BREAKING: Philpott jailed for just 15 years...

I have looked and read (not just the Mail btw), and came to the perfectly logical conclusion that a man driven by greed and pure unadulterated selfishness, planned to burn his house down. Then hoped by chance that someone else would be around to pull his kids out of the building he just set of fire.

I am fully aware that he did not consciously intend to kill 6 people. However by his utter negligence in his hateful and disgusting act, he murdered them. Plain and simple.

It might not count as murder under our current law, but I am saying the law needs changing. So that cases like this are counted as murder and so that animals can be caged for life (which means life from the word go) or worse.

Agree with the first part of your first paragraph, but there is nothing to suggest the second part being true.

So you would completely get rid of the definition of manslaughter and consider everything falling under that to be murder?

Can someone explain to me how this is manslaughter and how he didn't intend to kill his children? Personally, starting a house fire with children sleeping upstairs- some so young they wouldn't have a clue what to do, isn't murder? Was he dropped as baby? Seriously, setting fire downstairs so even if the kids woke up they wouldn't be able to get downstairs to get out surely is murder?

Can someone explain to me how this is manslaughter and how he didn't intend to kill his children? Personally, starting a house fire with children sleeping upstairs- some so young they wouldn't have a clue what to do, isn't murder? Was he dropped as baby? Seriously, setting fire downstairs so even if the kids woke up they wouldn't be able to get downstairs to get out surely is murder?

He planned on playing the hero and saving them. He set the fire to frame his former mistress.

He planned on playing the hero and saving them. He set the fire to frame his former mistress.

I have looked and read (not just the Mail btw), and came to the perfectly logical conclusion that a man driven by greed and pure unadulterated selfishness, planned to burn his house down. Then hoped by chance that someone else would be around to pull his kids out of the building he just set of fire.

I am fully aware that he did not consciously intend to kill 6 people. However by his utter negligence in his hateful and disgusting act, he murdered them. Plain and simple.

It might not count as murder under our current law, but I am saying the law needs changing. So that cases like this are counted as murder and so that animals can be caged for life (which means life from the word go) or worse.

Can someone explain to me how this is manslaughter and how he didn't intend to kill his children? Personally, starting a house fire with children sleeping upstairs- some so young they wouldn't have a clue what to do, isn't murder? Was he dropped as baby? Seriously, setting fire downstairs so even if the kids woke up they wouldn't be able to get downstairs to get out surely is murder?

This is what I have spent 5 pages of this thread trying to explained to people. But they seem not to be coming around to our way of thinking yet.

To many apologists and sympathizers who wouldn't care if he was back out on the street in time for them to graduate from university on this thread, defending his soft sentence.

It is the perfect plan for any would be murders out there now.

Just set the building on fire, its only manslaughter. So if you happened to get caught, you wont have to go to Butlins for as long.

Judging by all your red gems and how people are replying to your post, I'd wager that it wasn't the first time somebody has disagreed with you...

Judging by the fact that most people approve of this thread (see post #1), I would wager that this isn't the first time you haven't been completely in the wrong.

Your initial post wasn't too bad but you've gone OTT in your following posts after. Even then it's 50/50 for your initial post regarding rep. Even then the people repping you haven't had the courage to post in this thread.

So you have seen who has repped me and compared that to a list of posters on this thread?

Im confused.

Since 10 people haven't replied here supporting you, it's obvious.

Whats obvious? That they can see that I am doing a good job swatting down opposing arguments on my own and just gave me a thumbs up.

He tried to domineer people who could do nothing to him, that's very very different to trying to domineer grown men in prison who could beat the crap out of him if they felt like it.

I think, if the sentence for manslaughter is 15 years, then he should receive 6 of those sentences, so he gets 90 years.

Your consistent argument is that he murdered them which is plain wrong. He didn't intend to murder anyone therefore it is manslaughter. Manslaughter = accidently death. Just because his crime was more evil than the typical manslaughter convict doesn't mean it wasn't manslaughter. Yes, his sentence is pathetic but so are your arguments.

I thought my position might be a little on the fringe. But I was just shocked to read your comments.

If you really believe that the government is in anyway pleased or finds the barbaric murder of 6 children convenient, then you need to get your head examined my friend.