Six Children Killed By Arson Attack In Derby

[Zaune]

The Guardian

Mick Philpott, whose six children who were killed in a house fire in Derby on Friday, speaks at a press conference with his wife, Mairead, alongside him Link to this video

The father of six children who were killed in a house fire in Derby early on Friday has spoken of his anguish as police revealed that petrol had been poured through the letterbox in an arson attack.

Mick Philpott wept as he spoke at a press conference on Wednesday morning with his wife, Mairead, alongside him and said he had been overwhelmed by support from the local community. Five of their children, aged between five and 10, died following the blaze at a house in Victory Road, Allenton, despite his "valiant efforts" to save them. A sixth son, Duwayne Philpott, aged 13, died in hospital overnight on Sunday with his family at his bedside.

Derbyshire police said they believe the fire was started when petrol was poured through the letterbox. Assistant chief constable Steve Cotterill said the seat of the fire was below the letterbox at the front door of the house. Investigations showed the accelerant was petrol.

Mick Philpott thanked fire crews for their efforts to save his children. He revealed that Duwayne's organs had been donated to save the life of another child.

Results of postmortem examinations revealed that the five younger children – Jade Philpott, 10, and brothers John, nine, Jack, seven, Jessie, six and Jayden, five – died as a result of smoke inhalation.

Philpott said that donating his son Duwayne's organs to help another child "makes us happy and it takes a bit of the pain away." He said: "We grew up in a community that's been through a lot of problems with violence and to see this community come together like it has, it's too overwhelming. Those poor gentlemen from the fire brigade who saw what we saw – my heart goes out to them. It's not just us that's suffering, it's them."

He begged the media to leave his family alone as it is disrupting the inquiry. "Please leave my family alone. If you've got any questions or anything at all please don't come through me or my family, please go to the police. You're disrupting what these officers are trying to do." He urged the media to let them grieve in peace and quiet.

On Monday Cotterill said: "After further forensic examination we believe the fire was not accidental, initial indications are that it was deliberately set and, as a result, six children have been unlawfully killed."

"I think it was a very difficult thing for them to do," he said of the Philpotts' decision to hold a press conference. "I pay tribute to their courage. The community have really pulled together and that's manifested itself in additional information that's starting to trickle through." Previously, the police had expressed frustration at the lack of intelligence.

The forensic examination at the scene is likely to continue for some time. A 28-year-old woman and 38-year-old man, both from Derby, were arrested by officers investigating the deaths but were released without charge.

The children were asleep in their beds upstairs when the fire broke out at the semi-detached house in the early hours of the morning. Their parents were asleep downstairs.

Mick Philpott became the subject of media attention five years ago after asking for a larger house to share with his wife, his girlfriend and eight of the 17 children he is said to have. He also featured in a documentary with Ann Widdecombe on the issue of welfare culture.

So... What are the odds of that last, bolded paragraph being related to the motive for the arson attack? I realise the investigation is still ongoing, but the implications are chilling.

[Simon_Jester]

Uh... who are you accusing?

[cadbrowser]

This strikes me as odd...

Speaking from experience, when I was 12 I was involved in a housefire...electrical it spread fast...very fast.

So, all the kids were upstairs sleeping; the parents were downstairs sleeping, and someone poured gasoline (petrol) thru the mail slot and then lit it. Parents got out (without a scratch?) even tho the father made a "valiant" effort to rescue the children.

My dad rescued me from a second story room engulfed in flames (electrical fire started on the second floor); even being lost in an attic closet (I got confused by the smoke and heat). My dad was treated for smoke inhalation as well, but it was minor.

I would like to know what "valiant" means.

Something isn't right here. I fear we are going to learn something aweful happened.

[Zaune]

Uh... who are you accusing?

I'm not thinking it was government-sponsored, if that's what you're wondering. But I only really started following this story after catching a reference to it in the comments under this article in the Guardian about an increase in attacks on so-called "scroungers"; primarily the disabled in practice, but I dare say that's at least partly because it's hard to tell an unemployed able-bodied person by appearance alone. And the papers seem to be taking the same line themselves if the Glasgow Media Group are to be believed, though I can't find a direct link to the study that the article mentions.

Not hard to imagine someone taking all this rhetoric about "scroungers" and "benefit cheats" to its ultimate, logical conclusion and taking the law -or what they think the law is, or ought to be- into their own hands, is it?

(And yes, I know this really should have been made clear in the original post, but I was mostly concentrating on not just typing every swearword I know several hundred times over. Sorry 'bout that.)

[Keevan_Colton]

This strikes me as odd...

Speaking from experience, when I was 12 I was involved in a housefire...electrical it spread fast...very fast.

So, all the kids were upstairs sleeping; the parents were downstairs sleeping, and someone poured gasoline (petrol) thru the mail slot and then lit it. Parents got out (without a scratch?) even tho the father made a "valiant" effort to rescue the children.

My dad rescued me from a second story room engulfed in flames (electrical fire started on the second floor); even being lost in an attic closet (I got confused by the smoke and heat). My dad was treated for smoke inhalation as well, but it was minor.

I would like to know what "valiant" means.

Something isn't right here. I fear we are going to learn something aweful happened.

The design of a lot of houses here would have the stairs right next to the front door. If you have a fire started at the front door itself, it's very possible for it to pretty much instantly block access to the upper floor. I know that if someone started a fire via the letterbox on either my house or my grandfathers, to pick just two I am familiar with, it would block the stairs within moments. I'd say there's every chance they simply couldn't get to the kids upstairs, it doesn't strike me as particularly odd.

Edit: Having checked the pictures, the house is the same construction as my grandfathers, which would put the stairs right by the front door.

[cadbrowser]

^Makes sense where you are comming from. However, I would still like to find out what this "valiant" effort by the father was. I'm still a little pessemistic. Guess thats because of all the crazy stories you hear about parents killing their kids.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Something isn't right here. I fear we are going to learn something aweful happened.

Uh...really? Something awful HAS happenned. Whoever it was caused by, this was arson and as a result six children died. Whether that was intentional or not (I highly doubt it was) pouring petrol through the letterbox and setting it alight is bad enough.

[madd0ct0r]

I saw that documentry on them a while back -

the father was epileptic and both parents were alcoholics. He had no job, and was quite charming whilst pointing out there's not many employers would take him on. The kids ran semi-wild - their father saw teaching them how to cheat and shop-lift as being necessary survival skills. Certainly there was a lot of love in the family on camera.

[Hillary]

^Makes sense where you are comming from. However, I would still like to find out what this "valiant" effort by the father was. I'm still a little pessemistic. Guess thats because of all the crazy stories you hear about parents killing their kids.

I think you need to shut the fuck up. It's not a damn film, where the hero can battle through the flames to rescue all the kids and leap out of the upstairs window to safety with just a singed trouser leg. A house fire can rip through a house in minutes - the heat gets into the high hundreds of degrees centigrade, the smoke will disorientate you within seconds and there's little anyone can do without the sort of specialist equipment that fire crews carry.

Had he gone into the house to rescue them, he'd have almost certainly come out in a body bag.

[Alkaloid]

Yeah, you should never hear about a fire doing something seemingly strange and assume foul play. Fire is as unpredictable as hell and can do some flat out weird shit, and it can do it very, very fast. There was a story I remember hearing from Northern Australia late last year about a family in a house fire who were cut off from the front door. The father lead them to a window and jumped out, every one else was right behind him when he did, and everyone else was overcome and killed before they could follow him out. No foul play, no unusually bad circumstances except for there being about 6 people in the house and five people died in the space of seconds.

[cadbrowser]

Fuck you Hillary. I survived 2nd & 3rd degree burns over 20% of my body because my father DID do something vailiant and heroic. He didn't try, he fucking executed to save my life despite his own. I know what a fire can do. I was in the fucking middle of it; i watched it, I felt it. I breathed in 1200 to 1800 degree heat. I watched a flashover occur as my father jumped down off the roof as I was in the cop car wrapped in a blanket. I still have the front page newspaper laminated covering the story.

Alkaloid - That is an extremely sad story...how aweful for that father.

Unfortunatly there IS foul play with this story (in the OP) and too fucking bad if it's my opinion that I wouldn't be surprised if the father and mother were the ones who poured petrol in the mail slot and set the blaze themselves. Get the fuck over it.

[cadbrowser]

Something isn't right here. I fear we are going to learn something aweful happened.

Uh...really? Something awful HAS happenned. Whoever it was caused by, this was arson and as a result six children died. Whether that was intentional or not (I highly doubt it was) pouring petrol through the letterbox and setting it alight is bad enough.

You know what that last sentence you quoted was inferring...don't be coy and nitpick. It was inferring the possiblity of the parents killing their own children.

Are you fucking kidding me? So you think someone poured petrol through the letterbox, lit it with the intention of not killing anyone? I don't follow.

[cadbrowser]

Had he gone into the house to rescue them, he'd have almost certainly come out in a body bag.

Uh, he was in the house and managed to get himself and his wife out...NOT in a body bag. Plus he said himself that he made a "valiant effort" to save the children. Again...despite him attempting a rescue of the other children, he managed to get out...NOT in a body bag.

[cadbrowser]

^correction (wouldn't let me edit that post)

According to a prior news report it was the police that said the father made a "valiant effort" to save the children.

The children's father, Mick Philpott, made a "valiant" attempt to save them, police said.

[Zaune]

cadbrowser? Not to belittle your dad's heroic actions, but Hilary's right. If the fire's spread past the point where you can't contain it with a fire extinguisher, the best possible chance you have of saving anyone else in the house is to get the hell out of there and call 911. Running into a burning building without fireproof clothing and breathing apparatus is just going to give the firefighters another person to risk their lives to rescue. Any emergency responder will tell you the same thing.

As for what you're suggesting might have happened, well, I suppose it's possible. But I heard the statement the children's father made to the press, and if he was faking his grief then he's a bloody good actor.

[cadbrowser]

Well then thank goodness my dad didn't ask your opinion (or Hillary's) before atempting to rescue me. An emergency responder has to tell anyone the same thing. That is their job due to the fact that sometimes (like you mentioned) people rushing in without proper equipemnt have been killed. But, it's NOT an almost certanty that they will be killed...so Hillary isn't right.

My whole fucking point was, I wanted to know what specifically this dad did to save his children that was considered "valiant" by the police. Because the tone seemed somewhat sarcastic by having the word valiant in quotes. No doubt I could be reading that wrong...but the report failes to clarify. Not to mention the father and mother were questioned as potential suspects.

Of course it's possible. I've seen better. How many children have been killed by a parent/parents only to have the perpetrators "grieve" on NATIONAL TV of their loss. It's happened quite a few times.

[Alkaloid]

My point wasn't that it was impossible cad, it's that calling any the father suspicious when all you have to go on is a media report indicating the fire was deliberate and the father mad a 'valiant effort' to save his children but wasn't injured is very premature simply because fire does odd things as a matter of course.

As for your other points. At this stage the blaze certainly seems deliberate. However the fact that it was started by pouring an accelerant through the letterbox indicates to me that it was lit by someone not able to get into the house.

Uh, he was in the house and managed to get himself and his wife out...NOT in a body bag

Not surprising. Most houses have back doors and fires can often burn up faster than they do out.

According to a prior news report it was the police that said the father made a "valiant effort" to save the children

Which could have just been going back into the house and finding the whole staircase was ablaze so he couldn't get out and running back outside. Or he could have tried to fight the fire single handed with a bucket and garden hose until the authorities arrived. Either could be described as valiant, especially by a journalist looking to make a compelling story.

Frankly anyone running into a burning building to try and save someone is making a valiant effort even if they run out again 5 seconds later. Hillary is right, anyone entering a burning building, especially if potential structural damage hasn't been assessed by a professional is taking a huge risk and if he did that he is very lucky he isn't dead.

[Keevan_Colton]

Cad, the reason "valiant" is in quotes in the articles is not to denote sarcasm, it is standard form for indicating that this is the exact wording used by the party being cited.

[cadbrowser]

My point wasn't that it was impossible cad, it's that calling any the father suspicious when all you have to go on is a media report indicating the fire was deliberate and the father mad a 'valiant effort' to save his children but wasn't injured is very premature simply because fire does odd things as a matter of course.

I'm not disagreeing with this. I've clearly stated that I wouldn't be surprised to learn that one (or both) of the parents caused this calamity themselves. I know it's premature. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that one (or both) of them went outside, poured the petrol thru the letterbox, came inside, locked the door, lit a match and then ran out the back door. Call it a hunch...call it whatever. I am admitting openly that I could totally be wrong.

As for your other points. At this stage the blaze certainly seems deliberate. However the fact that it was started by pouring an accelerant through the letterbox indicates to me that it was lit by someone not able to get into the house.

Or, it's quite possible the other explanation I put forth above.

Which could have just been going back into the house and finding the whole staircase was ablaze so he couldn't get out and running back outside. Or he could have tried to fight the fire single handed with a bucket and garden hose until the authorities arrived. Either could be described as valiant, especially by a journalist looking to make a compelling story.

Exactly my point...we don't know because there isn't any information regarding what his valiant effort consisted of. I thought I made that clear.

Frankly anyone running into a burning building to try and save someone is making a valiant effort even if they run out again 5 seconds later. Hillary is right, anyone entering a burning building, especially if potential structural damage hasn't been assessed by a professional is taking a huge risk and if he did that he is very lucky he isn't dead.

My reaction to Hillary's post was a knee-jerk emotional response, because of her apparent dismisal of my posts a few above hers while requesting me to "shut the fuck up". Then proceeding to pretend that I was living in a film and didn't know what a fire could do...I WAS FUCKING TRAPPED IN A FIRE! I FUCKING KNOW WHAT IT CAN DO! As if what I said was bullshit. There are people who have stepped up in the face of danger who have succeed in saving someone elses life despite the risk. That flies directly in the face of the comment where "there's little anyone can do..." What the fuck ever.

Yes, I admit...Hillary pissed me the fuck off. So much for total logic on my part.

Cad, the reason "valiant" is in quotes in the articles is not to denote sarcasm, it is standard form for indicating that this is the exact wording used by the party being cited.

Ok...that makes sense.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Something isn't right here. I fear we are going to learn something aweful happened.

Uh...really? Something awful HAS happenned. Whoever it was caused by, this was arson and as a result six children died. Whether that was intentional or not (I highly doubt it was) pouring petrol through the letterbox and setting it alight is bad enough.

You know what that last sentence you quoted was inferring...don't be coy and nitpick. It was inferring the possiblity of the parents killing their own children.

Are you fucking kidding me? So you think someone poured petrol through the letterbox, lit it with the intention of not killing anyone? I don't follow.

I know what you meant. And no, I said I doubt it was intentional for the children to die. Seriosuly, if your first thought on reading such a story is "oh dear the guy didn't manage to save his kids I BET HE DID IT!!" then I pity you man. That's fucked up.

[Aaron MkII]

Relax dude, not everyone is your father.

[Bright]

Here's an opinion piece about this incident and the state of welfare in the UK. Looks like Zaune isn't the only person to make the assumption that the family was specifically targeted. Also...

But as the surviving Philpotts face an agony most would struggle to imagine, right-wing shock-jock Carole Malone argued that they had effectively brought it on themselves. "This family became a target a couple of years ago," she argued on ITV's This Morning; they had "probably upset a lot of people" by being a family of 17 who were receiving state benefits. "I suspect they have many enemies out there because they were seen to be on benefits," she suggested with a tone that did not betray a hint of compassion. With the country in such a dire financial state, "People have seen families – maybe like this – wanting to take advantage." Referring to the "culture of the family" and the fact they had brought "attention to themselves", Malone concluded that "six innocent children have died as a result".

That seems to edge into the territory of outright victim-blaming.

[Zaune]

I wouldn't call it an assumption as such, more of a theory. I would in fact really, really like to be wrong.

[Lord Relvenous]

Uh, he was in the house and managed to get himself and his wife out...NOT in a body bag. Plus he said himself that he made a "valiant effort" to save the children. Again...despite him attempting a rescue of the other children, he managed to get out...NOT in a body bag.

How dare he not drive himself to his own death and leave his wife without a husband and his remaining 11 (12 at that point) children without a father!

He tried to rescue his kids. His efforts were so determined the police were impressed and called them valiant. He could not reach his kids. At this point, he has a choice between trying something stupid like running through flames cutting off his access, or waiting with his wife and kids comforting them and hoping that the actual firefighters can save his kids while not recklessly endangering his life. Just because your father was successful in rescuing his son does not establish some par for fathers in burning houses. The situation is undeniably different in a myriad of ways. It is incredibly cynical to assume the father killed his own kids just because he didn't die while trying to save them when you have no evidence pointing towards it nor any knowledge on the happiness and love for each other of the family in question.

[Grumman]

That seems to edge into the territory of outright victim-blaming.

According to Madd0ct0r, the father was a criminal who was teaching his children to become criminals - or at least portrayed as such in that documentary. If anything, she's not doing enough victim-blaming by suggesting they made enemies just by being a big family on welfare and not by being a family of thieves.