Major Incident In Southport

[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 Ten Names]

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]

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 Ten Names]

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 Ten Names]

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.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

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

So the article you presented supported the fact that an incident occurred, albeit exaggerated by other articles. (social media eh? What are they like?)

There was indeed an incident, in 2000, involving a paediatrician who was mistakenly labelled a "paedo", but there is little evidence that it involved any kind of hysterical mob.

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.

from your link
It, in no way, disputes ella's presentation that an incident did occur and was instigated by some brainless idiots.

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".

The link presented by ellal does not exaggerate the incident.
It was a relatively minor incident which left a paediatrician feeling vulnerable.
But Mottie thinks it's of no real consequence.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

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


View attachment 350906

Marketing data. It's more reliable than personal guesses based on bigotry.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

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.

The courts decide who present the genuine defences or mitigating factors, not social media.

 

[motorbiking]

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

Ok so basically there is a scale..
At the top you are trying to prove that you had absolutely no control of yourself - the legal term used/borrowed is Automatism
The next level down is diminished responsibility. Manslaughter due to temporary uncontrollable rage etc.
At the bottom you are trying a mitigation argument. (its out of character, he was abused as a child, PTSD etc)


The Edwards case is slightly different.
Here you have a person who having taken advice has opted for a guilty plea. The cynic in me says he did this for 3 reasons:
- discount and leaner sentence
- No trial where the facts of the case are presented - opening him up to even more analysis
- The prosecution have no ability to present their case, so he can talk it down in the media - technical offence etc.

 

[Mottie]

Marketing data.

Marketing data would probably say that a butter knife is the most popular knife that is bought in the U.K. but feral youths would more than likely carry a zombie knife or a machete but go on then, put up this marketing data you have.