• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Stabbing in Russell Square"

Collapse

  • Scruff
    replied
    Originally posted by DaveB View Post
    Life goes on.
    Long after the thrill, of livin' has gone...

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by Mordac View Post
    I'm sure there's a clause in the human rights bollicks regarding interfering with a terrorist suspects rectum. Much easier to shoot the machete-wielding "poor chap". Not having to wash one's hands afterwards helps a bit...
    British police tend to tazer them then leave it up to judges to hear their tulip.

    It must be crap being a barrister of such criminals as while you don't want to defend them you have a moral duty to otherwise you would be as bad as them in not upholding the principles of law.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mordac
    replied
    Originally posted by minestrone View Post
    Did the police consider administering rectal diazepam and booking a 10 week course of CBT before shooting this poor chap dead?
    I'm sure there's a clause in the human rights bollicks regarding interfering with a terrorist suspects rectum. Much easier to shoot the machete-wielding "poor chap". Not having to wash one's hands afterwards helps a bit...

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    I would suggest most terrorists are mentally ill at least by our defininition
    It's whether the mental illness removes culpability that matters. Sometimes it does, sometimes not. Depends on the form the illness takes. I'd suggest most terrorist are evil bastards who need locking up.

    Leave a comment:


  • DaveB
    replied
    Originally posted by Scruff View Post
    Spent Friday afternoon in and around Russell Square. No sign of any of the recent mental madness, or police signs. Just chilled people sitting in the park enjoying a warm London afternoon.
    Life goes on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scruff
    replied
    Spent Friday afternoon in and around Russell Square. No sign of any of the recent mental madness, or police signs. Just chilled people sitting in the park enjoying a warm London afternoon.

    Leave a comment:


  • PurpleGorilla
    replied
    #prayforthementallyillterrorists

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by minestrone View Post
    So they are mutually exclusive, if you are mentally ill you cannot be a terrorist?
    I would suggest most terrorists are mentally ill at least by our defininition

    Leave a comment:


  • minestrone
    replied
    Originally posted by Flashman View Post
    Flippin' Norwegians again no doubt.
    Did the police consider administering rectal diazepam and booking a 10 week course of CBT before shooting this poor chap dead?

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by minestrone View Post
    Thatcher often gets the blame for closing institutions but the journey towards this was primarily from the medical profession. Laing was prime driver.
    Closing the institutions was a positive move especially for adults with learning disabilities. Unfortunately community services were not adequately funded hence the moniker don't care in the community.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flashman
    replied
    Flippin' Norwegians again no doubt.

    Leave a comment:


  • Milkyway
    replied
    Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
    Immigration to a new country is stressful in general and migrants are more likely to suffer mental health problems. Many have totally unrealistic expectations and, when they are not fulfilled, gratitude can easily turn to resentment.

    The performance of people generally reflects the country they come from. Compare those from China, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh with the progress of their countries of origin. Ditto those from the more educated, mainly Western African countries with those from the poorest, mainly Eastern African nations.

    There are plenty of stats about the woeful performance of Somalis in the UK. Seriously, it is time Europe stopped letting these people in. Even leaving aside incidents like this, the money they cost us is money we cannot spend on our citizens, including our existing minorities.

    The asylum rules needs tearing up.
    If what you say is true, then why are we going BREXIT and want to trade and have new relationships with these low and bad quality people / country (as you refer them to be) rather than trading with EU / western society / inviting EU people more than these countries into UK.

    Leave a comment:


  • minestrone
    replied
    Originally posted by Malcolm Buggeridge View Post
    It is absolutely criminal the way our mental institutions were shiit down.

    But then again why did we really need to hang on to them when the govt could cream a king's ransom from the sale of those old Victorian institutions to developers to turn into yuppie pads while big pharma could provide the chemical padded cell at the same time?
    Thatcher often gets the blame for closing institutions but the journey towards this was primarily from the medical profession. Laing was prime driver.

    Leave a comment:


  • minestrone
    replied
    Originally posted by DaveB View Post
    Not really that unusual.

    Bottom line is you're at least 10 times more likely to be killed by someone with mental health issues than by a terrorist.
    So they are mutually exclusive, if you are mentally ill you cannot be a terrorist?

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by darmstadt View Post
    Definitely mental health issues and not terrorism, I mean who goes to house parties these days: Murder probe launched after teenager stabbed to death near house party in Peckham | Crime | News | The Independent

    Possibly fed up with the wife trying on too much clothing: Westfield London stabbing: Man in hospital after shopping centre attack | Crime | News | The Independent

    And it's not confined to London: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...goldthorn-hill

    In 2015 there were 28,008 knife crimes recorded by police - a nine per increase on the previous year. Seems to be a fashionable thing to do...
    Knife crimes tend to be against someone you know.

    The point being made above was that is was not someone he knew even slightly in the PDF they called it stranger Homicide. Now I have been attacked because I told to scumbag to behave on a few occasions but never because I was just there at the time that is a whole different kind of nutter.

    I would suggest that the one that just walks up & stabs you for no reason is much rarer than one who gets their courage & reason through the booze & a nasty temper.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X