The other night I watched the Philpott Fire, Five Years On. I was struck by how similar were the behaviours of Jeremy and Mick. OK, socially, these men are polar opposites, but whilst there can't have been ANY of Jeremy's supporters who weren't incredulous about Mick Philpott's behaviour post incident, it mirrors exactly, what were Jeremy's. Was it because Jeremy was a public school educated, good looking man from a wealthy, middle class background, that caused people to make excuses for his cavalier, callous and self oriented behaviour, with it's crocodile tears, whilst the same behaviours from a middle aged, uneducated slob, from the other end of the social spectrum, who knew how to screw the system and lived on benefits, was seen as being suspicious. It was also of interest to see that neither man seemed to have accrued many who were willing to be called friends. Both men came from a place of greed. Mick wanted a bigger council house. Jeremy wanted 'his' inheritance. Both men had women who were willing to go along with what their men had planned.
Jeremy had also considered arson, as he told pub associate Charles Marsden. How anyone could think of inflicting such horrible torture on children is incomprehensible to most people and there's nothing more distressing to read. Philpott's son from his first wife still doubts he set the fire, as he reminisces on family life together. I suppose it shows how manipulative they are and that even outwardly normal, sane people can commit the most heinous acts for the most banal of reasons.
