Mister M Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 No, he was found guilty of manslaughter. Well then I stand corrected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Littlejohn talks more sense in his coloum than any of our wishy washy gay loving politicians ever did.If the death penalty was still available phillpot is a prime candidate for it. ................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 He was found guilty of murder Mick and Mairead Philpott found guilty of manslaughter over deaths of children Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 "Much like his other girlfriends, she said Philpott controlled her finances - her wages as a canteen assistant, then as a cleaner, and her benefits went into his bank account - and her comings and goings were monitored by him. Between her and Mairead, Philpott was pocketing over £2,000 a month in benefits alone." He was said to want enough children for a football team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
locksmiths1 Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 The daily mail tells the same truth as the sun,star and mirror Grow up and read a proper paper. Then make your own mind up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampent Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 The daily mail tells the same truth as the sun,star and mirror Grow up and read a proper paper. Then make your own mind up I'm lost on this. What do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marx Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Its a good paper, generally speaking. A good quality paper for lining rodent cages or a paper containing truth? I think your link to UKIP tells me what I need to know. Grow a mind. ---------- Post added 03-04-2013 at 22:15 ---------- He was found guilty of murder No he wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s2 blade Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 So the fact that he started his criminality in the Army means that the army is responsible? He was having children for the money . FACT If he wasn't being paid 60k a year for doing nothing other than reproducing , them children wouldn't have been here , let aloe burnt alive FACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Not sure what Harold_Shipman as to do with this story. I was thinking exactly the same about him being on benefits - what has that got to do with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s2 blade Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 So his children were the product of the welfare system, using that logic. Not him. He was the product of another era. You could build this argument back up by stating why the welfare system caused him to set his house on fire, but to be honest I don't think you've got the skill. Greed, control, power, madness; all important factors in what motivated this man to start a fire in his own house. Those things existed long before the welfare state, and will be with us during it sadly. This is an ideological attack, and nothing more. In your opinion which I appreciate , and my post was my opinion . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.