|
TVR1
3,001 posts
95 months
|
MoshiLego said: If guilty, this man has killed more children than Myra Hindley. If he only gets 10-15 years, that will be a damning indication of how much our society has lost its respect for life in the last 50 years. Actually, no it won't. The two cases, even though they both ended up with a similar effect are totally opposite in execution. Whatever absolutely f  ked up thinking in the mind of Phillpot and his Mrs, I'm sure he didnt actually intend to end the lives of the 7 kids. Myra Hindly, on the otherhand, not only stood by and did nothing but actively engaged in the torture, brutal murder and rape of young children. Not only that, when asked my some of the children to help them, she duped them into saying she would, only to keep them quiet in order that brady could rape and torture them again. I believe I remember one interview that she gave (and the one and only time she expressed any remorse) that she described the look on the face of the child as she realised that Hindley was not, after all, going to help her....the recordings that they both made of the children, whilst being raped and murdered is something that you really don't want to hear.If I had my way, I would use every ounce of medical knowledge to keep these sorts of people alive for as long as possible in order that they can live the horror of what they have done for as long as possible. Death is indeed, too good a release for them. Yes, they MUST spend a large number of years in prison but to compare them with Hindley/Brady etc is naive to say the least.
|
|
|
Murph7355
9,450 posts
126 months
|
rohrl said: I'm not sure what you're basing this on but one doesn't tend to become the dictator of twenty-odd million people for thirty years by being a total f king idiot. Philpott and Saddam may share some character traits but at least the Lion of Tikrit never appeared in public in a vest and tracky bottoms. He didn't look too sartorially elegant when they finally dragged him out of his hidey hole 
|
|
|
Blib
20,883 posts
67 months
|
I've just seen a report on the couple being formally charged in court on News 24.
I'd like to suggest that all those members of the public waiting around outside the courthouse for them to arrive should be arrested. By the look of 'em, they're all sure to be guilty of something.
|
|
|
WhoseGeneration
4,090 posts
77 months
|
Frik said: As would I.
"Simple animal" instinct in humans ensures we protect our children's lives over our own. You might like to research whether all animals protect their young. As with whether all Humans, throughout our history, have also done such. Unfortunately, including present times.
|
|
|
Apache
38,277 posts
154 months
|
rohrl said: Call me whatever you like but I just don't/can't believe two parents could intentionally burn their six children to death.
Now and again you hear of mentally ill people who kill their children but this doesn't seem to be the case here.
Maybe I'm wrong, we'll have to wait and see I suppose. When the police announced they had arrested this pair of retards they also stated they were still looking for other suspects. The f kwits had been unsuccessfully badgering the council for a larger house so it seems likely they got someone to torch the place with the kids inside and the 'plan' was for daddy d head to break in and rescue them to absolve him from any guilt.....and to boost his non existent credability too no doubt. They played russian roulette with the kids lives, and lost
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
cossy400
788 posts
54 months
|
Blib said: I've just seen a report on the couple being formally charged in court on News 24.
I'd like to suggest that all those members of the public waiting around outside the courthouse for them to arrive should be arrested. By the look of 'em, they're all sure to be guilty of something. More feckless wasters queing up like there fookin celebs. Nothing better to do with there time. I know innocent till proven guilty and all that but these days your arrested for a reason. My 2p worth he had a bright idea about getting a bigger house which has been one of his bugbears with the council for many years, it went very sadly wrong. Another benefit fraudster who thinks the country owes him everything.
|
|
|
TVR1
3,001 posts
95 months
|
WhoseGeneration said: Frik said: As would I.
"Simple animal" instinct in humans ensures we protect our children's lives over our own. You might like to research whether all animals protect their young. As with whether all Humans, throughout our history, have also done such. Unfortunately, including present times. Indeed. 'simple animal instinct' also includes the killing of any young that is not ones own. It removes a strain on resources/ensures YOUR young are raised to pass on your genes. Also, in a number of species, the male is actively killed by the male parent, in order that one day the young male will not dominate the older male. Luckily, we have evolved to think, rather than use only our animal instincts.
|
|
|
WhoseGeneration
4,090 posts
77 months
|
TVR1 said: Luckily, we have evolved to think, rather than use only our animal instincts. Yet, even this statement is not true, with regard to my post. Which, throughout Human history, have been more preferred, male or female children? Into the present day.
|
|
|
MoshiLego
52 posts
25 months
|
TVR1 said: Actually, no it won't. The two cases, even though they both ended up with a similar effect are totally opposite in execution. Whatever absolutely f ked up thinking in the mind of Phillpot and his Mrs, I'm sure he didnt actually intend to end the lives of the 7 kids. Yes, they MUST spend a large number of years in prison but to compare them with Hindley/Brady etc is naive to say the least. Fair enough - point made. But it doesn't alter the fact that a sentence of 10-15 years for killing six children would still be outrageously light - just a couple of years or so for each child. And this for a man who has previously spent seven years inside merely for the attempted murder of just one person.
|
|
|
Pkh72
1,221 posts
56 months
|
Murph7355 said: rohrl said: I'm not sure what you're basing this on but one doesn't tend to become the dictator of twenty-odd million people for thirty years by being a total f king idiot. Philpott and Saddam may share some character traits but at least the Lion of Tikrit never appeared in public in a vest and tracky bottoms. He didn't look too sartorially elegant when they finally dragged him out of his hidey hole If you're looking for comparisons, think Frank Gallagher from Shameless rather than Saddam Hussein.
|
|
|
DonkeyApple
12,318 posts
39 months
|
rohrl said: I'm not sure what you're basing this on but one doesn't tend to become the dictator of twenty-odd million people for thirty years by being a total f king idiot. Philpott and Saddam may share some character traits but at least the Lion of Tikrit never appeared in public in a vest and tracky bottoms.  
|
|
|
wormburner
6,426 posts
123 months
|
WhoseGeneration said: TVR1 said: Luckily, we have evolved to think, rather than use only our animal instincts. Yet, even this statement is not true, with regard to my post. Which, throughout Human history, have been more preferred, male or female children? Into the present day. There's a good evolutionary reason for that: male offspring have a greater mortality than female, they are more use in defending the tribe, and collecting food, and they can also have more children than can female children, so spreading the genes more widely.
|
|
|
billybob69
672 posts
15 months
|
rohrl said: I'm not sure what you're basing this on but one doesn't tend to become the dictator of twenty-odd million people for thirty years by being a total f king idiot. Philpott and Saddam may share some character traits but at least the Lion of Tikrit never appeared in public in a vest and tracky bottoms. based on my online degree from the university of Uzbekistan.. My point being that doesn't matter how much evidence there is I guess scum bloke will have convinced himself it was for the better good of them all, and therfore justifiable in his own mind.
|
|
|
New POD
2,119 posts
20 months
|
rohrl said: Call me whatever you like but I just don't/can't believe two parents could intentionally burn their six children to death.
Now and again you hear of mentally ill people who kill their children but this doesn't seem to be the case here.
Maybe I'm wrong, we'll have to wait and see I suppose. Lets say you've got a small house in allenton, (which is a less nice bit of derby) and lots of children. The council should by "rights" rehouse you somewhere nice like allestree or mikleover (which is a nicer bit of derby) . Especially if the house burns down and you heroically save the children. Personally I've never been one for arson, because things get out of hand very quickly. But if you are stupid ? who knows ?
|
|
|
MoshiLego
52 posts
25 months
|
New POD said: rohrl said: Call me whatever you like but I just don't/can't believe two parents could intentionally burn their six children to death.
Now and again you hear of mentally ill people who kill their children but this doesn't seem to be the case here.
Maybe I'm wrong, we'll have to wait and see I suppose. Lets say you've got a small house in allenton, (which is a less nice bit of derby) and lots of children. The council should by "rights" rehouse you somewhere nice like allestree or mikleover (which is a nicer bit of derby) . Especially if the house burns down and you heroically save the children. Personally I've never been one for arson, because things get out of hand very quickly. But if you are stupid ? who knows ? Planning to heroically save the children wouldn't really be consistent with "intentionally" killing them though, would it?
|
|
|
rohrl
3,927 posts
15 months
|
New POD said: rohrl said: Call me whatever you like but I just don't/can't believe two parents could intentionally burn their six children to death.
Now and again you hear of mentally ill people who kill their children but this doesn't seem to be the case here.
Maybe I'm wrong, we'll have to wait and see I suppose. Lets say you've got a small house in allenton, (which is a less nice bit of derby) and lots of children. The council should by "rights" rehouse you somewhere nice like allestree or mikleover (which is a nicer bit of derby) . Especially if the house burns down and you heroically save the children. Personally I've never been one for arson, because things get out of hand very quickly. But if you are stupid ? who knows ? Some variation of the scenario you've suggested makes a lot more sense to me than the idea that they just fancied doing away with the kids so burnt them to death. We're all guessing though really.
|
|
|
s3fella
6,538 posts
57 months
|
Can we hope they leave this waste of space with his belt and neck tie, and the other one a handy Venus or two in the cells?
|
|
|
WhoseGeneration
4,090 posts
77 months
|
wormburner said: WhoseGeneration said: TVR1 said: Luckily, we have evolved to think, rather than use only our animal instincts. Yet, even this statement is not true, with regard to my post. Which, throughout Human history, have been more preferred, male or female children? Into the present day. There's a good evolutionary reason for that: male offspring have a greater mortality than female, they are more use in defending the tribe, and collecting food, and they can also have more children than can female children, so spreading the genes more widely. Except and here I tend to go against myself, modern fertilisation technology could mean fewer males needed, females are now able to "defend", at least in the West, being in all areas of the Armed Forces and are able to produce food. We, now, tend to dismiss "evolutionary reason", preferring to construct a society based upon aptitude, in the West. My "into the present day" was with reference to non Western societies. There is a debate to be had about how modern Western societies have "modified" evolution.
|
|
|
wormburner
6,426 posts
123 months
|
WhoseGeneration said: wormburner said: WhoseGeneration said: TVR1 said: Luckily, we have evolved to think, rather than use only our animal instincts. Yet, even this statement is not true, with regard to my post. Which, throughout Human history, have been more preferred, male or female children? Into the present day. There's a good evolutionary reason for that: male offspring have a greater mortality than female, they are more use in defending the tribe, and collecting food, and they can also have more children than can female children, so spreading the genes more widely. Except and here I tend to go against myself, modern fertilisation technology could mean fewer males needed, females are now able to "defend", at least in the West, being in all areas of the Armed Forces and are able to produce food. We, now, tend to dismiss "evolutionary reason", preferring to construct a society based upon aptitude, in the West. My "into the present day" was with reference to non Western societies. There is a debate to be had about how modern Western societies have "modified" evolution. Yes, but that has only happened in the evolutionary equivalent of a commercial break. Perhaps 8 generations. Evolution can't do much with that at all. To 'modify' evolution implies that it had a cause in the first place. It doesn't, it is entirely reactive. What we might have done is 'modify' the environment slightly, but it'll take a long long time for that to be reflected in our biology. And in evolutionary terms, blokes are still more useful than girls, given their talent for spreading seed about the place. We haven't really changed at all. Sex and survival still drive 90% of what we do, we just play on the same pitch with the same goals, just by slightly more boring rules.
|
|
|
TVR1
3,001 posts
95 months
|
MoshiLego said: Fair enough - point made. But it doesn't alter the fact that a sentence of 10-15 years for killing six children would still be outrageously light - just a couple of years or so for each child. And this for a man who has previously spent seven years inside merely for the attempted murder of just one person. I agree. But in all likelihood, they will go down for manslaughter. It will be quite extraordinary if their sentences run consecutively. They will both be out in 20 odd years. It may be a difficult concept for the great unwashed to grasp but there is quite a difference between picking off one person after another intentionally rather than trying to burn your house down with the rather unfortunate consequences that occurred.
|
|
