Major Incident In Southport

[Munroast]

Do you mean very predictable in the sense that only someone with a genuine and serious mental problem could possibly do something like this? Or are you suggesting that it is being invented as an excuse after the fact and you believe that was very predictable?

I see Huw BBC Edwards is also now claiming 'it was mental issues' - just seems to be becoming a common theme - 'it wasn't me, it was my mental health that done it - please feel sorry for me, i'm a victim too'

the looney left seem to buy this nonsense every time

 

[Mrs Doubtfyre]

Sir kier is using the riots as an excuse to escalate control. Facial recognition, cctv. Clamping down on these protests.

That wasn't why I was asking. But now we are discussing defences, what about diminished responsibility?

I'm sure there's a myriad of possibilities and symptoms that we can speculate on.
But what's the point of that?

 

[JonathanM]

I see Huw BBC Edwards is also now claiming 'it was mental issues' - just seems to be becoming a common theme - 'it wasn't me, it was my mental health that done it - please feel sorry for me, i'm a victim too'

the looney left seem to buy this nonsense every time

I am still interested in what you meant in the Southport case.

Did you mean "very predictable" in the sense that only someone with a genuine and serious mental problem could possibly do something like this? Or are you suggesting that it is being invented as an excuse after the fact and you believe that was "very predictable"?

 

[Mrs Doubtfyre]

I see Huw BBC Edwards is also now claiming 'it was mental issues' - just seems to be becoming a common theme - 'it wasn't me, it was my mental health that done it - please feel sorry for me, i'm a victim too'

the looney left seem to buy this nonsense every time

You can't deny some a genuine defence because you suspect it's not a genuine defence. That's the whole point of the legal system.

 

[JonathanM]

You can't deny some a genuine defence because you suspect it's not a genuine defence. That's the whole point of the legal system.

That's why I am interested in what he meant when he said mental health in this case was "very predictable". Earlier in the thread he said:

I would say it is a given that this lad has mental health issues, no one commits a crime like that, even if they think they have some religious or other nonsensical reason to do so, to commit a crime of these proportions against young children can only be committed by someone with something very very wrong with their heads.

 

[Munroast]

That's why I am interested in what he meant when he said mental health in this case was "very predictable". Earlier in the thread he said:

and I still stand by that, no one commits such a crime without having something seriously wrong in their heads - but I don't see that as mitigating evidence. Mao Stalin & Pot probably all had mental issues too, but lets not start feeling sorry for them

 

[JonathanM]

and I still stand by that, no one commits such a crime without having something seriously wrong in their heads

That's all I wanted to know. Because often people will suggest that a culprit is totally sane and that mental health problems have been invented after the fact as a defence.

 

[Mrs Doubtfyre]

and I still stand by that, no one commits such a crime without having something seriously wrong in their heads - but I don't see that as mitigating evidence.

You would deny the perpetrators a justified factor of mitigation?
Shall we also remove some of the aggravating factors because you don't think they are justified?

 

[Mottie]

It's a phrase often used to introduce a genuine instance.

Ellal then provides a link to the actual story.

linky linky for mottie


It's not a myth, and it might be your style to introduce a story as "Our friend", but not everyone likes your style.

Hey, tw@t features. The 2006 BBC link I referred to specifically debunks the 2000 BBC link you’ve trawled up.

"In fact, it was a relatively minor incident, which has been exaggerated and distorted in the re-telling - and turned into a symbol of mass hysteria among the tabloid-reading sections of the population".

Stop replying on behalf of JohnD and Ellal and you’ll only look half as stupid as you really are.

 

[Mottie]

Why black ones in particular? It's mot like they're especially popular.

Well living in rural France as you do, I don’t think you’re in any position to claim expertise on the colour and brand of trainers worn by the UK's feral youth who are not backwards when it comes to going forwards through the broken windows of JD sports in looting season.

 

[Mrs Doubtfyre]

Hey, tw@t features. The 2006 BBC link I referred to specifically debunks the 2000 BBC link you’ve trawled up.

"In fact, it was a relatively minor incident, which has been exaggerated and distorted in the re-telling - and turned into a symbol of mass hysteria among the tabloid-reading sections of the population".

Stop replying on behalf of JohnD and Ellal and you’ll only look half as stupid as you really are.

I see your course and vulgar nature has taken hold of you again.

Can you post this 2006 link that you referred to again? It doesn't seem to have appeared on my screens.
The link that I used was taken from ellal's post.

And in the meantime do try to control your anger and your vulgar responses.
We do live in civilised society, so far.

 

[Mrs Doubtfyre]

Well living in rural France as you do, I don’t think you’re in any position to claim expertise on the colour and brand of trainers worn by the UK's feral youth who are not backwards when it comes to going forwards through the broken windows of JD sports in looting season.

It's common knowledge on the internet that black trainers are not the most popular.

Your reference to "feral youth," and "looting season," perfectly encapsulates your innuendos intended by your reference to black trainers.

 

[Mottie]

It's common knowledge on the internet that black trainers are not the most popular.

So you’re not talking of your experience 'on the street' but 'on the internet'?

 

[Mottie]

Can you post this 2006 link that you referred to again? It doesn't seem to have appeared on my screens.

#331. Pay attention if your going to defend others….

 

[Munroast]

That's all I wanted to know. Because often people will suggest that a culprit is totally sane and that mental health problems have been invented after the fact as a defence.

I just don't like the way this term of 'mental health' is so often trotted out as some sort of excuse, some form of mitigation, you must feel sorry for them, they have mental health.

Equally I do understand that there will be folk who's brains are so far out of kilter that they will need to be imprisoned in some sort of institution (we have Carstairs up here, a frightening place to even pass by train, worryingly the track is on a tight bend as it passes the state hospital and the train needs to slow down, that is scary - an escaped one may board!) but these people should never ever be released. If they go down the road of 'its my mental health that did it', then no more light of day for them.