social Services would ever entrust him with a child to care for; but they haven't got the benefit of 20+ years of watching Phil's actions and seeing exactly how bad a man he has been. He has very few convictions and stuff such as his drug addiction and dodgy dealings are not known to Social Services.

We know what he's really like because we watched it all, but; as far as they're concerned; he's just a fairly well-to-do man who owns a couple of businesses and hasn't had a serious conviction for years and years. Sure, the police are savvy to the fact that he's not the most savoury man in town and he's certainly been up to a lot that they've never been able to pin on him; but that's the problem - they've never been able to pin anything on him, so it's completely void. Rumours and open-secrets can't be taken into account because that's all they are. Sure, they can assess things like how Ben turned out and such; but from a legal standpoint, there is technically very little that would set alarm-bells ringing for Social Services.

I think the biggest thing that would count against Phil is that he cannot offer Lexi a stable home life. He lives on his own for starters having driven everyone away from him.

It's all well and good getting Sharon to pretend they are a couple but the Social would assess it on how long they have been together and will be doing regular checks on Lexi and Phil's situation, they aren't just going to go away.

I find the whole plot silly and think EE have sent out a damaging message regarding social workers. Normally the priority of social workers is to keep the child with its mother unless there is serious cause for doubt as to the mother's suitability which for Lola there isn't. Being late for a couple of meetings, using a towel instead of a nappy and getting into a fight is not serious enough to take the baby away. It does not send out a good impression but Lola would be asked to attend parenting classes and would be given extra support she wouldn't have Lexi taken away from her.

I thought this was temporary anyway until the SS decide whether Lexi can return to her mother. There's no justification for taking Lexi away temporarily but if the SS try to award Phil permanent residency then EE have lost the plot.

This.

All decent points but I created this thread in response to the talk of a factual point. People are incorrect when they believe that Phil's trouble with the law is worse then Lola's when legally it really is not. Most of us understand where you are coming from. But like I said I was hoping to keep it about the point at hand because I do feel there are people using Phils so called troubles with the law as a reason which makes no sense. Other reasons sure but not that one.

Felixrex hit the nail on the head. There is a difference between what the social know and what we the viewer know.