Another Islamic Stabathon. . .as usual,. . aaaaaand it's mental health. . . .

Phil Perry

Well-Known Member
#1
Agreed.jpg

Perpetrator was yelling Alahu Ackbar, and the Caliphate. .. but it's NTDWI as usual. ( BBC the motive is unknown. . .) a few doors away from the Ariana Grande massacre in Manchester,. . .which was Another Mental Health issue of course. . . 22 kids were 'Lost'. . .( That's Theresa May shorthand for 'Murdered by an Islamic Looney' )
 
Last edited:

octave

Well-Known Member
#2
but it's NTDWI as usual. ( BBC the motive is unknown. . .)

When I search the BBC for this new story I get this headline
Manchester Victoria station stabbings 'a terrorist investigation'

Manchester knifings 'a terrorist inquiry'

I cannot seem to find anything at least in their online news that where the BBC suggests this attack was purely a function of mental health. The article does say this Mr Jackson added that "given how frenzied the attack was" officers were considering the mental health of the arrested suspect" but this is not the BBC saying this. It is a quote by the chief constable. I don't see that this constitutes the BBC misrepresenting the facts. I can see no place in this article where the BBC does anything other than quote officials at no point does the BBC express an opinion as far as I can see. It is important to be rational an not hysterical in these cases.
 
Last edited:

Marty_d

Well-Known Member
#3
It's not an either / or thing. You'd have to be mentally unbalanced to some degree in order to buy into the full IS propaganda, to the extent you would kill an innocent person.
 

Phil Perry

Well-Known Member
#7
but it's NTDWI as usual. ( BBC the motive is unknown. . .)

When I search the BBC for this new story I get this headline
Manchester Victoria station stabbings 'a terrorist investigation'

Manchester knifings 'a terrorist inquiry'

I cannot seem to find anything at least in their online news that where the BBC suggests this attack was purely a function of mental health. The article does say this Mr Jackson added that "given how frenzied the attack was" officers were considering the mental health of the arrested suspect" but this is not the BBC saying this. It is a quote by the chief constable. I don't see that this constitutes the BBC misrepresenting the facts. I can see no place in this article where the BBC does anything other than quote officials at no point does the BBC express an opinion as far as I can see. It is important to be rational an not hysterical in these cases.
Thanks Octave.

My point is that, almost all of these incidents, once they become public knowledge, in an inordinate amount of cases, the first report appears to be that the perpetrator has, 'Mental Health' issues, either known to, or suspected by, the authorities. A cynic ( like wot I am ) could well believe that there is a pattern. Most of the atrocities across the European Mainland, where they are not completely repressed by Governmental control of the various media, invariably go down the 'Mental Illness' route, OR, deny it emphatically, stating that plain criminality NOT terrorism was the motive. After the various events, there is never any follow up, ie they get 'Memory Holed' to oblivion by a media which can only be described as being mostly compliant in this farce.

I can understand fully WHY the authorities do this, it is because they have no answer to the problem. So sweeping it under the carpet is their safest redoubt. This is merely stonewallng, thus creating a much larger problem for further down the road and for 'Someone Else' to sort out..

Regards,

Phil.
 
#8
It may not be quite as simple as that. Although it has been a while since I studied criminal law in the UK and no dount a lot has changed, there are very onerous conditions under the Police and Crimimal Evidence Act 1974 (PACE) that was brought in thanks to the miscarriages of justice due to very dodgy police investigations and setting up the Guildforfd 4 and Birmingham 6. There are very strict rules on how long you can hold without charge, presenting for bail, and many other things. However, if th epolice can make a reasonable case of mental illness, the rules tilt more "favourably" in the police favour. Of course, it will have to be established pretty quickly, but things like time limits and the rigours of procedure are lessened. They have to seek a diagnosis at the earliest possible time, etc. But the thing is the diagnosis is based on the more tolerant psychiatric definition of mental illness rather than the more strict definition. And once it is diagnosed, well things likeholding in remand in a secure mental institution, time limits extensions, etc are far more easier.

Also, in some respects, if you want to keep the perpetrator off the streets for a very long time, it is better to not even let it go to trial... He can be committed to a mental institution indefinitely - until he is deemed fit to return to society. There are very strong safeguards around this snd there have to be regular reviews of both Home Office and independent psychiatrists, etc. But it can be used to get a better result for society in these circumstances.
 
Last edited:

Phil Perry

Well-Known Member
#9
It may not be quite as simple as that. Although it has been a while since I studied criminal law in the UK and no dount a lot has changed, there are very onerous conditions under the Police and Crimimal Evidence Act 1974 (PACE) that was brought in thanks to the miscarriages of justice due to very dodgy police investigations and setting up the Guildforfd 4 and Birmingham 6. There are very strict rules on how long you can hold without charge, presenting for bail, and many other things. However, if th epolice can make a reasonable case of mental illness, the rules tilt more "favourably" in the police favour. Of course, it will have to be established pretty quickly, but things like time limits and the rigours of procedure are lessened. They have to seek a diagnosis at the earliest possible time, etc. But the thing is the diagnosis is based on the more tolerant psychiatric definition of mental illness rather than the more strict definition. And once it is diagnosed, well things likeholding in remand in a secure mental institution, time limits extensions, etc are far more easier.

Also, in some respects, if you want to keep the perpetrator off the streets for a very long time, it is better to not even let it go to trial... He can be committed to a mental institution indefinitely - until he is deemed fit to return to society. There are very strong safeguards around this snd there have to be regular reviews of both Home Office and independent psychiatrists, etc. But it can be used to get a better result for society in these circumstances.
It didn't take very lon for the Police to use the 'Metal Illness' label in this case. I just watched a video, taken by a member of the public, where the perpetrator can be clearly heard shouting Allua Ackbar, and "This is for the Caliphate". Other witnesses have confirmed that he was shouting "for Allah" whilst actually stabbing people, including a Police officer. He seemed cogent enough to state loudly that "We will do this until you stop bombing us"

But No apparent application or use of the Anti-Terrorism legislation is evident at the moment.

Another one for the Memory hole no doubt.

The worrying this is that, according to the Mainstream Media, he has a Brother working 'Airside' at Manchester International Airport . . I hope they're following that one up,. . I mean, what if the Brother has Mental Illness issues as well. . .Is he from the same Mosque I wonder. . .
 

octave

Well-Known Member
#10
Stating that the man was known to mental health services and not known to anti-terror police is just a fact. This fact does not rule out terrorism in the least. Are you suggesting that the fact that the suspect was known to mental health authorities should not be reported? It is crucial that we learn what makes these people do what they do. In this case, the point of intervention would possibly have been in the mental health system. We need to know all of the facts.

I have not seen (but I have not read widely) anything in the media that suggests that this was not a terrorist-related attack. In the first few hours after an event sometimes not a lot is known. The aim of terrorism is not to reduce the number of us but to spread fear and anxiety. Phil, do you remember recently in Sydney a car run into a crowd, you questioned whether it was a terrorist act although quite early on it was determined that the truck driver suffered a medical incident. This is one of the aims of terrorism, to make us fearful and anxious. We also know that ISIS loves to take credit for any incident that could be terrorism-related. Phil do you also remember posting about the man whose fridge caused the Grenfell tower fire. I seem to remember that you had heard on social media that he had acted suspiciously, the implication being that perhaps he had caused the fire as an act of terror but this turned out to be false. It is crucial that we find all of the causes of these events. Just like in the investigation of a plane crash the intelligent investigator does not minutes after the crash proclaim the cause, they will usually say that "at this stage, this is what we know" And the cause is usually a series of events and failures.

When police address the media they are conscious of the fact that what they say can affect the outcome of a trial. Police will refer to the arrested person as the "alleged perpetrator" even though they may be certain of their guilt. They do not do this to be PC they do it to ensure the best result in the trial.

Phil are there any reports that say this was not a terrorist attack? or is the problem for you that it even mentions the perpetrator's mental health.

In terms of the media, the only story I have read is the BBC one that I posted a link to. I would find it hard to discern any bias. The article does not express an opinion it merely quotes senior police.
 
Top Bottom