|
   Printer-friendly version
 Email-a-friend
Respond Letters responding to: Philpott fire: Shamelessly exploiting dead children, by Mick Hume
It is not only issues of press freedom and welfare dependency that have been exploited in the coverage of this crime. There is another theme to this case that you haven’t mentioned - that is the idea of Philpott being a
controlling person, in an abusive relationship with his then girlfriend, Lisa, and his wife, Mairead.
You write that these women lived in ‘servitude’ with a man who ‘dominated’ them. But was it the case that he simply forced the women to live with him against their will? Or could it be that these women chose to live with him, despite his faults, because they were attracted to him? After all, when his ex-girlfriend, Lisa, had had enough of him she decided to leave.
His wife did not leave and continued to consent to a life together - including dogging trips, sex with his best friend on the snooker table, and yes, giving him her benefit money. We may find all this unsavoury and
degraded, but was she doing all this against her will?
A Daily Telegraph columnist has argued that Philpott should have had his children taken away from him. No doubt others believe the state should also have ‘rescued’ his wife and girlfriend from a relationship they consider ‘abusive’ as well.
Dan Clayton, Leeds
| 
