(UK) Man loses 5 of his kids in a fire

Are the people who were outraged earlier in the thread about the suggestion it may have been the parents for this reason are still outraged that people could possibly have suggested such a thing?

DEFTLEFTHAND

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Arson coupled with Reckless Endangerment leading to manslaughter. If the mens rea isn't present for murder they won't be charged with it.

On reflection if the defendents knew that the probability of their actions would lead to death or grievous bodily harm then that could be deemed as sufficient mens rea (intent) for murder. Therefore a murder charge can't be ruled out.

DEFTLEFTHAND

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

On reflection if the defendents knew that the probability of their actions would lead to death or grievous bodily harm then that could be deemed as sufficient mens rea (intent) for murder. Therefore a murder charge can't be ruled out.

And if they didn't know that they should be in an institution where they can't harm themselves or others.

mikemac1

Trial of the year, going to be non stop coverage

Shameless Mick will be a household name pretty soon

iguana

ibarelycare wrote: »

The poor remaining kids.

At least the other children have different mothers so they won't be 'orphaned' or have to go into care. And none of them lived with the father so their home situations won't change. But it will still obviously be hellish to lose their 5 half siblings and step-brother and find that their father may be responsible.

BattleCorp

Pure scumbags if it's true.:mad::mad::mad:

Bubblefett

Still in shock to hear that they've been charged with murder.
Some days I really don't understand people. How could anyone ever do that to their own kids? (provided of course they're found guilty)

Dudess

Burning down the house with no intent to harm anyone is nuts enough... but alleged intent to kill the children therein? Too much to process all together...

LH Pathe

A murder charge in these circumstances paints a picture of the worst possible english family image so in finding no reason to not do so they must be on to something... n if anyone is shocked by that; yer too used to the manslaughter charge which is designed to protect a nations record ahead of the perpetrators for we are fair twee'd out here; squeamish soft and naive. Did I mention gullible.. not nearly as depraved; but keep on digging for similarities n we may create one.

Dudess

Dudess wrote: »

Burning down the house with no intent to harm anyone is nuts enough... but alleged intent to kill the children therein? Too much to process all together...

Intent to harm is enough for murder I thought?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Dudess wrote: »

Burning down the house with no intent to harm anyone is nuts enough... but alleged intent to kill the children therein? Too much to process all together...

Its a complicated part of the legal system alright, there has been similar cases in Common Law which I'm sure were looked at in deciding the charge.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Deleted User wrote: »

Intent to harm is enough for murder I thought?

Intent to kill plus the physical act are needed. In this case the probability of their actions causing death were enough for the Crown Prosecution Service to recommend murder, it didn't matter that they may not have intended to kill anybody.

I'd be surprised if the CPS doesn't settle for Manslaughter in the end anyway.

omg why kill the kids and burn down the house a scam ?????

someone explain plz

flutterflye

Maybe I'm just incredibly naive, but I just can't believe that anyone would intend to kill their children for a new house.
I really think they must have just planned on burning the house, but had assumed they could get everyone out in time.
Maybe I have too much faith in humanity though.

flutterflye

flutterflye wrote: »

Maybe I'm just incredibly naive, but I just can't believe that anyone would intend to kill their children for a new house.
I really think they must have just planned on burning the house, but had assumed they could get everyone out in time.
Maybe I have too much faith in humanity though.

you still have faith in humanity

i was walking downtown and saw a 7-8 month gone pregnant girl smoking poor baby wtf is wrong with people

Jimoslimos

LH Pathe wrote: »

A murder charge in these circumstances paints a picture of the worst possible english family image so in finding no reason to not do so they must be on to something.

Think the wife is Irish, also remember seeing a pic of the kids on local news here - one of the boys had a Dublin GAA top on.

BorneTobyWilde

All aload of crap i think,
Unless they admitted to it, Or been forced to admit to it,
I don't get it , Burn house while kids are upstairs.
Makes no sense,

flutterflye

flutterflye wrote: »

Maybe I'm just incredibly naive, but I just can't believe that anyone would intend to kill their children for a new house.
I really think they must have just planned on burning the house, but had assumed they could get everyone out in time.
Maybe I have too much faith in humanity though.

I doubt they'll go for the murder charge in the end but if they set the fire and claim that they had no intent to harm anyone the only way that could be true would be if they're so ahem, mentally challenged, that they could never be integrated into society.

BorneTobyWilde

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

All aload of crap i think,
Unless they admitted to it, Or been forced to admit to it,
I don't get it , Burn house while kids are upstairs.
Makes no sense,

If they did it while everyone was away (hard to do) there would have been little publicity, a dramatic escape gets national publicity.

BorneTobyWilde

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

All aload of crap i think,
Unless they admitted to it, Or been forced to admit to it,
I don't get it , Burn house while kids are upstairs.
Makes no sense,

thats scum for you

who would of thought a load of muslums would fly planes into two towers makes no sence

mikemac1

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Think the wife is Irish, also remember seeing a pic of the kids on local news here - one of the boys had a Dublin GAA top on.

You're right

Some of the kids have Derby football shirts, makes sense living in Derby

One lad has a Dublin jersey

pic

My name is URL

Think I'll wait for a trial or further information to be made available before I pass judgement on the couple.

The police themselves have asked the public to show restraint on the matter, and have said that although people have been arrested or charged, the investigation is far from over.

Seriously like, if it was up to the public they'd be hanged already.

Smidge

In fairness, I don't think either one of these parents are rocket scientists.

My feeling is that drink was taken, thought they could probably set a "little" fire, just enough to do damage that would allow them to get a new house but not being rocket scientists they over estimated the amount of petrol used.

It just leaves tragedy in its wake

TheBegotten

Those poor kids. I'm sure they did nothing to deserve anything like this. I hope the perp swings for this.

Luap

When they were sobbing in front of the press the wife stopped for a split second and made eye contact with the husband. Looked very conspicuous.

LH Pathe

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Think the wife is Irish, also remember seeing a pic of the kids on local news here - one of the boys had a Dublin GAA top on.

*sigh* Put the two together n it's devastating. Know it only too well.. n they're the posh version. Locale wise anyhow my "cuz" is a cheltenham chav. aunt is a turncoat.. etc. Gotta be related to it to believe it for home is where the hurt is. Aspired to British citizenship so I'll have that Irish passport back pls

goodie2shoes

mishkalucy wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think either one of these parents are rocket scientists.

My feeling is that drink was taken, thought they could probably set a "little" fire, just enough to do damage that would allow them to get a new house but not being rocket scientists they over estimated the amount of petrol used.

It just leaves tragedy in its wake

i agree this is the most plausible explanation.
had their little "stunt" succeeded the attendant publicity, another appearance on chav TV etc. would also have been very tempting for them.

social welfare rules need changing so as not to encourage people like this from having so many kids in the first place. personally i feel that all benefits ought to be frozen after the 3rd child.

John Doe1

Anyone mention gerry and kate mccann yet?

Yakult

John Doe1 wrote: »

Anyone mention gerry and kate mccann yet?

Just you.

flutterflye

John Doe1 wrote: »

Anyone mention gerry and kate mccann yet?

Yup, you did.

Jimoslimos

LH Pathe wrote: »

*sigh* Put the two together n it's devastating. Know it only too well.. n they're the posh version. Locale wise anyhow my "cuz" is a cheltenham chav. aunt is a turncoat.. etc. Gotta be related to it to believe it for home is where the hurt is. Aspired to British citizenship so I'll have that Irish passport back pls

What? I wasn't trying to argue people should feel more emotional because of an Irish connection, just not to be so quick to dish out derogatory terms about lower/working class English, chavs, etc.

goodie2shoes wrote: »

social welfare rules need changing so as not to encourage people like this from having so many kids in the first place. personally i feel that all benefits ought to be frozen after the 3rd child.

Changing SW rules won't stop people like this having more kids. You think they stop just before sex and go "oh hold on, our budget is stretched - better take precautions".

Better education and opportunities do.

goodie2shoes

Jimoslimos wrote: »

What? I wasn't trying to argue people should feel more emotional because of an Irish connection, just not to be so quick to dish out derogatory terms about lower/working class English, chavs, etc.


Changing SW rules won't stop people like this having more kids. You think they stop just before sex and go "oh hold on, our budget is stretched - better take precautions".

Better education and opportunities do.

i disagree the SW system encourages people like this to have kids. the more kids they have, the more SW they receive.
you don't need a PhD in Economics to work that out.:rolleyes:

LH Pathe

Jimoslimos wrote: »

What? I wasn't trying to argue people should feel more emotional because of an Irish connection, just not to be so quick to dish out derogatory terms about lower/working class English, chavs, etc.

you got it.

But I believe class distinction to be attained by the individual; in culture and morals as opposed to etiquette or locale or education.

Smidge

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i agree this is the most plausible explanation.
had their little "stunt" succeeded the attendant publicity, another appearance on chav TV etc. would also have been very tempting for them.

social welfare rules need changing so as not to encourage people like this from having so many kids in the first place. personally i feel that all benefits ought to be frozen after the 3rd child.

Ah come on Goodie, surely you must see that this is not a representation of people on social welfare?????????????

Are you saying that all people on SW who have more than 3 children are capable of incinerating them just to get a bigger house?

This has nothing to do with SW.
It has everything thing to do with the people who are not mentally sound

micropig

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i disagree the SW system encourages people like this to have kids. the more kids they have, the more SW they receive.
you don't need a PhD in Economics to work that out.:rolleyes:

I agree, SW as it stands, does encourage some people of that frame of mind to keeping having children, there needs to be a cut off point where people have to take responsibility. If not the state steps in to support their lifestyle. Maybe the state should step in and sterilise?

Kate & Gerry Mc Cann


Is that guy still chained up outside the offices in Limerick demanding a bigger house?


This case in the UK is tragic. Whether they set it or not, the children didn't deserve it.

A judge in England yesterday let off a mother whose son drunk fertilizer she had for growing cannabis. She was asleep and the child (2-3?) was thirsty. Unfortunately he died. She was laughing leaving the court. The judge said she had suffered enough. So...........?

Smidge

Micropig

Were you on holiday???????????????

charlemont

flutterflye wrote: »

Maybe I'm just incredibly naive, but I just can't believe that anyone would intend to kill their children for a new house.
I really think they must have just planned on burning the house, but had assumed they could get everyone out in time.
Maybe I have too much faith in humanity though.

Its happening here too, Just nobody killed yet, Only a matter of time though.

micropig

mishkalucy wrote: »

Micropig

Were you on holiday???????????????

I got addicted to real life there for a while, It just sucked me right in and kept me AFK*. It was 24/7, Rough going:D




*AFK- Away From Keyboard

goodie2shoes

mishkalucy wrote: »

Ah come on Goodie, surely you must see that this is not a representation of people on social welfare?????????????

Are you saying that all people on SW who have more than 3 children are capable of incinerating them just to get a bigger house?

This has nothing to do with SW.
It has everything thing to do with the people who are not mentally sound

no of course i am not saying "all people on SW who have more than 3 children are capable of incinerating them just to get a bigger house". that's just plain silly.

however what i am saying is the SW system incentifies people to have large families and needs to be changed. if these people had to earn ie work in order to have & rear their kids, then they wouldn't have so many. most folk i know have 2, 3 kids max 'cos they cant afford to have any more.

i know these concepts may be difficult to grasp, but please try.:(

Smidge

micropig wrote: »

I got addicted to real life there for a while, It just sucked me right in and kept me AFK*. It was 24/7, Rough going:D




*AFK- Away From Keyboard

I was thinking something like that(or else a stint as a mexican wrestler):D

Back to normal eh???

Sw recipients are child crispers????;)

EGAR

goodie2shoes wrote: »

no of course i am not saying "all people on SW who have more than 3 children are capable of incinerating them just to get a bigger house". that's just plain silly.

however what i am saying is the SW system incentifies people to have large families and needs to be changed. if these people had to earn ie work in order to have & rear their kids, then they wouldn't have so many. most folk i know have 2, 3 kids max 'cos they cant afford to have any more.

i know these concepts may be difficult to grasp, but please try.:(

How many men/families/lone parents do you know with 17 kids or even 10?

Not every large family lives on SW.

micropig

mishkalucy wrote: »

I was thinking something like that(or else a stint as a mexican wrestler):D

Back to normal eh???

Sw recipients are child crispers????;)

Applied but didn't get it, they said I was too mid-west:rolleyes:

I don't agree that all SW recipients are child crispers. I think it's unfair to generalise;)

EGAR wrote: »

How many men/families/lone parents do you know with 17 kids or even 10?

Not every large family lives on SW.

he had kids by 5 different women

1) How dumb are these women?

2) Most people short of money ration what little they have and don't have more children. Some people short of money carry on regardless and demand more from the state while giving nothing back.

fallen01angel

5 innocent kids died in a fire....IF the Father/Stepmother are guilty of causing the fire,no matter their reason for doing so,they deserve to be charged with murder.....irregardless of their reasons for doing it in the 1st place,bigger house whatever.If they were stupid enough to make a decision to set the house on fire with so many people occuping it at the time in the 1st place then they deserve the consequences.:mad::mad:

Smidge

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i agree this is the most plausible explanation.
had their little "stunt" succeeded the attendant publicity, another appearance on chav TV etc. would also have been very tempting for them.

social welfare rules need changing so as not to encourage people like this from having so many kids in the first place. personally i feel that all benefits ought to be frozen after the 3rd child.

Do you mean child benefit???

To which everyone with children in Ireland is entitled to???

I assume this is what you are referring to as the amount per child under any other payment does not increase per child as you have claimed.

So under this proposed theory you submit, everyone in receipt of child benefit in this country is capable of this???

Just trying to keep up;)

Smidge

micropig wrote: »

Applied but didn't get it, they said I was too mid-west:rolleyes:

Sheeaattt boy, I could just see those North Tipp men in Yellow and Red spandex with luninous blue masks jumping all over the place

micropig

mishkalucy wrote: »

Sheeaattt boy, I could just see those North Tipp men in Yellow and Red spandex with luninous blue masks jumping all over the place

& Hurley's, don't forget about those.

It's be fair good.

Could this be the solution to ridding overpopulated houses of some SW benefit claimers? There's an idea in there somewhere. You wouldn't be too active in the bedroom after the lick of a hurl:D

Smidge

I have always found it funny and to be honest sad that these threads always develop into "SW scum, rid the world".

Only people with limited life experience would ever make these statements.



On a side note..........

Micro,

I see the spandex got you thinking:p

micropig

mishkalucy wrote: »

I have always found it funny and to be honest sad that these threads always develop into "SW scum, rid the world".

Only people with limited life experience would ever make these statements.

True, but sometimes it's the people with limited life experience who are the 'SW scum'. Can't loose sight of the chimney of their house, never got a job etc....

Now, the vast majority of SW recipients are not like this of course and decent people only use it as a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. Those that have never worked usually receive the most in benefits imho

Houses should be limited to 3 bed.

How many children where living in this house at the time.
Do the other 4 mothers all have individual houses aswell?

mishkalucy wrote: »

On a side note..........

Micro,

I see the spandex got you thinking:p

As always:D

Smidge

micropig wrote: »

True, but sometimes it's the people with limited life experience who are the 'SW scum'. Can't loose sight of the chimney of their house, never got a job etc....

Now, the vast majority of SW recipients are not like this of course and decent people only use it as a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. Those that have never worked usually receive the most in benefits imho

Houses should be limited to 3 bed.



As always:D

In fairness they cant receive more than others based on means as you know.

But I do agree that people who have NEVER worked should not abuse the system(and you and I both know this is not just Irish recipients, very un-pc I know but also true)

I hate when people generalise and say "cut dem off they 'ave more than 3 kids"

What about "Jim" who is married to "Ann" and they have 5 kids.
Jim is 53 and has worked in the local factory for 28 years.

Job gone

Does he now say to Ann.............


"Sh1t Ann we best get rid of 3 of dem damn kids cause the country will see us a scum otherwise"
"They were crammpin me style anyway, feck dem out on the road"

No.

Of course not.

The whole damn country has been so turned on it's head that we are savaging each other