Derby fire deaths: Parents arrested on suspicion of murder

Bit of a sweeping generalisation to claim he is attacking benefits claimants again... There is an acknowledgement by everyone that there are people who do require and deserve benefits.

However, I'd say he is bang on the money to ask whether the state should be paying for people to have children that they don't provide for themselves, instead relying on the state to do so.
 
The Geezer said:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=George+Osborne+questions
Click to expand...

I see the Conservatives are using this as an excuse to attack benefits claimants again. Zzzzzzzz.
Click to expand...

Asked about such claims, Mr Osborne said a debate was needed about whether the state should "subsidise lifestyles like that".
Click to expand...

Sorry but does not compute. You make it sound as if the Tories are proactively using this incident to attack the benefits system. In reality, George Osborne was asked specifically by a journalist a leading question designed to garner that response.

Sure, he maybe should have added "but we shouldn't use this incident when talking about the benefits system" or similar at the end but in no way is this 'being used' by the Tories like you claimed.

In fact I'd say you were using this tragic event to bash the Torries (which makes you no better morally even if your claim was true).
 
Last edited:
Should bring back the death penalty asap. And yes they did it so should be put to death for it.

17 years pfff only in the UK :(

"Three men have been jailed for life for murdering a sex offender from Dorset" 18-20 years.
Kill a sex offender you get 18-20 years but kill 6 kids and you only get 17 years?
 
Last edited:
People never seem to get their heads round to how sentencing works do they. It was the same when Anders Breivik was 'sentenced to 21 years' and people were going mad about it.
 
I also think many people are subconsciously using their prior hatred of Philpott before the fire (wasn't he labeled most hated man in Britain in the past just because of his benefit claiming?) cloud their judgement on this.

Philpott was stupid, selfish and and all round **** but in the end this was ultimately an accident. All this talk of hanging etc should be reserved for pedophiles and serial killers IMO, none of which Philpott comes close to.

For example, where was the mass outrage and hysteria over this guy.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...explosion-killing-two-year-old-next-door.html

Sure there was the regular condemnation but no media outrage or wall to wall news coverage. What Partington did was worse that what Pgilpott did IMO for two reasons. He killed someone else's children (not for one minute saying killing your own kids is OK but at least the parents left behind are the ones to blame, the poor parents that lost their 2 year old in the story above did NOTHING to deserve the life sentence they now have) and his act was totally delivberate in terms of causing destruction.

Partington didn't aim to kill that two year old either but he also had no plan to save everyone first, at least Philpott did even if it didn't work.
 
estebanrey said:
Philpott was stupid, selfish and and all round **** but in the end this was ultimately an accident. All this talk of hanging etc should be reserved for pedophiles and serial killers IMO, none of which Philpott comes close to.
Click to expand...

listen to the 'bugged' interviews and read the letter he wrote and you'll see he was extremely close.

accident or not, his (what can only be described as) blasé and totally out of touch with any reality or remorse attitude towards his own childrens death is bizarre.
 
I watched the BBC Panorama episode about this a couple of days ago, according to Mairead's sister, she did not visit the bedside of the 6th child (who was on life support) at all, when asked what Mairead was doing she replied "Arguing over what chinese meal to order"

Beyond belief..
 
estebanrey said:
Philpott was stupid, selfish and and all round **** but in the end this was ultimately an accident.
Click to expand...

what happened is anything but an accident. he planned and rehearsed setting fire to his council house, using petrol as an accelerant, in the middle of the night when 6 children were asleep upstairs. how is the subsequent death of the children an accident?
 
It may have been an accident but standing outside doing nothing whilst the neighbours try to save your kids is Unforgivable.
The only way his current sentence would be acceptable to me is if he went back in the house time & time again trying to get the kids out once he knew it had took hold. If he was in a wheelchair in the dock burnt to a crisp then I would accept this sentence. As it is I hope some Prison justice is dealt out.
 
One More Solo said:
I see the Conservatives are using this as an excuse to attack benefits claimants again. Zzzzzzzz.
Click to expand...

This whole scenario would have never happened if it was not for the benefit system, it's absolutely right to highlight that the extent people will goto for greed.

Greed exists as much in people on a council estate as it does to a those shopping on Saville Row, but, people as in-human as Philpot will never shop in Saville Row, they fall to the bottom, for us to pickup the bill.
 
Muffin` said:
This whole scenario would have never happened if it was not for the benefit system, it's absolutely right to highlight that the extent people will goto for greed.

Greed exists as much in people on a council estate as it does to a those shopping on Saville Row, but, people as in-human as Philpot will never shop in Saville Row, they fall to the bottom, for us to pickup the bill.
Click to expand...

While the people on Saville Row keep us down via other methods, such as under pay, hiring, firing with no regard to an individual but to a balancesheet on a piece of paper causing immeasurable stress/pain/anxiety across the country...
 
That's the point there is no line of argument. I don't hold to a correlation between receiving welfare and being capable of manslaughter in order to frame someone.
 
Last edited:
I just don't think there should be such an emphasis placed on someones intentions in cases like this. If someone gets drunk and starts driving through the streets at 60 they are likely to kill someone.

When the obvious happen they will be done for manslaughter and sent to prison for a few years whilst the innocent victim is dead. They lost their entire future and some low life gets away with losing a few years of theirs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom