# Maxine Carr Gets Married! How Dare She!



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

Sometimes the Daily Heil really offends me, more than usual.

Yesterday they had a front page article informing us that Maxine Carr, former girlfriend of Ian Huntley, had gotten married by telling us her wedding dress cost two grand. Apparently this is important. I didn't read the article close enough to discern whether she paid for it herself, or whether it was 'taxpayer funded' - ie, is she on benefits after beinghounded by the Mail for ten odd years.

But what really angered me are two insidious aspects in that article:

First, they claimed the cost of protecting her from reprisals and such was in the millions. Protecting her from whom: the scum at the Daily Mail who, at every turn, have sought to reveal her as she tries to get on with her life. What else would they have her do? Publicly apologise for being stupid enough to love a murderer? For being a confused young woman? Then hang herself like something out of Charlie Brooker's imagination? 

All this does is inspire the sort of Daily Outrage that just fulminates without release in the minds of people. I think this is extremely irresponsible and quite unhealthy. Where does this anger go? Are they expecting people to chase her down, costing the taxpayer more money as they have to pick up the tab for rebuilding her life?

Secondly, and worst of all IMO, they report that she was laughing and joking. That's right, at her own wedding, she was happy and having a good time. Of course that isn't news; the point is to make her seem even more uncaring and callous: look, she's got no shame. Think of those poor kids and their families who have to live with all this while she dares to have a life! Clearly she should be shipped off to some convent like all shamed women. It's disgusting and entirely sexist.

To imply they care about the victims' families is just as repugnant: if they did they'd leave them to get on with their lives rather than rake up this stuff by constantly chasing people like Maxine Carr all the time. It's not news, it's the worst kind of 'churnalism'. I'd happily vote for a PM that revoked Dacre's license. Send the cunt to a tax haven where he can't do any more damage to the national psyche.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 29, 2014)

Good luck to her. Massively vilified for being naïve and blinded by love.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 29, 2014)

she did do a near on forensic clean of the house, but she's paid for it. And she believed him.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 29, 2014)




----------



## likesfish (May 29, 2014)

Jesus she was a fucking idiot but crumbled when the police asked her a few questions.
 Most people wouldnt belive their partner had killed two kids.
	Hounding her for what not being a fucking mind reader and haveing woeful taste in men?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 29, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Jesus she was a fucking idiot but crumbled when the police asked her a few questions.
> Most people wouldnt belive their partner had killed two kids.
> Hounding her for what not being a fucking mind reader and haveing woeful taste in men?



if you'll recall, after the case was done and dusted interviews with Huntley's exes were aired. What came across for me was that he is not quite a Brady level mind-games manipulator but certainly akin to it- and convincing enough to fool his mrs, the school, the community as a whole.

Remember before he was fingered he gave a brief appeal to camera/comment to press. And was entirely convincing, no shift eyed ness at all.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

Maybe if the Mail was made to foot the bill for her protection/id changes etc?


----------



## PursuedByBears (May 29, 2014)

The Mail won't be happy until she's been lynched.


----------



## Fez909 (May 29, 2014)

It should be construed as harassment.


----------



## scifisam (May 29, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> she did do a near on forensic clean of the house, but she's paid for it. And she believed him.



Yep. She did a wrong thing because she believed her BF, and she spent longer in jail than many rapists. What she did prolonged the families' trauma so some sentence was fair, but she is not an actual child killer.

Ten years or so ago, when I last visted the London Dungeon, she was in their women murderers bit. I look a bit like Maxine Carr (short, dark curly bob and similar face shape) so trust me when I am certain that I remember this. I got pointed at. 

She didn't actually cause the deaths of those girls; she is allowed a life.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

PursuedByBears said:


> The Mail won't be happy until she's been lynched.


They don't actually say this (obv), so that leaves people to just get angry and irate and leave them with nowhere to go, no outlet for that sense of outrage. No wonder our society is so fucked up.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

She might not have been as innocent as people are making out and she did try and make money out of the situation:- "After release, Carr and her family were negotiating towards an autobiographical book deal, but Mirage Publishing withdrew after a feature on BBC Radio Newcastle prompted scores of objections.[25]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxine_Carr_(criminal)#Maxine_Carr

I agree that it's not a good idea to encourage vigilantes but I think she was/is pretty amoral but then I think most people are


----------



## souljacker (May 29, 2014)

The simple answer to this is to not buy the Daily Mail and punch anyone in the face that you see reading it or buying it.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

I think people just want to deny the reality of life when they avoid the Daily Mail.  They don't like to accept how horrible the world really is.


----------



## scifisam (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> She might not have been as innocent as people are making out and she did try and make money out of the situation:- "After release, Carr and her family were negotiating towards an autobiographical book deal, but Mirage Publishing withdrew after a feature on BBC Radio Newcastle prompted scores of objections.[25]"
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxine_Carr_(criminal)#Maxine_Carr
> 
> I agree that it's not a good idea to encourage vigilantes but I think she was/is pretty amoral but then I think most people are



How does that make her amoral?

She plead guilty to perverting the course of justice. That's a crime that deserves time in prison, and she got that. Even the state thought she actually believed Huntley was innocent, hence dropping the other charge. 

Now that she's served her time, it's not surprising that books were in the offing. People are always curious about those who knew the Big Bad Killers. The wiki says she as negotiating for them. Yeah. No publisher ever approached her about a potential book - it was all driven by this slightly dim woman. If she wanted to write a book, and live on her notoriety, she could do it. She hasn't.

What do you think amoral means?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 29, 2014)

It's just a circus, a distraction - panto villains to rage at, whilst wider injustices are never topic for debate.


----------



## Wilf (May 29, 2014)

The media reaction to Maxine Carr, who didn't murder children, shows how stupid Myra Hindley was wanting to be let out.


----------



## Favelado (May 29, 2014)

PursuedByBears said:


> The Mail won't be happy until she's been lynched.



Preferably by a mob from an estate, who they can then subsequently investigate, expose and vilify.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> She might not have been as innocent as people are making out



Innocent of what exactly?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

scifisam said:


> How does that make her amoral?
> 
> She plead guilty to perverting the course of justice. That's a crime that deserves time in prison, and she got that. Even the state thought she actually believed Huntley was innocent, hence dropping the other charge.
> 
> ...



What slightly dim woman??  It says she - ie Carr and her family, were negotiating with a publisher for her - ie Carr to write her autobiography - that's the story in her own words.  She approached a publisher wanting to sell her story in other words.  On the back of the murder of Holly and Jessica and her involvement, I'd say that was a pretty amoral act - ie lacking in morality.

Also:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...referring-to-missing-girls-in-past-tense.html


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Innocent of what exactly?



Involvement 

At what stage did she know about the deaths and did she possibly even lure the girls to the house for Huntley in the first place.  That has gone through my mind.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Involvement
> 
> At what stage did she know about the deaths and did she possibly even lure the girls to the house for Huntley in the first place.  That has gone through my mind.



How would she have managed to lure the girls into the house when she was a hundred miles away?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> How would she have managed to lure the girls into the house when she was a hundred miles away?



She was friendly with them at the school beforehand and might have encouraged them to visit the house.  I have noticed that teachers/those in the teaching profession often seem to cross professional boundaries these days and it never ends well.  There is no reason for school children to be visiting the house of a teaching assistant unless she'd crossed professional boundaries ie acted more like a friend than a teacher.  I suspect she's a lot more manipulative than people realise.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Involvement
> 
> At what stage did she know about the deaths and did she possibly even lure the girls to the house for Huntley in the first place.  That has gone through my mind.



I imagine the jury know more about the case than you and your possibilities that go through your mind.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

nessa239, you "speculate", you "notice", you "suspect".	Are you a Daily Mail reader?


----------



## nino_savatte (May 29, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> she did do a near on forensic clean of the house, but she's paid for it. And she believed him.


Maybe I can get her to clean my flat? On second thought, maybe not.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 29, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Maybe I can get her to clean my flat? On second thought, maybe not.




she missed two hairs iirc. The way forensics can dig these days you should just cut your losses and torch the flat.


----------



## scifisam (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> What slightly dim woman??  It says she - ie Carr and her family, were negotiating with a publisher for her - ie Carr to write her autobiography - that's the story in her own words.  She approached a publisher wanting to sell her story in other words.  On the back of the murder of Holly and Jessica and her involvement, I'd say that was a pretty amoral act - ie lacking in morality.
> 
> Also:-
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...referring-to-missing-girls-in-past-tense.html



Negotiating with a publisher doesn't mean she approached them. Lots of publishers would have wanted to hear her side of the story; negotiating could just mean "I'll get back to you later," or even just saying no.

She did a bad thing that many of us would have done. If she'd been complicit in the deaths, she would have been charged with that; she was not exactly a powerful person who could get charges against her dropped. 

She did a wrong thing, but not so wrong that she should be hounded to death.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 29, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> she missed two hairs iirc. The way forensics can dig these days you should just cut your losses and torch the flat.


Yeah, that's what I thought. Sloppy work. I'll get someone else.


----------



## Wilf (May 29, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> she missed two hairs iirc. The way forensics can dig these days you should just cut your losses and torch the flat.


 ... and there's all that fingerprint powder.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> She was friendly with them at the school beforehand and might have encouraged them to visit the house.  I have noticed that teachers/those in the teaching profession often seem to cross professional boundaries these days and it never ends well.  There is no reason for school children to be visiting the house of a teaching assistant unless she'd crossed professional boundaries ie acted more like a friend than a teacher.  I suspect she's a lot more manipulative than people realise.



I suspect you're a complete fantasist.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> She was friendly with them at the school beforehand and might have encouraged them to visit the house.  I have noticed that teachers/those in the teaching profession often seem to cross professional boundaries these days and it never ends well.



Could you give some examples?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> I suspect you're a complete fantasist.



No, I am an observer of human nature - having Aspergers I've been on the outside of things most of the time so can spot patterns.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 29, 2014)

after the trial was done the audio of Officers confronting maxine with the undeniable evidence was aired on the news. Her response was not that which you'd expect at some anguished at being caught out- it was complete disbelief and horror.

Not that I'm a voice analyst expert or anything, but thats how it sounded to me.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Could you give some examples?



Teachers are often having relationships with schoolchildren - it's often in the papers 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...il-gets-probation-community-service-fine.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-hotel-break-sex-school-training-weekend.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22989030

"Figures on offences are hard to come by - the Ministry of Justice says it does not collate offences by occupation and the Department for Education did not respond to a request for figures - but it is widely reported that between 1991 and 2008, a total of 129 teachers were prosecuted for relationships with pupils.

Teaching unions say they are rare, with the number of cases that go as far as court tiny, and the number that end up in conviction tinier still.

However anecdotally, it seems to be more widespread. In 2007, a YouGov survey of 2,200 adults found one in six knew of someone who had had an "intimate relationship" with a teacher while at school.

A part of the problem of guessing the scale of the problem is the unique nature of the crime.

Two weeks after my 16th birthday he called me into his office and kissed me”

Sometimes the victims never complain. Many don't even consider themselves as "victims" until years after the relationship took place. Some never change their mind."

These things are mainly reported in the Daily Mail so you won't know about them as papers like the Guardian like to pretend they don't exist or are in favour of them possibly - that's the problem when you avoid the truth of what's happening - your viewpoint gets skewed


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> No, I am an observer of human nature - having Aspergers I've been on the outside of things most of the time so can spot patterns.


Then perhaps someone should give you a badge and a gun and you could clean up this goddamn hellhole for once and for all.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...referring-to-missing-girls-in-past-tense.html

"A television interview with Maxine Carr had to be halted because she kept referring to Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in the past tense.

The footage of the interview, including several minutes of material that had never been broadcast, was played to the Old Bailey yesterday.

Rachel Dane, a journalist with the BBC's Look East regional news programme, and Shaun Whitmore, a cameraman, spoke to Carr and Ian Huntley at their home in Soham six days after the girls went missing.

Mr Whitmore told the court he stopped the interview and suggested that they start again. "I felt the families wouldn't want to hear the girls spoken about in the past tense," he said.

But in the resumed interview Carr again slipped into the past tense. Carr said: "They're both like chalk and cheese really, if you look at them I mean they're both very pretty girls, very lovely girls. Holly was more of the . . . is more of the . . .

At this point, Miss Dane interrupted: "Hold on. Stop."

Carr broke into nervous laughter and said: "Sorry. God!"."

She's giving herself away here but the view that goes forward is always the majority one so she's not been seen as complicit


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

So officially it's a "tiny" problem, but the Daily Mail say that "anecdotally" it's more widespread.

And that's how you come to your view that Maxine Carr was guilty of luring the children into her house?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Then perhaps someone should give you a badge and a gun and you could clean up this goddamn hellhole for once and for all.



Lol not many would be left if that happened


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So officially it's a "tiny" problem, but the Daily Mail say that "anecdotally" it's more widespread.
> 
> And that's how you come to your view that Maxine Carr was guilty of luring the children into her house?



Not at all, I've observed her behaviour and character type

One teacher having a relationship with a pupil is too many!

and if you note it was the BBC that reported that part not DM - no inherent bias on your side I see

if you wilfully change facts how on earth can an intelligent debate take place??

I have old fashioned views evidently


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I imagine the jury know more about the case than you and your possibilities that go through your mind.



People are basically deluded most of the time and do not want to face the truth

society runs along what the majority think and the majority are often wrong

truth is never that important, just maintaining the status quo

imo Maxine Carr fooled everyone

look how she's managed to find a husband so easily 

I'm not saying she should be hounded, just that I don't think she's a moral person and that she was more complicit than people want to admit

I'm entitled to my own view


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...referring-to-missing-girls-in-past-tense.html
> 
> "A television interview with Maxine Carr had to be halted because she kept referring to Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in the past tense.
> 
> ...


What's your point here?

Are teh daily mail right to continually drag her identiy out and splash it across the front page? To what end?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> However anecdotally, it seems to be more widespread. In 2007, a YouGov survey of 2,200 adults found one in six knew of someone who had had an "intimate relationship" with a teacher while at school.


 
When I was at school I 'knew of' someone who'd fallen out of a tree on the field, hit his head, and become convinced his name was Joshua Peabody.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> What's your point here?
> 
> Are teh daily mail right to continually drag her identiy out and splash it across the front page? To what end?



I suspect the DM feel the same way about her as me but they're a newspaper and in the business of making money.  If bad people aren't held up as a bad example where is the incentive to be good?

society is as bad as it is for the very reason no one recognises right from wrong any more - it's all moral relatavism and look how that's affected society

I don't care if the papers report on her or not really


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> When I was at school I 'knew of' someone who'd fallen out of a tree on the field, hit his head, and become convinced his name was Joshua Peabody.



Now you're being facetious 

Why start a thread for everyone to just agree?  it's meaningless


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

souljacker said:


> The simple answer to this is to not buy the Daily Mail and punch anyone in the face that you see reading it or buying it.


I'd rather not have to punch my mother in the face. 



nessa239 said:


> I think people just want to deny the reality of life when they avoid the Daily Mail.  They don't like to accept how horrible the world really is.


What reality? Did Carr kill those children? If that's true then put her in front of a jury; what is gained by this endless (and it won't end) witchhunt?

In fact it's not even that, because the Mail knows even it couldn't get away with that. INstead it's just playing on their hatred of women and the evergreen 'crime goes unpunished in our society' tropes.

A lot of angry people reading this shit end up taking it out on the only people they can rage against, which would be the poor, the sick and the immigrants that run the corner shop who accidentally oevercharged them yesterday for a Mars bar.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/jul/26/privacy.soham

"There was also speculation that she may have been in breach of the terms of her probation as it is usual for high profile prisoners to give an undertaking not to talk to the media."

"In the interview Ms Carr said she was certain that letters written to her by the former school caretaker - in which, she claims, he pleaded with her not to believe that he had carried out the killings - proved she was unaware of the truth.

"Why would he say that if I knew what he had done?" she asked. "It shows I didn't know. I am considering releasing this letter - it might make people believe that I didn't know what he had done." "

Why hasn't she released this letter then?

"Last week Shirley Capp, Ms Carr's mother, was jailed for six months for intimidating a witness in the Soham murder trial."

Nice family

All these clues get blithely overlooked because they don't fit the narrative people want to have in their minds


----------



## Roadkill (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I'm entitled to my own view



You are, but when you put it out there in public you should expect to be challenged on it: the flip side of freedom to speak your mind is the freedom of others to tell you that you're talking nonsense.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I suspect the DM feel the same way about her as me but they're a newspaper and in the business of making money.  If bad people aren't held up as a bad example where is the incentive to be good?
> 
> society is as bad as it is for the very reason no one recognises right from wrong any more - it's all moral relatavism and look how that's affected society
> 
> I don't care if the papers report on her or not really


Do you think this is honest journalism?

Maxine Carr enjoying herself at own wedding with dress she must have got thorugh benefits (that's the implication at least)?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I'd rather not have to punch my mother in the face.
> 
> 
> What reality? Did Carr kill those children? If that's true then put her in front of a jury; what is gained by this endless (and it won't end) witchhunt?
> ...



People vary in terms of how they see these things

are you saying the news should be censored so only fluffy kittens get reported on?

I prefer to know what's going on


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> You are, but when you put it out there in public you should expect to be challenged on it: the flip side of freedom to speak your mind is the freedom of others to tell you that you're talking nonsense.



That's arrogant - you aren't any more correct than me - it's still opinion


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/jul/26/privacy.soham
> 
> "There was also speculation that she may have been in breach of the terms of her probation as it is usual for high profile prisoners to give an undertaking not to talk to the media."
> 
> ...



Maybe it will be in her new book, for you to peruse at leisure.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> People vary in terms of how they see these things
> 
> are you saying the news should be censored so only fluffy kittens get reported on?
> 
> I prefer to know what's going on


Is her wedding news? Is it in the public interest, or is that interest manipulated and manufactured by the liekes of the Mail?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Do you think this is honest journalism?
> 
> Maxine Carr enjoying herself at own wedding with dress she must have got thorugh benefits (that's the implication at least)?



I don't feel well-disposed towards the woman - you can make friends with her if you like - be my guest

it's more honest than the Guardian who don't even report on a lot of what's going on


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> She was friendly with them at the school beforehand and might have encouraged them to visit the house.  I have noticed that teachers/those in the teaching profession often seem to cross professional boundaries these days and it never ends well.  There is no reason for school children to be visiting the house of a teaching assistant unless she'd crossed professional boundaries ie acted more like a friend than a teacher.  I suspect she's a lot more manipulative than people realise.





nessa239 said:


> Teachers are often having relationships with schoolchildren - it's often in the papers
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...il-gets-probation-community-service-fine.html
> 
> ...



You seem to be saying it happens more often "these days" than in the past.  None of your evidence supports that assumption and I'd argue that the opposite is true.  The 2007 stat especially seems to indicate that these things were at least equally commonplace in the past, as many would be remembering a story from their own childhood.


"These days" there are many more rules and guidelines about staff-pupil boundaries, quite rightly.  I doubt you'll find anyone who supports it, and certainly not your typical guardian reader nor any teacher you might come across.  You proclaim yourself to be such a good judge of character, but has it occurred to you that you might be wrong about that?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Maybe it will be in her new book, for you to peruse at leisure.



Why on earth would I buy her book??  that comment alone displays your ignorance of my stance on her being an immoral person


----------



## DownwardDog (May 29, 2014)

She probably tipped the DM off herself for a couple of hundred quid.


----------



## Roadkill (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> That's arrogant - you aren't any more correct than me - it's still opinion



Oh, so one opinion shouldn't be privileged over another, and no-one should tell one another they're wrong.  And you're the one who was banging on about relativism...


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> You seem to be saying it happens more often "these days" than in the past.  None of your evidence supports that assumption and I'd argue that the opposite is true.  The 2007 stat especially seems to indicate that these things were at least equally commonplace in the past, as many would be remembering a story from their own childhood.
> 
> 
> "These days" there are many more rules and guidelines about staff-pupil boundaries, quite rightly.  I doubt you'll find anyone who supports it, and certainly not your typical guardian reader nor any teacher you might come across.  You proclaim yourself to be such a good judge of character, but has it occurred to you that you might be wrong about that?



It's probably occurring at the same rate but that doesn't excuse it 

I suspect I'm a better judge of character than most


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> She probably tipped the DM off herself for a couple of hundred quid.



I agree - she wouldn't be able to resist boasting about her fairytale wedding


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I don't feel well-disposed towards the woman - you can make friends with her if you like - be my guest
> 
> it's more honest than the Guardian who don't even report on a lot of what's going on


I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I'm not arguing for press censorship. Maxine Carr onl gets a mention because of her notorieity and becausse the Mail has and continues to demonise her. Nothing she can ever do will change their attitude, is that justice?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Oh, so one opinion shouldn't be privileged over another, and no-one should tell one another they're wrong.  And you're the one who was banging on about relativism...



I'm not the one being insulting to others


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Why on earth would I buy her book??  that comment alone displays your ignorance of my stance on her being an immoral person



You won't be able to resist. Think of all the juicy clues you might find.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I agree - she wouldn't be able to resist boasting about her fairytale wedding


Don't all brides?

If the Mail cared about this at all they'd have said 'no thanks', assuyming you are correct.

Lots of people sell their marriages to the media. They don't get demonised.


----------



## Roadkill (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I'm not the one being insulting to others



No-one's insulting anyone on this thread so far as I can see.  They're just disagreeing with you.


----------



## likesfish (May 29, 2014)

Nessa your batshit 

 She was judged and found guilty abd served 21 months not for murder as she didnt have the goid grace to kill herself the mail and others belive she should be hounded by a mob until dead.
 Fortunatly this isnt pakistan so thats not happening


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> You won't be able to resist. Think of all the juicy clues you might find.



No I wouldn't - I would have no interest at all

I could predict what she'd say and how she'd say it - it would be tedious in the extreme

surely you ought to be buying it to support her as you feel sorry for her


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> No-one's insulting anyone on this thread so far as I can see.  They're just disagreeing with you.



"Nessa your batshit"

"I suspect you're a complete fantasist."

"the flip side of freedom to speak your mind is the freedom of others to tell you that you're talking nonsense."

oh really?


----------



## Roadkill (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> "Nessa your batshit"
> 
> oh really?



Tbf that came _below_ my last post.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> No I wouldn't - I would have no interest at all
> 
> I could predict what she'd say and how she'd say it - it would be tedious in the extreme
> 
> surely you ought to be buying it to support her as you feel sorry for her


what do you think should happen to her?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Tbf that came _below_ my last post.



What does it matter where it came??

there were insults before your post too

I'm all for disagreeing but when the 'you're mad' line gets wheeled out it's pathetic

what that means is 'you aren't conforming to the majority viewpoint'


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> what do you think should happen to her?



Nothing

I merely gave an opinion on what I think happened

I don't advocate any further punishment as she's been in prison, just get sick of people defending her - she's not a decent person
so shouldn't be treated as such - she should disappear

I suspect she did tip off the papers as they'd be contravening rules by reporting on her otherwise probably and she could sue them


----------



## Roadkill (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> What does it matter where it came??



Because I was commenting only on what had been said up to that point.  I agree likesfish's comment was mildly out of order though.


----------



## DownwardDog (May 29, 2014)

I wonder what the thought process of the bloke who met her on FB was. He probably runs a cleaning business.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> "the flip side of freedom to speak your mind is the freedom of others to tell you that you're talking nonsense."
> 
> oh really?



That isn't an insult and applies to everyone.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Because I was commenting only on what had been said up to that point.  I agree likesfish's comment was mildly out of order though.



I was called a fantasist before that

it's easy to toe the party line - no skill in that AT ALL


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> That isn't an insult and applies to everyone.



The implication was that I was talking nonsense 

I'm expressing my opinions and they are as valid as anyone elses


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> I wonder what the thought process of the bloke who met her on FB was. He probably runs a cleaning business.





Awesome Wells said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by that.
> 
> I'm not arguing for press censorship. Maxine Carr onl gets a mention because of her notorieity and becausse the Mail has and continues to demonise her. Nothing she can ever do will change their attitude, is that justice?



She covered up for a murderer - is that a just act?

this woman is manipulative and untrustworthy

she's disliked for what she did


----------



## Roadkill (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I'm expressing my opinions and they are as valid as anyone elses



As I said above, you were the one complaining about relativism, but what could be more relativistic than insisting your opinion should be afforded exactly the same weight as everyone else's and no-one should tell you you're wrong.

To take an extreme example, if someone came on here saying the Holocaust didn't happen would you defend them on the grounds that they're entitled to their opinion?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I think people just want to deny the reality of life when they avoid the Daily Mail.  They don't like to accept how horrible the world really is.



You really don't like people or society very much do you?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> As I said above, you were the one complaining about relativism, but what could be more relativistic than insisting your opinion should be afforded exactly the same weight as everyone else's and no-one should tell you you're wrong.
> 
> To take an extreme example, if someone came on here saying the Holocaust didn't happen would you defend them on the grounds that they're entitled to their opinion?



me being wrong is an opinion though, not an objective fact


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> You really don't like people or society very much do you?



No, I have Aspergers and have been rejected too many times so it's fairly logical I'd say


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> No, I have Aspergers and have been rejected too many times so it's fairly logical I'd say



but hector me some more and I might start loving them perhaps....


----------



## DotCommunist (May 29, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> I wonder what the thought process of the bloke who met her on FB was. He probably runs a cleaning business.




on a side note I read a chapter in a book called 'LA Crime Scene Cleaners' where the main bod made a huge rant about how difficult it was to clean blood off without wricking the carpet, and how shotgun suicides are the worst cos you spend hours picking skull fragments out of the wall with tweezers. It was very sensational. Then me bro got a brief gig with 'BOING!' a contracting group who distribute crime scene cleaning to sme's in the UK.

It was no way near that glamourouse. Just rubber gloves for sharps, ripping up carpets stained with 'lets not think about it' and so on.

I recon the author was over egging it.


----------



## comrade spurski (May 29, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Nessa your batshit
> 
> She was judged and found guilty abd served 21 months not for murder as she didnt have the goid grace to kill herself the mail and others belive she should be hounded by a mob until dead.
> Fortunatly this isnt pakistan so thats not happening



how the fuck do we go from discussing the demonisation of a gullible/stupid/naive/thoughtless woman to making comments about an asian country?
FFS...it is a white owned right wing, tory supporting newspaper but you use Pakistan as an example of intolerance????


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> No, I have Aspergers and have been rejected too many times so it's fairly logical I'd say


Feel free not to answer this, because it's a personal question, but do you accept/believe that there are different choices you could have made or could make in the future that would make for happier social experiences, even given the Aspergers' situation?


----------



## likesfish (May 29, 2014)

Er theres just been a nasty mob killing in pakistan


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Feel free not to answer this, because it's a personal question, but do you accept/believe that there are different choices you could have made or could make in the future that would make for happier social experiences, even given the Aspergers' situation?



Not really   Not everyone fits in and sometimes you have to cut your losses to save your mental health


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> No, I am an observer of human nature - having Aspergers I've been on the outside of things most of the time so can spot patterns.



No you're not. You're a misanthrope who projects your prejudices onto everything you see.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I suspect I'm a better judge of character than most



I think you've misjudged your audience here by quite a bit.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> No you're not. You're a misanthrope who projects your prejudices onto everything you see.



no, I have a clearer view because I'm not conforming to the viewpoint we're 'meant' to have


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Not really   Not everyone fits in and sometimes you have to cut your losses to save your mental health


Thanks - i wonder if that in itself is a symptom.  Of the neurotypical people I know, we all have that sense of blaming ourselves for the bits of bad social interactions where we could have done or said different things, and resolving to behave differently in future.  I wonder if that introspection and acceptance of fault is essential for relationships and perhaps why some people find building those relationships difficult.

No wishing to equate you at all with Elliot Rodger, but the most striking thing about his manifesto was that at no point did he express regret about anything he'd done, or accept any blame for why people didn't want to be friends with him / live with him.


----------



## comrade spurski (May 29, 2014)

there are example of mob attacks all over the world...there were mobs attacking "peado's" here 10 yrs ago...a child was killed when a a house was torched by a mob.
mobs torched larg parts of london 3 years ago.
pisses me off when foriegn counttries like pakistan are used...
10 asian men involved in child sex ring becomes muslims abusing children ...
yet no one mention the race of the dozens of child abusing celebrities or priests etc.
rant over...sorry for derailing thread


----------



## fogbat (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...referring-to-missing-girls-in-past-tense.html
> 
> "A television interview with Maxine Carr had to be halted because she kept referring to Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in the past tense.
> 
> ...



I guessed they were probably dead once they went missing, and might well have spoken about them in the past tense. And I'm, at best, only tangentially complicit in their murders.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> I think you've misjudged your audience here by quite a bit.



How have I done that?

I expect problems on forums so I'm not surprised by this


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> How have I done that?
> 
> I expect problems on forums so I'm not surprised by this



"As a driver, i've never had a car crash.  I've seen hundreds though"


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I'm not conforming to the viewpoint we're 'meant' to have


By toeing the Daily Mail line?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/soham-caretaker-ian-huntleys-ex-wife-1269833

"Wayne was pacing around. So I sat down beside Ian and I said: ‘Tell the truth – what’s happening?’

“And he said: ‘Nothing, it’s all Maxine.’ "

What did he mean by this?

Strange that he should try and implicate her


----------



## DotCommunist (May 29, 2014)

fogbat said:


> I guessed they were probably dead once they went missing, and might well have spoken about them in the past tense. And I'm, at best, only tangentially complicit in their murders.



well thats it, once the undeniable evidence was before her she broke completely- and murder coppers investigating the death of two young girls aren't likely to be kind in the questioning are they? She told what she'd done and what she knew. Paid for it. She isn't Hyndley, she was not directly responsible. She had to answer for her part in a perversion of the course- ignorance is no excuse- and she has.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> By toeing the Daily Mail line?



No, by making my own conclusions from what I read and think

forums are usually an exercise in people trying to brainwash me into thinking like them - 'Join us!'

I feel life is like 'Invasion of the Bodysnatchers' with me being uninvaded and one of an extreme minority with free thought


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 29, 2014)

Oh god, another free thinker in a world of sheeple.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Oh god, another free thinker in a world of sheeple.



Lol I'm the only one arguing my viewpoint on here - funny that


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/soham-caretaker-ian-huntleys-ex-wife-1269833
> 
> "Wayne was pacing around. So I sat down beside Ian and I said: ‘Tell the truth – what’s happening?’
> 
> ...



Baffling.


----------



## cesare (May 29, 2014)

"Sheeple" in 10, 9, 8 ...


----------



## Roadkill (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> me being wrong is an opinion though, not an objective fact



And it would be their _opinion_ that the Holocaust never happened.  Still think one opinion is as valid as another?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Lol I'm the only one arguing my viewpoint on here - funny that


Have you considered that it might be because your viewpoint is absurd?

No, it must be everyone else.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> People are basically deluded most of the time and do not want to face the truth
> 
> society runs along what the majority think and the majority are often wrong
> 
> ...



Of course you are.

And I'm entitled to my view that you're a fool.


----------



## xenon (May 29, 2014)

I regularly read the Daily Mail on my phone, the headlines at least. Because;
A: You get a lot of them on the front page. moreso than most of the other news websites I read, save perhaps The Register.
B: I sometimes like seeing what mad bilious shite they've splurged out now.
C: I sometimes like getting outraged at the outrage.
D: Loads of people read the thing and it's a point of conversation gateway to a rant / argument
E: It's good to have an inkling of what your ideological enemies are saying.
F: Some level of entertainment is to be had in all the above.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> "As a driver, i've never had a car crash.  I've seen hundreds though"





spanglechick said:


> Thanks - i wonder if that in itself is a symptom.  Of the neurotypical people I know, we all have that sense of blaming ourselves for the bits of bad social interactions where we could have done or said different things, and resolving to behave differently in future.  I wonder if that introspection and acceptance of fault is essential for relationships and perhaps why some people find building those relationships difficult.
> 
> No wishing to equate you at all with Elliot Rodger, but the most striking thing about his manifesto was that at no point did he express regret about anything he'd done, or accept any blame for why people didn't want to be friends with him / live with him.



I accept fault all the time - people don't' like me so I don't prolong the agony by trying to make them like me - I accept defeat - I accept reality - my face never fits

if I was unaware of my failings I'd be trying to socialise regardless imo

I'm accutely aware of my faults 

I can't be a different person to make people like me more - I'm just not capable of it 

I suspect the bad reactions I get off people for my looks make me far too resentful to want to make more effort - see it as wasted effort

I bear a major grudge for it - many people would imo


----------



## hipipol (May 29, 2014)

TBH I am rather disaapointed no DM reporters have ever hung around my house, despite the fact that I once worked at a firm where one person got life for a rape and murder and the boss got done for attempting to murder his wife during their divorce battle
I mean I accepted money from these guys and must in consequence have been some part of a plot


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 29, 2014)

Anyway, there's no point wasting time here, I'll just wait until we get something about the Jews or whatever.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Baffling.



Sorry, why is it baffling?

don't you wonder what he meant by it?

there could be truth in it that he forgot to cover up?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Have you considered that it might be because your viewpoint is absurd?
> 
> No, it must be everyone else.



I don't think it is and you're just rude

not intelligent enough to have an insightful view so you pick on the nearest outsider - well done


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Of course you are.
> 
> And I'm entitled to my view that you're a fool.



good for you

you're up yourself and a blind conformist


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> And it would be their _opinion_ that the Holocaust never happened.  Still think one opinion is as valid as another?



we know it happened so it's factually wrong - can be proved so


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Anyway, there's no point wasting time here, I'll just wait until we get something about the Jews or whatever.



Crass in the extreme


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 29, 2014)

when did have aspergers become an excuse for having horrible opinions?  i've seen this a fair bit on the internet recently. 

that said, i think all upper class people and most middle class people should be put into camps and worked to death for the benefit of the proletariat.  i've always considered this opinion seperate and unrelated to my ongoing mental health problems but maybe i can get away with having a horrible opinion and getting sympathy for it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no, I have a clearer view because I'm not conforming to the viewpoint we're 'meant' to have



Yes, it's perfectly clear that this is what you _think. _It's not actually the case though. The issue here isn't really that you disagree - we do that all the time on here. It's the fact that you back up your 'definitely correct views that are definitely not wrong' with a combination of wild speculation and non-sequiturs. If you want to be taken seriously you need to present actual arguments - the appeal to the authority of the distant, unbiased observer (and that you believe this says more about your lack of self-awareness than your objectivity - there is no such thing as a neutral observer and that applies to you as much as me - the difference is I'm not so arrogant as to be unable to see and to an extent attempt to mitigate my own biases) really won't wash - the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy for a reason.

One example - your 'evidence' that teachers crossing bounaries is 'widespread' is that a poll showed that 1/6 'knew of' such incidents taking place. This isn't evidence. Even if it was true, it wouldn't mean it happened in 1/6 cases - hundreds of people will be aware of every incident so you'd have to multiply it by several orders of magnitude to get anything like an accurate picture. But it's pretty much certain that many, if not most, of those incidents didn't happen. Have a look at the dog wanking thread to see why.

But you're doing more than that. You're using this to speculate that Carr lured kids into the house. It's wild speculation - the 'evidence' is just window dressing and doesn't come close to demonstrating what you're arguing.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> when did have aspergers become an excuse for having horrible opinions?  i've seen this a fair bit on the internet recently.
> 
> that said, i think all upper class people and most middle class people should be put into camps and worked to death for the benefit of the proletariat.  i've always considered this opinion seperate and unrelated to my ongoing mental health problems but maybe i can get away with having a horrible opinion and getting sympathy for it.



Oh God, so no opinions that differ from your own allowed?

Aspergers isn't an excuse - I got the diganosis foisted on me - I certainly didn't go looking for it


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 29, 2014)

Daily Mail reading as radical outsider minority.  fuck sake, won't someone thing of the poor Daily Mail readers, oppressed throughout the land.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes, it's perfectly clear that this is what you _think. _It's not actually the case though. The issue here isn't really that you disagree - we do that all the time on here. It's the fact that you back up your 'definitely correct views that are definitely not wrong' with a combination of wild speculation and non-sequiturs. If you want to be taken seriously you need to present actual arguments - the appeal to the authority of the distant, unbiased observer (and that you believe this says more about your lack of self-awareness than your objectivity - there is no such thing as a neutral observer and that applies to you as much as me - the difference is I'm not so arrogant as to be unable to see and to an extent attempt to mitigate my own biases) really won't wash - the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy for a reason.
> .



What?  I have posted various links to back up my stance - I've seen none from you - you're just relying on having a posse to back you up

no one has answered my question as to what Huntley meant when he said 'It's all maxine' yet 

you are just ignoring the points I make - that's not a debate


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> good for you
> 
> you're up yourself and a blind conformist



Not really.  The "conformists" are the masses who believe everything that nasty tabloids like the Mail and Express insinuate.

Like you, in fact.


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Oh God, so no opinions that differ from your own allowed?


 
oh, you're allowed to have different opinions to me, you're just not allowed to have different facts.  plus, if everyone had the same opinion as me, who would i hate and pity for being wrong?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> Daily Mail reading as radical outsider minority.  fuck sake, won't someone thing of the poor Daily Mail readers, oppressed throughout the land.



have you listened to yourself

you are trapped in ideology


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Not really.  The "conformists" are the masses who believe everything that nasty tabloids like the Mail and Express insinuate.
> 
> Like you, in fact.



Disagree

you are blind to anything that might be relevant by your hatred of the Daily Mail stance

even if it were proved she was more involved you'd refuse to accept it - people are like that - always want to be right despite the facts

no always want to agree with their mates


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 29, 2014)

which ideology am i trapped in?  are you foisting ideology on me?


----------



## Red Cat (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I don't think it is and you're just rude
> 
> not intelligent enough to have an insightful view so you pick on the nearest outsider - well done



But you've made yourself an outsider by saying 'Look at me! I'm an outsider! Look everyone! Hate the outsider!

This forum is full of weirdos, you could've given us a chance, but instead you set us up.


----------



## cesare (May 29, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> But you've made yourself an outsider by saying 'Look at me! I'm an outsider! Look everyone! Hate the outsider!
> 
> This forum is full of weirdos, you could've given us a chance, but instead you set us up.


Self destructive


----------



## scifisam (May 29, 2014)

Argh. Now Nessa is saying that because she has asperger's (diagnosed by whom?) she can say what she likes, basically. Argh.


----------



## scifisam (May 29, 2014)

Argh. Now Nessa is saying that because she has asperger's (diagnosed by whom?) she can say what she likes, basically. Argh.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Disagree
> 
> you are blind to anything that might be relevant by your hatred of the Daily Mail stance
> 
> ...



Please let me know the "facts" which prove that Maxine Carr was more involved.  Thanks.


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Please let me know the "facts" which prove that Maxine Carr was more involved.  Thanks.


 
special daily mail facts.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Please let me know the "facts" which prove that Maxine Carr was more involved.  Thanks.



I've provided stuff that makes me suspect she is, I can't prove it


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no one has answered my question as to what Huntley meant when he said 'It's all maxine' yet



Really?  it's a mystery to you why a murderer trying to cover his tracks might drop someone else's name?  You can't believe he's a liar as well as a murderer (and almost certainly a paedophile)?

Has you ever come across the idea of Occam's Razor?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I've provided stuff that makes me suspect she is, I can't prove it



Oh, I see.  So when you said "despite the facts", you actually meant "despite my suspicions".

Okay, got it.


----------



## xenon (May 29, 2014)

I'm not  actually sure what this argument is about TBF

Nessa thinks Carr is more complicit in the murders than than Police investigation and jury found, cos the saw her on telly? 

Meh.


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 29, 2014)

so nessa sympathises with that lad who shot all those women, but hates maxine carr because of her poor taste in men.

ohhhhhhkay then


----------



## Red Cat (May 29, 2014)

cesare said:


> Self destructive



For some reason I have an image of a pineapple on a wall being used for target practice. Pow!


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Really?  it's a mystery to you why a murderer trying to cover his tracks might drop someone else's name?  You can't believe he's a liar as well as a murderer (and almost certainly a paedophile)?
> 
> Has you ever come across the idea of Occam's Razor?



have people considered that she might be just as complicit as him but has fooled people?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> have people considered that she might be just as complicit as him but has fooled people?



The jury considered that.

And decided that she wasn't guilty of the murders.

They heard all the "facts".  not just insinuations in the Mail.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> But you've made yourself an outsider by saying 'Look at me! I'm an outsider! Look everyone! Hate the outsider!
> 
> This forum is full of weirdos, you could've given us a chance, but instead you set us up.



No I haven't I've just been honest

I never told anyone to hate me I was being sarcastic

people do it anyway because I don't act in the right way towards them - I break the social rules


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> so nessa sympathises with that lad who shot all those women, but hates maxine carr because of her poor taste in men.
> 
> ohhhhhhkay then



you are an idiot


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The jury considered that.
> 
> And decided that she wasn't guilty of the murders.
> 
> They heard all the "facts".  not just insinuations in the Mail.



well I think she got away with it


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> have people considered that she might be just as complicit as him but has fooled people?


 
i suspect the police might have considered that possibility.  have you considered joining the police, by the way.  i think they could use a mind like yours to protect us from the maxine carrs of the future.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> well I think she got away with it



How do you think she murdered them?  She was about 100 miles away at the time.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> For some reason I have an image of a pineapple on a wall being used for target practice. Pow!



and you wonder why people go on rampages - it's scary how fast peopel revert to predator mode as soon as a vulnerable person turns up


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> you are an idiot


 
your facts are wrong again.


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> and you wonder why people go on rampages - it's scary how fast peopel revert to predator mode as soon as a vulnerable person turns up


 
are you threatening us?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> i suspect the police might have considered that possibility.  have you considered joining the police, by the way.  i think they could use a mind like yours to protect us from the maxine carrs of the future.



I wouldn't be accepted in the police as I don't have the people skills - feel free to make a  crass and exceedingly unfunny joke about that as I can tell that's what you'll do next

Id hate to be that predictable


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> your facts are wrong again.



Lol I think I'm right and you'll never make me change my mind


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> are you threatening us?



My God you're thick!

I was making an observation about human nature

evidently too subtle for you


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> What?  I have posted various links to back up my stance - I've seen none from you - you're just relying on having a posse to back you up
> 
> no one has answered my question as to what Huntley meant when he said 'It's all maxine' yet
> 
> you are just ignoring the points I make - that's not a debate



I haven't offered an opinion on what happened so there's nothing for me to post links to support.

Huntley probably meant 'fuck, I'm going down for this - maybe I'll have it easier if I blame Maxine for it all.' What do you think it meant.

You can post as many links as you like. If they don't actually back up what you're saying they're not evidence.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> How do you think she murdered them?  She was about 100 miles away at the time.



I didn't say she murdered them


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 29, 2014)

sound like you'd be perfect.  your imaginary aspergers and imaginary facts and ability to mistake being hated for their unpleasant opinions with being victimised unfairly, would fit right in i reckon.


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> My God you're thick!
> 
> I was making an observation about human nature
> 
> evidently too subtle for you


 
thick as too short planks, me.

stop picking on me for it.  you bully.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I didn't say she murdered them



So what do you think she "got away with"?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Lol I think I'm right and you'll never make me change my mind



No, 'I don't find you wild speculation and evidence free claims persuasive so you've not changed my mind.'

There's a difference. For one who claims to be so rational and observant you're seriously lacking in self-awareness.

Have you ever heard of the Dunning Kruger effect?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I haven't offered an opinion on what happened so there's nothing for me to post links to support.
> 
> Huntley probably meant 'fuck, I'm going down for this - maybe I'll have it easier if I blame Maxine for it all.' What do you think it meant.
> 
> You can post as many links as you like. If they don't actually back up what you're saying they're not evidence.



you don't want to hear it anyway - your mind is made up

mine is more open to the idea she was more involved


----------



## Red Cat (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> and you wonder why people go on rampages - it's scary how fast peopel revert to predator mode as soon as a vulnerable person turns up



I was referring to the way in which you have presented yourself for target practice. And then you accuse everyone of using you as a target.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So what do you think she "got away with"?



she knew earlier than she let on 

she could have encouraged the girls to visit her house

women do procure girls for evil men 

I just dislike the woman intensely


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> so nessa sympathises with that lad who shot all those women, but hates maxine carr because of her poor taste in men.
> 
> ohhhhhhkay then



It's actually a little bit scary when you put it like that 

(I'm not joking by the way)


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 29, 2014)

dislike women intensely, i reckon.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I was referring to the way in which you have presented yourself for target practice. And then you accuse everyone of using you as a target.



you are doing the attacking - surely you are at fault 

why do you want target practice in the first place?

doesn't that imply some basic fault in you that you want to attack people?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no, I have a clearer view because I'm not conforming to the viewpoint we're 'meant' to have



Who means us to have that viewpoint?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> No, I am an observer of human nature - having Aspergers I've been on the outside of things most of the time so can spot patterns.


 
Old saying: Correlation is not causation.
The fact that you spot patterns is meaningless.  Being able to attach those patterns to events in a meaningful manner is what matters.  You do the former, but not (on current showing) the latter.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> dislike women intensely, i reckon.



who me?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> she knew earlier than she let on
> 
> she could have encouraged the girls to visit her house
> 
> ...



Yes.  You dislike the woman, so you've made up lots of silly stuff.  Not a fact to be seen.   Just "waaah, I don't like her, so she MUST be guilty!"


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Disagree
> 
> you are blind to anything that might be relevant by your hatred of the Daily Mail stance
> 
> even if it were proved she was more involved you'd refuse to accept it - people are like that - always want to be right despite the facts



Which facts? You haven't presented any.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Old saying: Correlation is not causation.
> The fact that you spot patterns is meaningless.  Being able to attach those patterns to events in a meaningful manner is what matters.  You do the former, but not (on current showing) the latter.



I am not in charge of things but if I was I'd have her proven more guilty


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes.  You dislike the woman, so you've made up lots of silly stuff.  Not a fact to be seen.   Just "waaah, I don't like her, so she MUST be guilty!"



No, i get a gut instinct and how she acts is wrong


----------



## DotCommunist (May 29, 2014)

thread fucked


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Which facts? You haven't presented any.



I said IF the facts were shown

I don't have access to all the information

my style of thinking drives people up the wall


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> she knew earlier than she let on
> 
> she could have encouraged the girls to visit her house
> 
> ...



Clearly. Your dislike is dictating your beliefs in this case.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I said IF the facts were shown
> 
> I don't have access to all the information
> 
> my style of thinking drives people up the wall



Yes, because it's illogical and childish.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Clearly. Your dislike is dictating your beliefs in this case.



no it's not because my dislike is based on her actions and manner


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Lol I'm the only one arguing my viewpoint on here - funny that



Being in a minority of one doesn't necessarily mean you're a free thinker...there is at least one other possibility.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes, because it's illogical and childish.



it's my way of thinking and I couldn't be like you if I tried - it's not me


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Being in a minority of one doesn't necessarily mean you're a free thinker...there is at least one other possibility.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



it means I won't conform to the majority view because my view differs

call me what you like I'll hold my stance


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 29, 2014)

special snowflake syndrome


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Not at all, I've observed her behaviour and character type



And yet not even highly-qualified psychologists would draw such firm conclusions from data derived from the media, and they're people who are actually *trained* to spot patterns, and to draw conclusions based on professional experience, rather than some member of the public with a *conviction* that they have the ability to do so.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

What a pointless "discussion".


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> special snowflake syndrome



fk off


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What a pointless "discussion".



why engage in it then??


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> And yet not even highly-qualified psychologists would draw such firm conclusions from data derived from the media, and they're people who are actually *trained* to spot patterns, and to draw conclusions based on professional experience, rather than some member of the public with a *conviction* that they have the ability to do so.



no I said my view - it's not being used in court it's just my view

why do people like to pound people with dissenting views into the ground?

why not just agree to differ??


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> after the trial was done the audio of Officers confronting maxine with the undeniable evidence was aired on the news. Her response was not that which you'd expect at some anguished at being caught out- it was complete disbelief and horror.
> 
> Not that I'm a voice analyst expert or anything, but thats how it sounded to me.



Even voice analysts can only offer interpretation of what they *believe* lies behind a voice.  Tangentially, it's one of the reasons that the whole DWP using lie detectors" thing was so maddening - vocal stress isn't an indicator of guilt, anymore than a relaxed voice is an indicator of innocence.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no I said my view - it's not being used in court it's just my view
> 
> why do people like to pound people with dissenting views into the ground?
> 
> why not just agree to differ??



I think people are just getting frustrated at your illogical and silly argument, which basically goes:

"I don't like Maxine Carr, so although there's not a shred of evidence against her, I choose to believe she's guilty.  I don't know exactly what she's guilty of, but I don't like her.  Anyone who disagrees is bullying me and being a sheep."


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no it's not because my dislike is based on her actions and manner



She's already been punished for her actions. Disliking her manner hardly makes her guilty of anything, apart from winding up gullible Daily Mail dupes.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> No, 'I don't find you wild speculation and evidence free claims persuasive so you've not changed my mind.'
> 
> There's a difference. For one who claims to be so rational and observant you're seriously lacking in self-awareness.
> 
> Have you ever heard of the Dunning Kruger effect?



perhaps having Aspergers plays a role in it??

but I've just been told my Aspergers is imaginary so hmmm it can't be that!

I am just me and people often dislike me for it and vice versa


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no I said my view - it's not being used in court it's just my view
> 
> why do people like to pound people with dissenting views into the ground?
> 
> why not just agree to differ??



it's not about your view being dissenting, it's about you believing/having a view that you're gifted with special insight.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I think people are just getting frustrated at your illogical and silly argument, which basically goes:
> 
> "I don't like Maxine Carr, so although there's not a shred of evidence against her, I choose to believe she's guilty.  I don't know exactly what she's guilty of, but I don't like her.  Anyone who disagrees is bullying me and being a sheep."



No, I have instances where she was possibly giving herself away eg talking about the girls in the past tense before they had even been found 

it's not possible to disagree on a forum without all this kind of shit being thrown


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> fk off


 
it is though, and you know it.

you think you're really clever and radical, coming on here to be an outsider at us.

but you're not.  you're just a dickhead with some ugly opinions who pretends to be an aspie so in the hope that we'll excuse it.

you ain't special, sunshine.  you're just a dickhead like everyone else.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> you don't want to hear it anyway - your mind is made up
> 
> mine is more open to the idea she was more involved



My mind isn't made up at all - I don't know enough about the case to have an opinion. And your mind isn't really open at all is it? It's closed to the idea that her involvement could have been precisely what the courts found it to be. The stuff you've posted isn't the kind of persuasive evidence that would bring an open minded person to question the court's findings. It's the kind of tenuous nonsense and wild speculation that someone desperate to think the worst would cling to in order to justify their prejudices. 

I don't know what happened - but absent persuasive evidence my default position is the jury got it right - they had at their hands far more evidence than you or I. If credible evidence was presented to the contrary I'd change my mind - I have no emotional attachment to this case, I have no reason to _want _to think she's guilty _or _not guilty. Your default position - whether you admit it or not - is that she's guilty and she's scum (just like everyone else in your people hating world view). I mean - look at your 'evidence' - a highly questionable poll that suggests 1/6 people 'know of' a teacher crossing boundaries. And for you this is sufficient evidence to speculate that she lured the kids in - despite the fact that the jury, to whom actual evidence rather than Daily Mail headlines was available, considered this.

You're not open minded. You hate people and always want to think the worst of them. And you'll desperately grasp at meaningless 'evidence' in order to back up your prejudices.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> it's not about your view being dissenting, it's about you believing/having a view that you're gifted with special insight.



not special, just an insight - I have speculated but it seems that's not 'allowed'

it's always rules to be followed and if you break just one you're dead meat

say this in this particular way - this seems to be the rules that always exist with people


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> it is though, and you know it.
> 
> you think you're really clever and radical, coming on here to be an outsider at us.
> 
> ...



er i was diagnosed with it so I'm not pretending anything

you are a bully, as are many people on forums


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I'd rather not have to punch my mother in the face.
> 
> 
> What reality? Did Carr kill those children? If that's true then put her in front of a jury; what is gained by this endless (and it won't end) witchhunt?
> ...



Oddly enough, the jury she was previously put in front of, couldn't find evidence through which to convict her of anything more than being an unwitting accomplice.
Still, nessa has the "view" that Carr is guilty of something worse than she was convicted of, so perhaps we'd better nuke Carr from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure!


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> No, i get a gut instinct and how she acts is wrong



And you expect to be taken seriously? Your 'gut instinct' against the decision of a jury to whom the evidence was available and you choose your gut instinct. Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? How clearly it contradicts your claim to be an objective, dispassionate observer?

I don't think anything more need be said now.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> My mind isn't made up at all - I don't know enough about the case to have an opinion. And your mind isn't really open at all is it? It's closed to the idea that her involvement could have been precisely what the courts found it to be. The stuff you've posted isn't the kind of persuasive evidence that would bring an open minded person to question the court's findings. It's the kind of tenuous nonsense and wild speculation that someone desperate to think the worst would cling to in order to justify their prejudices.
> 
> I don't know what happened - but absent persuasive evidence my default position is the jury got it right - they had at their hands far more evidence than you or I. If credible evidence was presented to the contrary I'd change my mind - I have no emotional attachment to this case, I have no reason to _want _to think she's guilty _or _not guilty. Your default position - whether you admit it or not - is that she's guilty and she's scum (just like everyone else in your people hating world view). I mean - look at your 'evidence' - a highly questionable poll that suggests 1/6 people 'know of' a teacher crossing boundaries. And for you this is sufficient evidence to speculate that she lured the kids in - despite the fact that the jury, to whom actual evidence rather than Daily Mail headlines was available, considered this.
> 
> You're not open minded. You hate people and always want to think the worst of them. And you'll desperately grasp at meaningless 'evidence' in order to back up your prejudices.



that's not true

I think you are pretty obnoxious yourself

I dislike unpleasant people, not decent ones

I just happen to have a differing opinion and therefore deserve to be shot down for it

it's a possibility she was more involved


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oddly enough, the jury she was previously put in front of, couldn't find evidence through which to convict her of anything more than being an unwitting accomplice.
> Still, nessa has the "view" that Carr is guilty of something worse than she was convicted of, so perhaps we'd better nuke Carr from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure!



you said that not me

I gave my opinion and got lynched for it


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> not special, just an insight - I have speculated but it seems that's not 'allowed'
> 
> it's always rules to be followed and if you break just one you're dead meat
> 
> say this in this particular way - this seems to be the rules that always exist with people



Speculation is fine, as long as you make people aware that it's merely speculation.
What *you've* mostly done is present scenarios not as speculation, but as what you believe happened, admitting of no other interpretation of events.
Whether that's a failure of language on your part, rather than a failure of character, I don't know, and won't speculate on.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I dislike unpleasant people, not decent ones
> 
> it's a possibility she was more involved



There's a possibility that you were involved. I think you know more about this case than you are letting on.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> And you expect to be taken seriously? Your 'gut instinct' against the decision of a jury to whom the evidence was available and you choose your gut instinct. Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? How clearly it contradicts your claim to be an objective, dispassionate observer?
> 
> I don't think anything more need be said now.



oh f-k off

the self-righteousness is sickening


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> that's not true
> 
> I think you are pretty obnoxious yourself
> 
> ...



And it's a probability that she wasn't.


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> you are a bully, as are many people on forums


 
how come im not allowed my opinion but you are?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Speculation is fine, as long as you make people aware that it's merely speculation.
> What *you've* mostly done is present scenarios not as speculation, but as what you believe happened, admitting of no other interpretation of events.
> Whether that's a failure of language on your part, rather than a failure of character, I don't know, and won't speculate on.



Good grief is all I'll say to that!


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> er i was diagnosed with it so I'm not pretending anything
> 
> you are a bully, as are many people on forums


how are you defining 'bullying'?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> And it's a probability that she wasn't.



well I retain my suspicions, despite them being utterly heretical on this forum


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I said IF the facts were shown
> 
> I don't have access to all the information
> 
> my style of thinking drives people up the wall



Yes. Wild speculation dressed up as fact would tend to do that, I agree.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> how are you defining 'bullying'?



he was being nasty


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Do you think this is honest journalism?
> 
> Maxine Carr enjoying herself at own wedding with dress she must have got thorugh benefits (that's the implication at least)?



Didn't the _Mail_ try to "monster" Carr when she was first released, *and* try to "out" her new identity?


----------



## butchersapron (May 29, 2014)

Have you any thoughts on the madeline McCann case nessa?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes. Wild speculation dressed up as fact would tend to do that, I agree.



no I never said it was fact, just what I thought


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> perhaps having Aspergers plays a role in it??
> 
> but I've just been told my Aspergers is imaginary so hmmm it can't be that!
> 
> I am just me and people often dislike me for it and vice versa



I don't like or dislike you - I've never met you. And I have no reason to doubt that you have aspergers. 

I just think you're talking utter bollocks and are incapable of recognising that your views on this case are based on personal prejudice and nothing more.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Have you any thoughts on the madeline McCann case nessa?



I used to think they did it but less so now

they didn't help their case by how they came across


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> oh f-k off


we do grown-up swearing here.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't like or dislike you - I've never met you. And I have no reason to doubt that you have aspergers.
> 
> I just think you're talking utter bollocks and are incapable of recognising that your views on this case are based on personal prejudice and nothing more.



no they aren't

they are based on the database of people types in my head


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> we do grown-up swearing here.



what's that?

often there's a swear filter


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no I never said it was fact, just what I thought



But you've constantly implied it. 

So are you now at least admitting that you have no real reason to think what you think - there is no actual evidence - you're just projecting your prejudices - or 'gut instinct' if you prefer (which amounts to the same thing)


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> he was being nasty



yes.  but nastiness doesn't equal bullying.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Didn't the _Mail_ try to "monster" Carr when she was first released, *and* try to "out" her new identity?



What would you do if another child died and she was involved?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no they aren't
> 
> they are based on the database of people types in my head



This is incredible. What do you think the 'database of people types in your head' is if not prejudice - it's the very definition of prejudice in fact.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Didn't the _Mail_ try to "monster" Carr when she was first released, *and* try to "out" her new identity?


They've been doing it every since. I guess Dacre gets Maxine Carr while Murdoch/Desmond gets Venables/Thompson.


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> they are based on the database of people types in my head


 

1. bullies on forums
2. dodgy people gut feelings shifty eyes
3. poor misunderstood spree killers

any more typess?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I was called a fantasist before that
> 
> it's easy to toe the party line - no skill in that AT ALL



Ah, you're one of the "brave speaker of truth" brigade.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> But you've constantly implied it.
> 
> So are you now at least admitting that you have no real reason to think what you think - there is no actual evidence - you're just projecting your prejudices - or 'gut instinct' if you prefer (which amounts to the same thing)



No

you keep putting words in my mouth that are incorrect

I think she's more guilty than has been proved and can't prove it but I think something else will happen in the future that shows she's 'bad'


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> what's that?
> 
> often there's a swear filter


no swear filter except on thread titles. swearing of almost all kinds is completely acceptable.  Cunt is completely fine, motherfucker is peachy.  Nigger/paki etc, are obviously not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> 1. bullies on forums
> 2. dodgy people gut feelings shifty eyes
> 3. poor misunderstood spree killers
> 
> any more typess?



You forgot them there swarthy people.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> 1. bullies on forums
> 2. dodgy people gut feelings shifty eyes
> 3. poor misunderstood spree killers
> 
> any more typess?



A lot of it can't be put into words

you have too simplistic a view on things - we can't communicate

plus you're very disrespectful


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> No
> 
> you keep putting words in my mouth that are incorrect
> 
> I think she's more guilty than has been proved and can't prove it but I think something else will happen in the future that shows she's 'bad'


That may or may not be so but surely the presumption of innocence over guilt is the best way to go if and until then?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, you're one of the "brave speaker of truth" brigade.



I say what I think basically and people invariably have a problem with it

I don't want to be like other people though


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> That may or may not be so but surely the presumption of innocence over guilt is the best way to go if and until then?



that is what's happening - she's free

I'm not stopping her doing anything


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> that's not true
> 
> I think you are pretty obnoxious yourself
> 
> ...



You're free to think what you want of me - I couldn't give a flying fuck 

You have an opinion based on nothing more than prejudice and speculation. You have every right to present this opinion. But equally we have every right to challenge it. If you can't back it up with anything more than 'gut instinct' and hilariously tenuous claims surrounding a poll about teachers crossing boundaries that doesn't mean you're being bullied - it means your opinion is not at all well informed. 

Freedom of speech works both ways - you get to make your evidence-free claims and we get to challenge them. You're not being persecuted.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/soham-caretaker-ian-huntleys-ex-wife-1269833
> 
> "Wayne was pacing around. So I sat down beside Ian and I said: ‘Tell the truth – what’s happening?’
> 
> ...



Strange?  it's bog standard to attempt to shift the blame if you're guilty.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no I never said it was fact, just what I thought



Not so.  You claimed that people here supported Maxine Carr, "despite the FACTS".


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> This is incredible. What do you think the 'database of people types in your head' is if not prejudice - it's the very definition of prejudice in fact.



it's my database and works for me

I have to be able to suss out people quickly


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Strange?  it's bog standard to attempt to shift the blame if you're guilty.



it could be truth though


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Not so.  You claimed that people here supported Maxine Carr, "despite the FACTS".



the facts are she covered for a murderer and it can be speculated on how soon she knew what he'd done


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> oh f-k off
> 
> the self-righteousness is sickening


I think you need to look up the term self-righteousness. You clearly have no idea what it means.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think you need to look up the term self-righteousness. You clearly have no idea what it means.



I do

the idea you assume you're right - very little is certain in life


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> it could be truth though



Anything could be the truth - it could also be the truth that you're wearing a Nazi uniform as you type these posts. There's no evidence for either of these things though.


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

Right, to summarise, you have a database in your head of people, which gives you special insight into personalities, garnered from your ability to observe patterns in a society you despise, because you're an outsider who speaks their mind/not neurotypical/ugly?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I do
> 
> the idea you assume you're right - very little is certain in life



No it isn't. It's the idea you're _righteous. _That doesn't mean the same as right.


----------



## MooChild (May 29, 2014)

I also find that facts cloud my judgement, I tend to form options on baseless speculation and daily mail headlines, perhaps we should form a club.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> No it isn't. It's the idea you're _righteous. _That doesn't mean the same as right.



this is hard work


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

MooChild said:


> I also find that facts cloud my judgement, I tend to form options on baseless speculation and daily mail headlines, perhaps we should form a club.



wow you're hilarious


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I wouldn't be accepted in the police as I don't have the people skills -



Neither do the police.



> feel free to make a  crass and exceedingly unfunny joke about that as I can tell that's what you'll do next
> 
> Id hate to be that predictable



But you *are* that predictable.  Like every controversialist is.


----------



## MooChild (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> wow you're hilarious



Thanks


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> No it isn't. It's the idea you're _righteous. _That doesn't mean the same as right.



*Self-righteousness* (also called *sanctimoniousness*, *sententiousness*, and *holier-than-thou attitudes*[1]) is a feeling or display of (usually smug) moral superiority[2] derived from a sense that one's beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person. Self-righteous individuals are often intolerant of the opinions and behaviors of others.[3]


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> plus you're very disrespectful


 

well, i can't pretend you're not right about that one, oh psychic snowflake.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> No
> 
> you keep putting words in my mouth that are incorrect
> 
> I think she's more guilty than has been proved and can't prove it but I think something else will happen in the future that shows she's 'bad'



Wild speculation then. There's nothing open minded, objective or rational about that.

Me, I don't know enough about the case to have an independent opinion. Absent the evidence I'll assume the jury who had access to evidence neither you nor I have seen got it right. If I see evidence to the contrary I will change my mind.

You're the one blinded by bias, nobody else.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Neither do the police.
> 
> 
> 
> But you *are* that predictable.  Like every controversialist is.



I'm not a conversationalist, I just say what I think and if that doesn't happen to comply with what I'm expected to say it's not my fault

I won't change my opinion to fit in with people as the majority do


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> *Self-righteousness* (also called *sanctimoniousness*, *sententiousness*, and *holier-than-thou attitudes*[1]) is a feeling or display of (usually smug) moral superiority[2] derived from a sense that one's beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person. Self-righteous individuals are often intolerant of the opinions and behaviors of others.[3]


And doesn't this seem like a good fit for how you view yourself?  Because it's a very good fit to the posts you have made in this thread.  Perhaps your posts have not been a good representation of you, in that case?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Wild speculation then. There's nothing open minded, objective or rational about that.
> 
> Me, I don't know enough about the case to have an independent opinion. Absent the evidence I'll assume the jury who had access to evidence neither you nor I have seen got it right. If I see evidence to the contrary I will change my mind.
> 
> You're the one blinded by bias, nobody else.



time will tell imo


----------



## Red Cat (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> you are doing the attacking - surely you are at fault
> 
> why do you want target practice in the first place?
> 
> doesn't that imply some basic fault in you that you want to attack people?



Well.....except, I didn't attack you at all. Anyway, enough.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> *Self-righteousness* (also called *sanctimoniousness*, *sententiousness*, and *holier-than-thou attitudes*[1]) is a feeling or display of (usually smug) moral superiority[2] derived from a sense that one's beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person. Self-righteous individuals are often intolerant of the opinions and behaviors of others.[3]


Yes - what I said then. 

This is getting silly. Do you think you're doing yourself or anyone else any good by continuing with this?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I'm not a conversationalist, I just say what I think and if that doesn't happen to comply with what I'm expected to say it's not my fault
> 
> I won't change my opinion to fit in with people as the majority do



Most people look at both sides, analyse the FACTS and then come to an opinion.   You obviously prefer to listen to your gut feeling and ignore everything else.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> And doesn't this seem like a good fit for how you view yourself?  Because it's a very good fit to the posts you have made in this thread.  Perhaps your posts have not been a good representation of you, in that case?



I knew that was coming...

I'm on the back foot


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes - what I said then.
> 
> This is getting silly. Do you think you're doing yourself or anyone else any good by continuing with this?



what you want me to agree with you?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Most people look at both sides, analyse the FACTS and then come to an opinion.   You obviously prefer to listen to your gut feeling and ignore everything else.



no I looked at the facts and made my own conclusion, it happens to not agree with yours

I won't get put in prison for it I hope?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no I looked at the facts and made my own conclusion, it happens to not agree with yours
> 
> I won't get put in prison for it I hope?



As long as you don't go on a rampage, you should be okay.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no I looked at the facts and made my own conclusion, it happens to not agree with yours
> 
> I won't get put in prison for it I hope?


Wah wah wah! People disagree with me and won't take my evidence free claims seriously - help, help I'm being oppressed - this is just like Nazi Germany and people pointing out how stupid and ill informed I am is akin to putting me in prison.

Grow up.



nessa239 said:


> no I said my view - it's not being used in court it's just my view
> 
> why do people like to pound people with dissenting views into the ground?
> 
> why not just agree to differ??



Because the people with dissenting views might be right - and if they are I for one would like to know. So I ask them for evidence, for them to back up their views. If they can I'll change my mind. If they can't I won't. Don't confuse that with bullying or 'pounding'.

If I presented a controversial opinion I'd expect to back it up. And if I couldn't I wouldn't expect to be taken seriously. You're not being singled out - I'd do exactly the same with anyone else.

Anyway, I'm going to stop posting on this thread now because it's clearly a waste of time trying to talk to you. I suggest you do the same.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I am not in charge of things but if I was I'd have her proven more guilty



No you wouldn't.  Not unless you turned up more physical and circumstantial evidence than an 80 person+ police investigation, utilising a broad swathe of scientific expertise were able to, and suborned the jury.
And perhaps tortured Carr.

Your self-belief is touching, but it's misplaced when measured against the array of actual physical evidence gathered, that showed Carr not to be complicit


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> As long as you don't go on a rampage, you should be okay.



people put me under a lot of pressure though with their attitudes - it's only through sheer willpower and a belief in God that I dont do anything imo

I know you'll just ridicule this but it's true

if I reacted how I'd like to react to people I'd be in prison myself by now


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Wah wah wah! People disagree with me and won't take my evidence free claims seriously - help, help I'm being oppressed - this is just like Nazi Germany and people pointing out how stupid and ill informed I am is akin to putting me in prison.
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> ...



http://www.standard.co.uk/news/maxine-told-me-to-burn-the-bodies-7166114.html

you don't listen to the things I do say

you are highly dismissive


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

I'm not ridiculing you.  I think you're quite disturbed.


----------



## Favelado (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> people put me under a lot of pressure though with their attitudes - it's only through sheer willpower and a belief in God that I dont do anything imo
> 
> I know you'll just ridicule this but it's true
> 
> if I reacted how I'd like to react to people I'd be in prison myself by now



Blimey. Can I just say that I agree with everything you've said in the thread then?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> No you wouldn't.  Not unless you turned up more physical and circumstantial evidence than an 80 person+ police investigation, utilising a broad swathe of scientific expertise were able to, and suborned the jury.
> And perhaps tortured Carr.
> 
> Your self-belief is touching, but it's misplaced when measured against the array of actual physical evidence gathered, that showed Carr not to be complicit



Well considering one of the Soham police investigators was found to be looking at child porn I don't rate their ability that highly

I'd never torture anyone, I'd just look at the evidence more thoroughly


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> It should be construed as harassment.


 

here's where the mail is so vile; it would (iirc) be harassment if she made a com,plaint. The mail knows she won't do that and likely doesn't have the resources (financially or even emotionally) to go toe to toe with them. if she did they'd unleash all the shit in their arsenal. She'll be vilifed even more for not keeping her place and for osmehow finding the money to take them on. it's out and out bullying from the viliest of the vile.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm not ridiculing you.  I think you're quite disturbed.



why? because I don't agree with you??

frightening!


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Blimey. Can I just say that I agree with everything you've said in the thread then?



see? ridicule


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> see? ridicule


No. A joke. They're different


----------



## Fez909 (May 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> here's where the mail is so vile; it would (iirc) be harassment if she made a com,plaint. The mail knows she won't do that and likely doesn't have the resources (financially or even emotionally) to go toe to toe with them. if she did they'd unleash all the shit in their arsenal. She'll be vilifed even more for not keeping her place and for osmehow finding the money to take them on. it's out and out bullying from the viliest of the vile.


Exactly. When you're Maxine Carr you don't have any way to fight this because the aim is to stay out of the news, not give them another reason to feature you..and especially not go up against them.

Her best bet would be to move to another country.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> No. A joke. They're different



feels like ridicule to me


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> why? because I don't agree with you??
> 
> frightening!



No.  Because you said if you did to people what you wanted to do, you'd be in prison.   That's disturbing.


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> people put me under a lot of pressure though with their attitudes - it's only through sheer willpower and a belief in God that I dont do anything imo
> 
> I know you'll just ridicule this but it's true
> 
> if I reacted how I'd like to react to people I'd be in prison myself by now


wow.  just willpower and faith?

not a sense that other people don't deserve to suffer? that their families don't deserve to grieve?


----------



## xenon (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no it's not because my dislike is based on her actions and manner



So basically, dispite as you say, not having all the facts. You think she had more to do with the murders because;
Your gut instinct. You believe you have a special insight and  acute ability to assess people's motivations.
You don't like her manner, from  what you've seen on the telly.

And everyone's arguing with you because you're an "outsider" and they can't face the truth?

This is lolsome. You're setting up gut feeling and supposed special intuation as evidencial and accusing your detractors of being blinded by preconception.

FFS


----------



## Favelado (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> see? ridicule



Rather than outright ridicule, I'm saying that I am taken aback by what you said and it does worry me. There was teasing there, but it's quite the statment you made.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> people put me under a lot of pressure though with their attitudes - it's only through sheer willpower and a belief in God that I dont do anything imo
> 
> I know you'll just ridicule this but it's true
> 
> if I reacted how I'd like to react to people I'd be in prison myself by now



OK then - one last post. I hope you take it in the spirit it's intended because contrary to what you might think I wish you no ill.

I'm not going to ridicule that - I think it's very serious and very worrying. If you're not already seeking help I think you should - now.

Do you think posting here, which is clearly winding you up a great deal, is helping? I'm going to be brutally honest here - you're making yourself look ridiculous and it can't be doing your state of mind any good.



nessa239 said:


> what you want me to agree with you?



No, I don't care whether you agree or not. I think it might be a good idea for you to stop posting because it's not doing anyone any good. I can't force you and I wouldn't wish to but I think it would be a good idea.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No.  Because you said if you did to people what you wanted to do, you'd be in prison.   That's disturbing.



if it's fact though....

I have to have monumental amounts of self control not to react to people while they say all kinds of unpleasant shit about me (in life not here)


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Exactly. When you're Maxine Carr you don't have any way to fight this because the aim is to stay out of the news, not give them another reason to feature you..and especially not go up against them.
> 
> Her best bet would be to move to another country.


 "Maxine Carr suns herself at your expense in sunny Rio after marying Ronnie Bigg's newly-converted-to-wahabbism ghost"!


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> why? because I don't agree with you??
> 
> frightening!


No - because you've just said you don't have any empathy for the suffering of others.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> you said that not me
> 
> I gave my opinion and got lynched for it



If you'd been lynched, surely you wouldn't still be gifting the board with your opinions?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> if it's fact though....
> 
> I have to have monumental amounts of self control not to react to people while they say all kinds of unpleasant shit about me (in life not here)


Is it ok do you think for financially powerful media institutions to bully people?


----------



## Fez909 (May 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> "Maxine Carr suns herself at your expense in sunny Rio after marying Ronnie Bigg's newly-converted-to-wahabbism ghost"!


 but 

Thing is, if she went and had no intention of coming back, who cares what they write about her then?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> OK then - one last post. I hope you take it in the spirit it's intended because contrary to what you might think I wish you no ill.
> 
> I'm not going to ridicule that - I think it's very serious and very worrying. If you're not already seeking help I think you should - now.
> 
> Do you think posting here, which is clearly winding you up a great deal, is helping? I'm going to be brutally honest here - you're making yourself look ridiculous and it can't be doing your state of mind any good.



I think it's an outlet for my anger - helps me not do anything

I get to say my piece without being attacked if I did it on the street

if you had to deal with the level of general derision off people without even opining my mouth that I get, you'd probably be a bit fked up


----------



## Ungrateful (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/maxine-told-me-to-burn-the-bodies-7166114.html
> 
> you don't listen to the things I do say
> 
> you are highly dismissive


 
I hope nessa won't think I'm bullying - but the evidence she presents is a media report of what a convicted child-murderer claims. Might I ask what objective criteria nessa uses to distinguish between Huntly's statements that he/she doesn't believe from those she takes as substantially believable?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Is it ok do you think for financially powerful media institutions to bully people?



no, I stopped buying the mail when they implicated someone in a crime and they werent guilty so Im no outright defender of the mail


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Ungrateful said:


> I hope nessa won't think I'm bullying - but the evidence she presents is a media report of what a convicted child-murderer claims. Might I ask what objective criteria nessa uses to distinguish between Huntly's statements that he/she doesn't believe from those she takes as substantially believable?



it could be true though - things are always seen in binary - he's bad so he's lying

sometimes bad people say some of the truth though


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> but
> 
> Thing is, if she went and had no intention of coming back, who cares what they write about her then?


For all we know she could have been given the option to move overseas. It would just get seen as another soft on crime story. Like all those stories back in the day about holidays given to young offenders (instead of, presumably, hard labour)


----------



## xenon (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> perhaps having Aspergers plays a role in it??
> 
> but I've just been told my Aspergers is imaginary so hmmm it can't be that!
> 
> I am just me and people often dislike me for it and vice versa



There are a few peple here with Aspergers. They don't use it as an excuse for talking shit.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

xenon said:


> There are a few peple here with Aspergers. They don't use it as an excuse for talking shit.



they've 'gone native' then


----------



## Fez909 (May 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> For all we know she could have been given the option to move overseas. It would just get seen as another soft on crime story. Like all those stories back in the day about holidays given to young offenders (instead of, presumably, hard labour)


Is there even such a thing as being "given the option to move overseas"? How would that even work? Can you imagine the scandal it would cause with other governments?

I think she would be on licence upon leaving prison and she would actually have been _prevented_ from travelling overseas


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> they've 'gone native' then


what does that mean?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> what does that mean?



gone over the the neurotypical side


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I think it's an outlet for my anger - helps me not do anything
> 
> I get to say my piece without being attacked if I did it on the street
> 
> if you had to deal with the level of general derision off people without even opining my mouth that I get, you'd probably be a bit fked up



I'm not judging - I don't know anything about you or your life so couldn't if I wanted to. I do think you should get help though - if it takes so much self-control for you not to do something unspeakable it terrifies my what might happen if something unusually unpleasant happened to you. Please seek help.


----------



## fishfinger (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> gone over the the neurotypical side


Praise the lord, I've been "cured"


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm not judging - I don't know anything about you or your life so couldn't if I wanted to. I do think you should get help though - if it takes so much self-control for you not to do something unspeakable it terrifies my what might happen if something unusually unpleasant happened to you. Please seek help.



I've seen people in mental health services but they don't help as they spend a lot of time telling me I'm imagining people being nasty, being paranoid, to pretend they aren't being nasty etc

ie I'm left to deal with it all still

I told a psychiatrist once that if I did end up killing someone it would be his responsibility for not helping me and he said no it would be your responsibility and that of the police - that's your average NHS psych for you lol

Don't think for a minute they're protecting you!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> What would you do if another child died and she was involved?



What relevance does that have to the subject under discussion, except to draw attention from it?

Are you proposing that Carr should have been kept confined, or perhaps executed, just in case she might ever be involved in something similar?

Jesus, Murray and Guiseppe!


----------



## xenon (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> they've 'gone native' then



What does that mean. What do you think it means? People argue here all the time. People often agree with each other too. Sometimes peple get misunderstood, such is the written medium but all the Aspergers peple aren't off in one corner, the peple with depression in another, the windup merchants over there and the neuro typicals bullying them into place.

Some people IMO when they've made a complete tit of themselves go on about the monothought clique. Funny if everyone here thinks the same there's so much argument. It didn't just start when you turned up you know.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> A lot of it can't be put into words
> 
> you have too simplistic a view on things - we can't communicate
> 
> plus you're very disrespectful



Respect has to be earned.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I say what I think basically and people invariably have a problem with it



Possibkly because what you're thinking is ill-informed prejudice masquerading as insight.



> I don't want to be like other people though



Don't worry, you're not.


----------



## laptop (May 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> ...the sort of Daily Outrage that just fulminates without release in the minds of people. ... Where does this anger go?



Scientists are working on a way of harnessing it to generate electricity without significant carbon emissions, though they're concerned about the clouds of steam.

Currently, it makes its way into the Rothermere coffers.

And *that* is why global warming "is bunk"


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> it could be truth though



Yes, it could, but given that it was investigated at the time, and found not to be germane (in other words, Huntley's alleged exclamation was found to not be credible weighed against the other evidence), then the likelihood leans far further toward falsehood than truth.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> Right, to summarise, you have a database in your head of people, which gives you special insight into personalities, garnered from your ability to observe patterns in a society you despise, because you're an outsider who speaks their mind/not neurotypical/ugly?



That's about right.
It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.


----------



## xenon (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I've seen people in mental health services but they don't help as they spend a lot of time telling me I'm imagining people being nasty, being paranoid, to pretend they aren't being nasty etc
> 
> ie I'm left to deal with it all still
> 
> ...



We are all responsible for our own actions. The decisions we make might be severely limited by the options available to us. The decision making process might be impaired by our psychological state and the circumstances we find ourselves in. But that is how humans have to live. Of course there should be help for people who need it to adapt, reason things out etc. Ultimately though, we as adults can't just hand off all responsibility for what we do to another person.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

http://hctr.blogspot.co.uk/

Kamal Ahmed, Mark Townsend and Tony Thompson 
Sunday December 21, 2003 
The Observer 

*Detective Chief Inspector Andy Hebb, number two in the inquiry team*, started with the forensic work. The house had been thoroughly cleaned by Huntley and Carr. The dining-room carpet was freshly shampooed. As were the curtains. The bath was split. Huntley said he had been trying to wash the dog. 

And then police found Huntley's head hairs on the clothing in the bin. And 10 red fibres from Manchester United tops were found in Huntley's car - 'that was a eureka moment at the time,' Hebb said. 

And then someone noticed that the tyres on Huntley's car, a red Ford Fiesta, were brand-new. And the boot liner of the car had been changed. And there was a pair of scissors in the boot for cutting clothes. And the soil on the underside of the car could only have come from the track leading to where the bodies were found. And the pollen on the car could only come from that area. And that the trampled nettles had grown back in such a way that it tied the date down specifically to when Huntley would have been there. 

And every piece meant that Huntley and Carr had fewer places to run. Carr had lied. When the police presented the evidence to Huntley's defence team, his response either had to be 'guilty' or fantastical. 

Huntley chose the latter. Yes, the girls had been in the house. Yes, they had died. Yes, he was there. But it wasn't murder. It was an accident. 'He had to come up with some explanation for that forensic case,' Hebb said. 'We had covered every avenue. He had nowhere to go. All the jigsaw was coming together slowly. It was a good feeling.' 

Why? Why did Huntley do what he did? The police admit that their stabs at an explanation are just that. Psychologists, unless Huntley talks, will have similar difficulty ever finding out. 

'The only explanation we have, and it's just putting two and two together, is that Carr's gone away and Huntley doesn't like her being away and he's extremely jealous,' Hebb said. 

'And he gets a call from Carr and hangs up, and he's annoyed, and with the history he's got, and then the two girls walk past ... ' 

Hebb's voice trails off. 'It's just one of those things, I think.' 

And Carr? The girls were her friends. Huntley's behaviour was bizarre in the extreme. She must have had her suspicions. *'Rather cynically, is how I view it,' Hebb said of Carr's tearful performance in the witness box where all she would admit to was that she had covered up for Huntley because he had previously been 'falsely' accused of rape. *

'They came from a fairly difficult background in Grimsby,' Hebb said. 'Then they got this new, nice lifestyle in Cambridgeshire, she was getting employment, it was all good, when suddenly, bang, it's all changed. 

'I think she had to protect her lifestyle, not just Huntley, but her lifestyle. 

*'She was an incredibly convincing liar, not just lying about the event but gilding it, right down to the tiny details. And yet she wasn't even there.' 
*


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I'm not a conversationalist, I just say what I think and if that doesn't happen to comply with what I'm expected to say it's not my fault
> 
> I won't change my opinion to fit in with people as the majority do



CONTROVERSIALIST, not "conversationalist!


----------



## laptop (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> CONTROVERSIALIST, not "conversationalist!



Original is true


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> gone over the the neurotypical side



Is that possible?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Is that possible?



it's possible to conform more to neurotypical/NT modes of thinking and interacting in order to fit in better

I seem to be very resistant to doing it


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> it's possible to conform more to neurotypical/NT modes of thinking and interacting in order to fit in better
> 
> I seem to be very resistant to doing it


which would suggest that a lot of the difficulties you ascribe to Aspergers are perhaps more just facets of your own personality and wants/wills/preferences.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I've seen people in mental health services but they don't help as they spend a lot of time telling me I'm imagining people being nasty, being paranoid, to pretend they aren't being nasty etc
> 
> ie I'm left to deal with it all still
> 
> ...



I'd like to encourage you to try again but I doubt I'd be able to (they might be right about you sometimes thinking people are out to get you by the way - you've assumed that of me on this thread and I can assure you it's not the case - I just wanted you to substantiate your claims - that's the thing about mental illness, it has a tendency to make you think you're the only one who's right and the rest of the world is mad - that everyone is out to get you - I know this from very personal experience). But if you won't do that please at least try and stay safe and don't do anything daft.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Well considering one of the Soham police investigators was found to be looking at child porn I don't rate their ability that highly.



So, one investigator in 80-plus is found to have looked at child porn, and that invalidates the entire investigative endeavour?
Nope, at best it invalidates that person's input into the investigation, unless you're theorising a paedophiliac conspiracy within the investigation team?



> I'd never torture anyone, I'd just look at the evidence more thoroughly



The evidence has been reviewed several times since the trial, both by Huntley's appeals lawyers, and by legal academics.  None of them have found anything, even in the stuff that wasn't presented at the trial.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

laptop said:


> Scientists are working on a way of harnessing it to generate electricity without significant carbon emissions, though they're concerned about the clouds of steam.
> 
> Currently, it makes its way into the Rothermere coffers.
> 
> And *that* is why global warming "is bunk"


If wind turbines weren't so unpopular, perhaps these people could literally 'tilt' them by shouting next to them about what's wrong with broken britain/immigration/eco fascism/taxes/welfarism/antisocial behaviour and maxine carr.


----------



## Red Cat (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I've seen people in mental health services but they don't help as they spend a lot of time telling me I'm imagining people being nasty, being paranoid, to pretend they aren't being nasty etc
> 
> ie I'm left to deal with it all still
> 
> ...



I'm surprised that people in mental health services just tell you that you're paranoid without suggesting any treatment given that paranoia is considered a symptom of psychosis that many would consider treatable with medication.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Praise the lord, I've been "cured"



The real laugh being that by most criteria for so-called neuro-typicality, there are as many non-typical non-ASD folk, as there are ASD folk, and yet it's mainly the Aspie community that chunter on about "neuro-typicals".  Neuro-typicality is another of those convenient generalisations that are great for labelling, but bugger-all use for defining!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> gone over the the neurotypical side



Is that like the Dark Side of The Force?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> which would suggest that a lot of the difficulties you ascribe to Aspergers are perhaps more just facets of your own personality and wants/wills/preferences.



Ackowledging your point would mean having to "own" issues, rather than laying off blame elsewhere.


----------



## Wilf (May 29, 2014)

Nessa, if we were playing the percentages, playing out our sesnsible guestimates, Carr may well have known what happened at some point before the police told her.  There's no real evidence for that and the police ultimately worked on the assumption that wasn't the case.  However, it is at least _plausible_. Given that - even regardless of that - it's pretty stupid that she should have been anywhere near a book deal (whether she proposed it or not).  Essentially, all I'm saying is people often minimise what they knew and when.

Why couldn't you stick with some kind of formulation like that?  Why get into all this implying she was an active player in the murder?  You've been kicked for 10 pages, but don't you think you might have, well, _asked for it_?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I'm surprised that people in mental health services just tell you that you're paranoid without suggesting any treatment given that paranoia is considered a symptom of psychosis that many would consider treatable with medication.


I'm not. Not in my experience.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Lol I think I'm right and you'll never make me change my mind



That is not the assertion of free thinker.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> if I reacted how I'd like to react to people I'd be in prison myself by now



tbf to nessa, I agree with this sentiment.


----------



## cesare (May 29, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> tbf to nessa, I agree with this sentiment.


Yes, fair point


----------



## tufty79 (May 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I'm not. Not in my experience.


likewise.


----------



## tufty79 (May 29, 2014)

dp


----------



## Red Cat (May 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I'm not. Not in my experience.



You've been paranoid and mental health services haven't taken it seriously?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I say what I think basically and people invariably have a problem with it
> 
> I don't want to be like other people though



There are lots and lots of other people like you and sometimes some of them post on here but not very often.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Red Cat (May 29, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> likewise.



You've been paranoid and mental health services haven't taken it seriously?


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

If it were up to me, and of course it isn't, I would, with apologies to Awesome Wells , close the thread. 
It's going round in circles and actually quite upsetting.


----------



## 8ball (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Is that possible?


 
A dual-boot brain would be welcome.  Aspie is too much like Linux and NTs produce unhelpful error messages.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> If it were up to me, and of course it isn't, I would, with apologies to Awesome Wells , close the thread.
> It's going round in circles and actually quite upsetting.



I think closing the thread would simply confirm nessa in their opinion and reinforce their current state of mind.

Better to just walk away from a potentially really harmful series of exchanges.

Bye and apologies for my earlier flippancy - Louis MacNeice


----------



## tufty79 (May 29, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> You've been paranoid and mental health services haven't taken it seriously?


they dismissed some of my experiences wrt specific people around me as my being paranoid, when I wasn't. 
no recommendations to medicate me or anything, just that I should move house.

/very bad attempt to nutshell the whole thing


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> You've been paranoid and mental health services haven't taken it seriously?


I think they regard it as mild paranoia. Whic isn't unreasonable, but it's there.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> If it were up to me, and of course it isn't, I would, with apologies to Awesome Wells , close the thread.
> It's going round in circles and actually quite upsetting.


I hope you don't feel i have upset you or anyone.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I hope you don't feel i have upset you or anyone.



No no no sorry not at all. 
You have been very reasonable.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I'm surprised that people in mental health services just tell you that you're paranoid without suggesting any treatment given that paranoia is considered a symptom of psychosis that many would consider treatable with medication.



I was given an antipsychotic which is a terrible drug I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy 

they caused harm to me as they made me so relaxed I laughed at some hoodies and they threw a lite firework at me

so I don't see how they helped really plus made me feel more noticeable due to looking drugged up imo


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Nessa, if we were playing the percentages, playing out our sesnsible guestimates, Carr may well have known what happened at some point before the police told her.  There's no real evidence for that and the police ultimately worked on the assumption that wasn't the case.  However, it is at least _plausible_. Given that - even regardless of that - it's pretty stupid that she should have been anywhere near a book deal (whether she proposed it or not).  Essentially, all I'm saying is people often minimise what they knew and when.
> 
> Why couldn't you stick with some kind of formulation like that?  Why get into all this implying she was an active player in the murder?  You've been kicked for 10 pages, but don't you think you might have, well, _asked for it_?



I said she was more implicated not an active player in it so you can't even accurately report what I said

I see everyone's ignored the link I posted to details of one of the police investigators being cynical as to her performance in court and saying she was an exceedingly good liar

when people ignore stuff like this I know they've got an agenda to ignore whatever I say so you aren't even discussing the issue, just having a jolly old witch hunt

pathetic really but not unpredictable on a discussion forum


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I was given an antipsychotic which is a terrible drug I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy
> 
> they caused harm to me as they made me so relaxed I laughed at some hoodies and they threw a lite firework at me
> 
> so I don't see how they helped really plus made me feel more noticeable due to looking drugged up imo



There are lots of different antipsychotics at lots of different dosages. 
They might not have worked for you but they are not terrible drugs across the board.
I have found them very helpful.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The real laugh being that by most criteria for so-called neuro-typicality, there are as many non-typical non-ASD folk, as there are ASD folk, and yet it's mainly the Aspie community that chunter on about "neuro-typicals".  Neuro-typicality is another of those convenient generalisations that are great for labelling, but bugger-all use for defining!



you're doing an excellent job of being one though


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> There are lots of different antipsychotics at lots of different dosages.
> They might not have worked for you but they are not terrible drugs across the board.
> I have found them very helpful.



they might work for some people but I found them terrible

they cause muscles to clench up

I couldn't move my tongue at first when I woke up first morning after taking them

a horriffic drug


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> You've been paranoid and mental health services haven't taken it seriously?



they told me I was being paranoid, not the same as actually being paranoid

the individual doesn't get to decide though; society does


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> they might work for some people but I found them terrible
> 
> they cause muscles to clench up
> 
> ...



Like most medications they take getting used to and part of that is often tweaking dosages over time. 
The one I am currently taking was far too strong first of all and I could hardly walk but I reduced the dosage back down and then back up much more slowly and it has really helped. 

I know they are not for everyone but they are not "horrific drugs".

They don't all cause muscles to clench up in some people in the same way they don't all cause spontaneous lactation in some people.


----------



## Wilf (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I said she was more implicated not an active player in it so you can't even accurately report what I said
> 
> I see everyone's ignored the link I posted to details of one of the police investigators being cynical as to her performance in court and saying she was an exceedingly good liar
> 
> ...


 No, I wasn't having a dig - you've had enough people arguing against you, with a few distasteful comments thrown in.  It's just that urban is a place where people are keen on evidence.  There were a few 'might haves' and 'possibles' in some of your posts, which were likely to generate the response you got.  That's all.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> which would suggest that a lot of the difficulties you ascribe to Aspergers are perhaps more just facets of your own personality and wants/wills/preferences.



I'm stubborn, yes


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> they told me I was being paranoid, not the same as actually being paranoid
> 
> the individual doesn't get to decide though; society does


it would be incredibly important for someone other than the individual to diagnose paranoia, though, wouldn't it?  Given that, by definition people with paranoia believe in their psychoses?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> Like most medications they take getting used to and part of that is often tweaking dosages over time.
> The one I am currently taking was far too strong first of all and I could hardly walk but I reduced the dosage back down and then back up much more slowly and it has really helped.
> 
> I know they are not for everyone but they are not "horrific drugs".
> ...



I couldn't tolerate them.  One made me very depressed and after smashing a load of plates after narrowlly avoiding attacking a woman who took the piss out of me at a slimming class on another I didnt feel they were working   I had envisaged smashing her head on the taps in the toilets and smashed the plates when got home instead

see how hard I've had to work to NOT react?

and I had similar feelings when went back to my job (only for a week as couldnt cope) - to rush up to this lad who was often nasty about me and bang his head on his desk hard - felt wouldnt have realistically been able to carry it out though - this was the feeling came in my head though and this was while on the anti-psychotics so imo dangerous for me!


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> it would be incredibly important for someone other than the individual to diagnose paranoia, though, wouldn't it?  Given that, by definition people with paranoia believe in their psychoses?



I can only speak for myself and I will hear people say stuff or give me dirty looks and I don't imagine it


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I couldn't tolerate them.  One made me very depressed and after smashing a load of plates after narrowlly avoiding attacking a woman who took the piss out of me at a slimming class on another I didnt feel they were working   I had envisaged smashing her head on the taps in the toilets and smashed the plates when got home instead
> 
> see how hard I've had to work to NOT react?


what do you think would be the idea response to someone taking the piss... cos that kind of low level shit happens to everyone: it's not avoidable, sadly.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> what do you think would be the idea response to someone taking the piss... cos that kind of low level shit happens to everyone: it's not avoidable, sadly.



ignore it

when you have developed a complex about how you look because of it though and when you hear people like him saying 'I dont' like her face' to someone who is discussing you with him his card was marked - it's as if I can't cope with people being nasty about my appearance - it's intolerable to me mentally  I've had to tolerate it for years and it's sent me funny imo


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> ignore it
> 
> when you have developed a complex about how you look because of it though and when you hear people like him saying 'I dont' like her face' to someone who is discussing you with him his card was marked - it's as if I can't cope with people being nasty about my appearance - it's intolerable to me mentally  I've had to tolerate it for years and it's sent me funny imo


it's unpleasant, for sure.  and ignoring it is the best thing, so obviously keep doing that.  physical violence would be out of proportion to the offence, wouldn't it?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Wilf said:


> No, I wasn't having a dig - you've had enough people arguing against you, with a few distasteful comments thrown in.  It's just that urban is a place where people are keen on evidence.  There were a few 'might haves' and 'possibles' in some of your posts, which were likely to generate the response you got.  That's all.



if you read what I said you'll see I referred to what one of the police investigators said - you've still ignored that - you prove my point admirably!

you can't afford for me to be right basically as I've been categorised as an idiot now

typical stonewalling that occurs when people aren't even interested in the debate topic, more wanting to prove themselves superior


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> it's unpleasant, for sure.  and ignoring it is the best thing, so obviously keep doing that.  physical violence would be out of proportion to the offence, wouldn't it?



logically yes but in my head no

my head can't deal with the unfairness of it 

I only don't do it because I don't want to enter the criminal justice system

I got into problems on Twitter with one of the defenders of PC Blakelock's murderers - he threatened to kill me


----------



## Belushi (May 29, 2014)

Troll.


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> logically yes but in my head no
> 
> my head can't deal with the unfairness of it
> 
> ...


we need to let logic take charge, otherwise we'd make all kinds of mistakes that would make us vulnerable.


----------



## PursuedByBears (May 29, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Troll.


Definitely.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Troll.



that's nice for you


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> we need to let logic take charge, otherwise we'd make all kinds of mistakes that would make us vulnerable.



I'm already vulnerable and only tend to be able to focus on one thing in great depth at a time so don't have space in my brain to be more rational when under stress


----------



## elbows (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I can only speak for myself and I will hear people say stuff or give me dirty looks and I don't imagine it



But would you acknowledge that there are a number of conditions where paranoid delusions about such matters are a very real part of the illness, and that mental health professionals therefore cannot simply take a persons word on such things?

There are people and conditions where there is actually a fairly high level of self-awareness about paranoid or delusional thoughts, and the underlying factors. But many don't have that self-awareness, and this adds a number of challenges to successful treatment.

Also being exposed to a lot of very real slights, insults and other self-esteem crushing behaviour, can make a person hyper-vigilant towards such behaviour from others, and this can also lead to problems with the filters of the mind. It can lead a person to overreact to slights or perceive them at a much lower threshold than would be ideal. So stepping away from the black-and-white, its quite possible that you've been facing both real and imagined negative behaviour from others, and differentiating between the two can be a huge challenge. The internet, where social communication is stripped of many important indicators like facial expressions and tone of voice, poses its own challenges when this stuff is a factor.


----------



## butchersapron (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> logically yes but in my head no
> 
> my head can't deal with the unfairness of it
> 
> ...


Was your daily mail leavage anything to do with their coverage of the stephen lawrence murder?


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> we need to let logic take charge, otherwise we'd make all kinds of mistakes that would make us vulnerable.



Indeed. 
I think we have all imagined in our heads, even if it is momentarily, punching someone in the face because of how much they are getting to you. 
Everyone. If they say they never have at some point in their lives I would call them a liar. 
But we don't do it for a multitude of reasons. 

I am not dismissing that it is worse for you (nessa) possibly because of how you are but your not alone in sometimes feeling like that.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

elbows said:


> But would you acknowledge that there are a number of conditions where paranoid delusions about such matters are a very real part of the illness, and that mental health professionals therefore cannot simply take a persons word on such things?
> 
> There are people and conditions where there is actually a fairly high level of self-awareness about paranoid or delusional thoughts, and the underlying factors. But many don't have that self-awareness, and this adds a number of challenges to successful treatment.
> 
> Also being exposed to a lot of very real slights, insults and other self-esteem crushing behaviour, can make a person hyper-vigilant towards such behaviour from others, and this can also lead to problems with the filters of the mind. It can lead a person to overreact to slights or perceive them at a much lower threshold than would be ideal. So stepping away from the black-and-white, its quite possible that you've been facing both real and imagined negative behaviour from others, and differentiating between the two can be a huge challenge. The internet, where social communication is stripped of many important indicators like facial expressions and tone of voice, poses its own challenges when this stuff is a factor.



If some it was imagined it would cause me to question my own sanity so can't do that   I can admit I'm hypervigilant for it though - who wouldn't be?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Was your daily mail leavage anything to do with their coverage of the stephen lawrence murder?



no the death of Joanna Yeates - the way her landlord was hounded


----------



## Blagsta (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I've seen people in mental health services but they don't help as they spend a lot of time telling me I'm imagining people being nasty, being paranoid, to pretend they aren't being nasty etc
> 
> ie I'm left to deal with it all still
> 
> ...



That psychiatrist was right. It would be your responsibility if you kill someone. No one is responsible for your actions but you.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> Indeed.
> I think we have all imagined in our heads, even if it is momentarily, punching someone in the face because of how much they are getting to you.
> Everyone. If they say they never have at some point in their lives I would call them a liar.
> But we don't do it for a multitude of reasons.
> ...



I know

I know some people have it worse than me but I don't have the brain to cope with it; I have the brain to ruminate on it endlessly and develop major resentment of taking the piss types of people who seem in the majority these days - it's easy to be a piss-taker if you aren't so vulnerable to attack yourself imo

but you still see so-called normal types killing each other for something as innocuous as spilling someone's drink, so in that respect it implies I have far more self control than the average person


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> That psychiatrist was right. It would be your responsibility if you kill someone. No one is responsible for your actions but you.



yes i do know that but what is the point of MH services then?


----------



## Blagsta (May 29, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> You've been paranoid and mental health services haven't taken it seriously?



I think it would depend on the presentation and likely diagnosis. If someone was seen by mental health services to have a personality disorder, its seen as not particularly treatable by medication.


----------



## Red Cat (May 29, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> they dismissed some of my experiences wrt specific people around me as my being paranoid, when I wasn't.
> no recommendations to medicate me or anything, just that I should move house.
> 
> /very bad attempt to nutshell the whole thing



Yes, I'm sure people's experiences vary; it's hard to generalise.

My post was in response to someone relaying their experiences with a psychiatrist, which surprised me.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> yes i do know that but what is the point of MH services then?



To help you look at yourself. And to help medicate stuff that won't go away with therpy etc.  But having been through the mill with it myself I admit it often fails.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Yes, I'm sure people's experiences vary; it's hard to generalise.
> 
> My post was in response to someone relaying their experiences with a psychiatrist, which surprised me.



In my personal experience, the psychiatrists I have seen have been, bar one, god complex smug twats. 
I have seen lovely helpful therapists but the psychs have generally been awful.


----------



## Blagsta (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> they might work for some people but I found them terrible
> 
> they cause muscles to clench up
> 
> ...



Were you prescribed procyclidine as well?


----------



## Red Cat (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I was given an antipsychotic which is a terrible drug I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy
> 
> they caused harm to me as they made me so relaxed I laughed at some hoodies and they threw a lite firework at me
> 
> so I don't see how they helped really plus made me feel more noticeable due to looking drugged up imo



So, in fact, you weren't just dismissed as being paranoid, you were prescribed an anti-psychotic.

I'm not suggesting you should take them or not take them, just that it's more what I would expect from a psychiatrist rather than a dismissal of you're being paranoid, which is what you said had occurred.


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> If some it was imagined it would cause me to question my own sanity so can't do that   I can admit I'm hypervigilant for it though - who wouldn't be?


I think questioning one's own sanity is a very healthy thing to do.  I do it a lot, as I have recurrent depression and an eating disorder.  No mental health problem i've ever heard of gets better by pretending it isn't happening.


----------



## Red Cat (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> In my personal experience, the psychiatrists I have seen have been, bar one, god complex smug twats.
> I have seen lovely helpful therapists but the psychs have generally been awful.



I wasn't suggesting psychiatrists were any good, I was saying that quite specifically in response to someone presenting as paranoid, it didn't seem likely to me that they would dismiss it as 'you're just being paranoid' when it is considered a symptom of mental illness.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> So, in fact, you weren't just dismissed as being paranoid, you were prescribed an anti-psychotic.
> 
> I'm not suggesting you should take them or not take them, just that it's more what I would expect from a psychiatrist rather than a dismissal of you're being paranoid, which is what you said had occurred.



that was a different psychiatrist - I've seen several

the one who prescribed the antipsychotics was a private one, paid for by my local council who sent me to see him via occupational health and who got me diagnosed


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I wasn't suggesting they were any good, I was saying that quite specifically in response to someone presenting as paranoid, it didn't seem likely to me that they would dismiss it as 'you're just being paranoid' when it is considered a symptom of mental illness.



Yes sorry I saw your other reply after I had had written that post.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Were you prescribed procyclidine as well?



no, risperidone and seroquel


----------



## Red Cat (May 29, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> I think it would depend on the presentation and likely diagnosis. If someone was seen by mental health services to have a personality disorder, its seen as not particularly treatable by medication.



But the symptom of paranoia is.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> that was a different psychiatrist - I've seen several
> 
> the one who prescribed the antipsychotics was a private one, paid for by my local council who sent me to see him via occupational health and who got me diagnosed



they don't say you're paranoid they imply it by saying stuff like I'm sure sometimes you imagine it, generally making out you are the one with the problem rather than other people just being nasty


----------



## Red Cat (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> Yes sorry I saw your other reply after I had had written that post.



No need to apologise! I'm quite critical of psychiatry but there's no reason why anyone else would be as aware of that as I am


----------



## Blagsta (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> yes i do know that but what is the point of MH services then?



They don't exist to respond to premeditated threats of violence. 

Saying to a psychiatrist that your actions are their fault is seen as you having control over your actions, due to the premeditated nature of the threat. Its the sort of thing that gets people labelled as personality disordered.


----------



## twentythreedom (May 29, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Troll.


Too fucking right!


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> But the symptom of paranoia is.



I was diagnosed with PDs as well but not given any treatment for it just answered a questionnaire and had to request the results - MH services are rubbish imo


----------



## Blagsta (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no, risperidone and seroquel



Together? That's unusual.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> They don't exist to respond to premeditated threats of violence.
> 
> Saying to a psychiatrist that your actions are their fault is seen as you having control over your actions, due to the premeditated nature of the threat. Its the sort of thing that gets people labelled as personality disordered.



no it's a case of a person saying they dont' know if they will be able to continue dealing with stuff and asking for help


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Together? That's unusual.



not together - tried one then the other


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> they don't say you're paranoid they imply it by saying stuff like I'm sure sometimes you imagine it, generally making out you are the one with the problem rather than other people just being nasty



But people can be nasty. That's kind of the way the world can be. It happens to everyone from time to time. 
If your response to that general way of things is considered disproportionate, that is the problem. 
A MH professional can't do anything about nasty people out there but they can try and do something about how you react to and feel about it.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> But people can be nasty. That's kind of the way the world can be. It happens to everyone from time to time.
> If your response to that general way of things is considered disproportionate, that is the problem.
> A MH professional can't do anything about nasty people out there but they can try and do something about how you react to and feel about it.



I'm least able to cope with it though, hence the problem

see how vicious some people are on here even!

I generally react by ignoring it or on a bad day I can give a glare they won't outstare and sometimes I say stuff


----------



## twentythreedom (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no, I stopped buying the mail when they implicated someone in a crime and they werent guilty so Im no outright defender of the mail



Wtf - like you are with Maxine Carr, you implicate her but she's not guilty?

Troll


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> Wtf - like you are with Maxine Carr, you implicate her but she's not guilty?
> 
> Troll



how does that define me as a troll?

it seems to be a catch-all word for people saying stuff not agreed with imo

I thought it was a debate, not an invitation to just agree with the thread-starter


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I'm least able to cope with it though, hence the problem
> 
> see how vicious some people are on here even!



Imho most people (most, I accept there were one of two over the mark comments but nothing really that bad) on here were not being vicious, they were just ardently disagreeing with you.
And you haven't exactly covered yourself in glory either. That's not me having a go at you, I am just pointing out what I have seen.


----------



## Wilf (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> if you read what I said you'll see I referred to what one of the police investigators said - you've still ignored that - you prove my point admirably!
> 
> you can't afford for me to be right basically as I've been categorised as an idiot now
> 
> typical stonewalling that occurs when people aren't even interested in the debate topic, more wanting to prove themselves superior


 Nope, none of the above. Earlier in the thread I said it was at least _plausible_ to suggest she knew what had happened earlier than in the facts ultimately taken to court (but that none of us really know that).  However, there is as far as I know, absolutley no evidence of her involvement in the murders.

I've no idea if you are a troll or if you are genuine.  Either way, hey ho.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Nope, none of the above. Earlier in the thread I said it was at least _plausible_ to suggest she knew what had happened earlier than in the facts ultimately taken to court (but that none of us really know that).  However, there is as far as I know, absolutley no evidence of her involvement in the murders.
> 
> I've no idea if you are a troll or if you are genuine.  Either way, hey ho.



but how is a troll defined??

I say what I think

if one of the investigators is cynical towards her performance in court and says she's an excellent liar it casts some suspicion imo ie I'm not totally on my own in my opinion


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> Imho most people (most, I accept there were one of two over the mark comments but nothing really that bad) on here were not being vicious, they were just ardently disagreeing with you.
> And you haven't exactly covered yourself in glory either. That's not me having a go at you, I am just pointing out what I have seen.



how do I not be me though?

just agree with everyone?


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I'm least able to cope with it though, hence the problem
> 
> see how vicious some people are on here even!
> 
> I generally react by ignoring it or on a bad day I can give a glare they won't outstare and sometimes I say stuff


see, that's kinda illuminating, cos what you've experienced on here over the last two days...  it isn't vicious.  You've taken quite a confrontational approach and people have given you a really quite mild amount of flack.  Vicious is like when teenagers get told to kill themselves in cyberbullying cases.


----------



## butchersapron (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> how do I not be me though?
> 
> just agree with everyone?


That's probably the most abusive post on this thread as it goes.


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> how do I not be me though?
> 
> just agree with everyone?


you could avoid the bits where you tell everyone that they're all toeing the line and thinking what they've been told to think.  Those bits are unecessary to asserting your version of Carr's guilt, and are needlessly antagonistic.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> see, that's kinda illuminating, cos what you've experienced on here over the last two days...  it isn't vicious.  You've taken quite a confrontational approach and people have given you a really quite mild amount of flack.  Vicious is like when teenagers get told to kill themselves in cyberbullying cases.



I see

it feels vicious to me 

my emotional thermostat is far more sensitive than average and to me it's brutal


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's probably the most abusive post on this thread as it goes.



how?


----------



## twentythreedom (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> how does that define me as a troll?
> 
> it seems to be a catch-all word for people saying stuff not agreed with imo
> 
> I thought it was a debate, not an invitation to just agree with the thread-starter


Ok if not a troll, then on a wind-up. Or perhaps just a fucking dick. Who knows?


----------



## Wilf (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> if one of the investigators is cynical towards her performance in court and says she's an excellent liar _*it casts some suspicion*_ imo ie I'm not totally on my own in my opinion


 Again, maybe, could be, perhaps - but once you start shoving this into an accusation of some kind of involvement, things come unstuck. Don't you see that's what has happened on this thread?  A newspaper link ain't proof.


----------



## fogbat (May 29, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> 1. bullies on forums
> 2. dodgy people gut feelings shifty eyes
> 3. poor misunderstood spree killers
> 
> any more typess?



Snerts?

We need Bonathan Jishop's list for this...


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> you could avoid the bits where you tell everyone that they're all toeing the line and thinking what they've been told to think.  Those bits are unecessary to asserting your version of Carr's guilt, and are needlessly antagonistic.



it seems that's what happens though as it often happens - people close ranks and attack when some of my points seem perfectly valid to me so it becomes not about the issue at all and all about personality and popularity


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I see
> 
> it feels vicious to me
> 
> my emotional thermostat is far more sensitive than average and to me it's brutal


so where do you go from there if someone is being really vile?  You mentioned a death threat earlier - if this level of response feels vicious, how do you respond to that?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Again, maybe, could be, perhaps - but once you start shoving this into an accusation of some kind of involvement, things come unstuck. Don't you see that's what has happened on this thread?  A newspaper link ain't proof.



well me thinking similar to a police investigator is good enough for me - you can choose what to think as can I


----------



## butchersapron (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> how?


Others have dismissed the posts of an individual based on  what that individual has said. You've just characterised everyone else (or everyone not agreeing with you) as people only saying stuff to fit in. It's an abusive dismissal that trivialises everyone else and magnifies your own heroic qualities.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> so where do you go from there if someone is being really vile?  You mentioned a death threat earlier - if this level of response feels vicious, how do you respond to that?



I reported it to the metropolitan police who took details and sent my local police round to discuss it


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Others have dismissed the posts of an individual based on  what that individual has said. You've just characterised everyone else (or everyone not agreeing with you) as people only saying stuff to fit in. It's an abusive dismissal.



it's how it feels to me though


----------



## fogbat (May 29, 2014)

Bit Upchuck, innit?


----------



## butchersapron (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> it's how it feels to me though


Which ain't good enough.


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> it seems that's what happens though as it often happens - people close ranks and attack when some of my points seem perfectly valid to me so it becomes not about the issue at all and all about personality and popularity


but if you want people to only judge your logic and your arguments, to take you seriously, then you have to lay off the other stuff.  Tell people they're unthinking sheeple and you're the only one who can think for themselves, and they will dismiss everything else you say.  If you don't want to be dismissed, you need to argue your case and avoid that stuff.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Which ain't good enough.



what do you mean?


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> how do I not be me though?
> 
> just agree with everyone?



I really don't know. But know you don't have to agree with everyone. But you have come across as very closed minded and stuck with your view, which yes I know can be how ASD effects people. 
But people wouldn't have come down so hard on you (and I really don't think it was that hard) if you hadn't been so inflexible.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> but if you want people to only judge your logic and your arguments, to take you seriously, then you have to lay off the other stuff.  Tell people they're unthinking sheeple and you're the only one who can think for themselves, and they will dismiss everything else you say.  If you don't want to be dismissed, you need to argue your case and avoid that stuff.



well people were being rude to me and to me it feels people often do have very similar opinons


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I reported it to the metropolitan police who took details and sent my local police round to discuss it


I meant, how did you react emotionally?  compared to how you feel emotionally in response to this debate.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> I really don't know. But know you don't have to agree with everyone. But you have come across as very closed minded and stuck with your view, which yes I know can be how ASD effects people.
> But people wouldn't have come down so hard on you (and I really don't think it was that hard) if you hadn't been so inflexible.



I would be pretending to be someone else if I didn't state what I think though - could you pretend to be autistic for long??


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> I meant, how did you react emotionally?  compared to how you feel emotionally in response to this debate.



I was very scared he was going to come to my house and kill me tbh, that's why I reported it as I was so scared


----------



## Blagsta (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> not together - tried one then the other



Did you let your consultant know you'd had the muscular side effects?


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> well people were being rude to me and to me it feels people often do have very similar opinons


it's up to you.  if you want your opinions and reasoning to be taken seriously, stick to that.  if you want to be emotional, do that.  But the emotional response will mean that people write off your arguments.  it's how things work.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Did you let your consultant know you'd had the muscular side effects?



probably; I said you take it then if it's so wonderful

it's a dangerous drug - has major effect on the central nervous system and gave me slight tarditive dyskinesia and didnt even take it for a year


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> it's up to you.  if you want your opinions and reasoning to be taken seriously, stick to that.  if you want to be emotional, do that.  But the emotional response will mean that people write off your arguments.  it's how things work.



how is saying I'm a fantasist not emotional though?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 29, 2014)

fogbat said:


> Bit Upchuck, innit?



It's Ultimate.


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I would be pretending to be someone else if I didn't state what I think though - could you pretend to be autistic for long??



But earlier you said that this is *exactly* what all the many Aspergers posters on urban have done.  And that the thing stopping you was your "stubborness".



nessa239 said:


> I was very scared he was going to come to my house and kill me tbh, that's why I reported it as I was so scared



And presumably you are less scared by today's reactions from posters?  That's what i'm getting at.  A death threat is vicious.  It felt vicious to you: you were scared for your safety.  Today you have not felt so alarmed.  It may have been upsetting but not so traumatic.  If you categorise every negative thing with a really strong word, like "Vicious", you deny the varying intensity of your own reactions.


----------



## Blagsta (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> probably; I said you take it then if it's so wonderful
> 
> it's a dangerous drug - has major effect on the central nervous system and gave me slight tarditive dyskinesia and didnt even take it for a year



I'm surprised you weren't also prescribed procyclidine, for the side effects.


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> how is saying I'm a fantasist not emotional though?


Did you take that poster's arguments seriously after they called you a fantasist?  Because, i'm guessing not.  I wouldn't.  And since you have dismissed me and anyone else who doesn't agree with your interpretation of events as being incapable of independent thought, i'm not going to engage with your theories on the matter.


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> well people were being rude to me and to me *it feels people often do have very similar opinons*


This is often because they're right.  Not because they're part of a conspiracy.


----------



## Blagsta (May 29, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> But the symptom of paranoia is.



Not all psychiatrists would think that anti psychotics are useful for someone diagnosed with a personality disorder.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> This is often because they're right.  Not because they're part of a conspiracy.



the majority is not always right - the truth is often somewhere inbetween


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's Ultimate.


Don't think so. Had a quick look at Ultimate's work and the posts were a lot longer and only mentioned Aspergers once in reference to other people.

The real talent here is turning two threads about other subjects into threads about him/her. Martyr complexes like this are completely independent of anything on the Aspergers/Autism spectrum btw.


----------



## Blagsta (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I was diagnosed with PDs as well but not given any treatment for it just answered a questionnaire and had to request the results - MH services are rubbish imo



Unfortunately services for personality disorder are very patchy and variable. They also require the patient to be willing to engage.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Not all psychiatrists would think that anti psychotics are useful for someone diagnosed with a personality disorder.



I hadn't been diagnosed with them at that point, just the Aspergers	It's all different ways of society saying 'you don't fit - in change your attitude' basically


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

maomao said:


> Don't think so. HAd a quick look at Ultimate's work and the posts were a lot longer and only mentioned Aspergers once in reference to other people.
> 
> The real talent here is turning two threads about other subjects into threads about him/her. Martyr complexes like *this are completely independent of anything on the Aspergers/Autism spectrum *btw.



autism is basically self-ism so I don't think so


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> the majority is not always right - the truth is often somewhere inbetween



you'll notice my use of the word "often", rather than "the "always" you have substituted it for.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> hey another diagnosis!


Martyr complex was just my way of describing the way you are behaving. I am not a doctor or psychiatrist. But you've managed to make two threads about relatively interesting topics into threads about you. That's distinct and special whatever you call it.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 29, 2014)

maomao said:


> Don't think so. Had a quick look at Ultimate's work and the posts were a lot longer and only mentioned Aspergers once in reference to other people.



Perhaps you're right. It was this odd coincidence that sparked the thought but certainly the styles differ. Terrifying that two people share the dream, though. 

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/benevolent-paternalism.317845/

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...o-become-prime-minister.324109/#post-13167269


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

maomao said:


> Martyr complex was just my way of describing the way you are behaving. I am not a doctor or psychiatrist. But you've managed to make two threads about relatively interesting topics into threads about you. That's distinct and special whatever you call it.



well that came about because people started talking about me so I answered - people we rent interested in the relevant on-topic stuff, they just started tearing me apart so don't blame me for that!  I've tried getting back on topic several times


----------



## elbows (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I know
> 
> I know some people have it worse than me but I don't have the brain to cope with it; I have the brain to ruminate on it endlessly and develop major resentment of taking the piss types of people who seem in the majority these days - it's easy to be a piss-taker if you aren't so vulnerable to attack yourself imo
> 
> but you still see so-called normal types killing each other for something as innocuous as spilling someone's drink, so in that respect it implies I have far more self control than the average person



Whether or not they've been diagnosed with anything, or have ever sought treatment, people that kill someone for spilling their drink are not 'so-called normal types'.

Perhaps your self-control is put to the test more than the average person, not really possible to judge without the opportunity to be someone else for a while and see how it feels. There are other ways to look at it. Perhaps one of your self-control checkpoints is overworked due to failures at an earlier checkpoint. i.e. if you had greater self-control at not getting full of anger towards others, you wouldn't have to put in herculean effort to avoid murder. But of course its easy for me to say this, and far harder to actually do anything about it.

A much higher degree of self-awareness as I've got older has been a mixed bag for me. On the one hand I am much better attuned to reality, and less angry, and thats great. Others, who I cannot change, are not to blame. It's me, not them. Unfortunately I've not been able to use this foundation to build a well-rounded life yet, and I don't know if I ever will. Most of my issues are to do with self-esteem and greater awareness of my own flaws can be counterproductive to repairing this. Not always though, I certainly have more hope than I did 10 years ago, and stuff is far more likely to bounce off me than it would of 10 years ago.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> you'll notice my use of the word "often", rather than "the "always" you have substituted it for.



the majority arent often right, they just prevail basically


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I would be pretending to be someone else if I didn't state what I think though - could you pretend to be autistic for long??



I'll come back to this later. Have to cook dinner.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

tea time now - feel free to go back on topic


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> the majority arent often right, they just prevail basically


really?  you think that if most people believe something it is likely to be wrong?


----------



## elbows (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> tea time now - feel free to go back on topic



Not very likely it will go back on track now, at least in the absence of some new news regarding the original topic.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 29, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Unfortunately services for personality disorder are very patchy and variable. They also require the patient to be willing to engage.



Are personality disorders treatable? I thought psychiatrists used the term for patients that they couldn't treat, generally.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> really?  you think that if most people believe something it is likely to be wrong?



A majority of people on earth believe in a Deity.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 29, 2014)

elbows said:


> Not very likely it will go back on track now, at least in the absence of some new news regarding the original topic.



if it helps, the Grimsby Telegraph is upset today that Carr's honeymoon was held at a "bustling" and - the horror - "family friendly" resort.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> This is often because they're right.  Not because they're part of a conspiracy.




Having similar opinions doesn't necessarily mean the opinion is "right". All it means is that a group hold the same view.


I have to say that putting myself in Nessas shoes,  I can see how she could feel a bit put upon for voicing an opinion.

Regarding the OP and Maxine Carr...she's done her time and is a free woman. She's entitled to a happy life and the gutter press ahould leave her be.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 29, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> A majority of people on earth believe in a Deity.



Hardly a good argument for not believing in a diety though.


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> A majority of people on earth believe in a Deity.



Again, i'm not saying a majority is *always* correct.  Perhaps that post was written invisibly...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 29, 2014)

The quantity of people disbelieving or believing something, doesn't really tell me much about anything.


----------



## equationgirl (May 29, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> she missed two hairs iirc. The way forensics can dig these days you should just cut your losses and torch the flat.


Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.


----------



## weltweit (May 29, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Having similar opinions doesn't necessarily mean the opinion is "right". All it means is that a group hold the same view.
> 
> 
> I have to say that putting myself in Nessas shoes,  I can see how she could feel a bit put upon for voicing an opinion.
> ...


Plus, it must have really been a slow news day at the mail for that story to make headlines.


----------



## equationgirl (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> That's arrogant - you aren't any more correct than me - it's still opinion


It's not arrogant. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, equally everybody else is entitled to challenge them upon it if they don't agree with it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> you're doing an excellent job of being one though



Am I supposed to be put out that I don't qualify for your special club?  According to you, a lot of Aspies don't either!


----------



## elbows (May 29, 2014)

Special clubs and their role in tribal snorefare.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> But earlier you said that this is *exactly* what all the many Aspergers posters on urban have done.  And that the thing stopping you was your "stubborness".
> 
> 
> 
> And presumably you are less scared by today's reactions from posters?  That's what i'm getting at.  A death threat is vicious.  It felt vicious to you: you were scared for your safety.  Today you have not felt so alarmed.  It may have been upsetting but not so traumatic.  If you categorise every negative thing with a really strong word, like "Vicious", you deny the varying intensity of your own reactions.



I take your point


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> really?  you think that if most people believe something it is likely to be wrong?



no I think it's not a foregone conclusion that the majority belief is right


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:
			
		

> Are personality disorders treatable? I thought psychiatrists used the term for patients that they couldn't treat, generally.



I can only speak for my own case but I was diagnosed with BPD (that I will add I wholeheartedly disagree with) and am in bi-weekly psychotherapy and on lots of different medication. 
It took a long time to get there but now I am out of the hands of a CMHT, I am being treated reasonably well.

Eta: Bud yes to get that level of treatment I had to do a lot of begging and a lot of reassuring them I was 100% willing to engage.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:
			
		

> The quantity of people disbelieving or believing something, doesn't really tell me much about anything.



Well quite.


----------



## Blagsta (May 29, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Are personality disorders treatable? I thought psychiatrists used the term for patients that they couldn't treat, generally.



Depends on the personality disorder. Borderline can be treatable, dialectical behaviour therapy being the usual treatment approach. Therapeutic communities have had some success, but they're expensive and have mostly been closed down.


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no I think it's not a foregone conclusion that the majority belief is right


I fully agree with you.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

'treatment' seems to be making you conform to a standard template of thought and behaviour and I don't want to basically - I don't see myself as a bad person in the first place

To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting.
e. e. cummings


----------



## weltweit (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 - you really should take more time to enjoy your tea


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> 'treatment' seems to be making you conform to a standard template of thought and behaviour and I don't want to basically - I don't see myself as a bad person in the first place



Was that to me?


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

Arg I have something I really want to say but it's too much to type on my phone and Badgers is watching Family Guy on the PC


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> Was that to me?



no, the person who said personality disorders weren't treatable


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> Was that to me?


I'd guess she was talking about her own feelings. ..
It read that way to me.


----------



## fogbat (May 29, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The quantity of people disbelieving or believing something, doesn't really tell me much about anything.


But the truth of something often (note this word, because you seem to have missed it when Spangles wrote it) has an influence over how many people believe it.


----------



## tim (May 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by that.
> 
> I'm not arguing for press censorship. Maxine Carr onl gets a mention because of her notorieity and becausse the Mail has and continues to demonise her. Nothing she can ever do will change their attitude, is that justice?




It's not justice. It's journalism. If you  aren't making the case for censorship then presumably you have to accept that the Mail have the right to print this sort of stuff about Carr. As to Carr herself I don't accept either the "wicked woman" assessment  or the frankly patronising one that  she was a naive innocent another of Huntley's victims. She was an adult who lied to give Huntley an alibi. Her lies resulted in her being convicted and gaoled She made a choice and she served time in prison for making that choice and now that she's free perhaps she'll just have to accept that  to some degree that decision will  always haunt her, as our pasts haunt us all. The Mail ,and the rest of the press, does what it does and and there is more to be lost than gained from preventing it from doing so. 

I really don't see how she's more  deserving of anonymity than any other high profile ex-con


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I said she was more implicated not an active player in it so you can't even accurately report what I said
> 
> I see everyone's ignored the link I posted to details of one of the police investigators being cynical as to her performance in court and saying she was an exceedingly good liar



People have ignored it because a policeman's opinion on someone's personal probity, or their facility at lying is irrelevant.  
Here's why: A police officer works in a _milieu_, a subculture where they are taught to *assume* that what they are told is always a lie, so they're predisposed to see lies everywhere.  This means that someone who's telling the truth may be quantified by that officer as "a damn good liar".



> when people ignore stuff like this I know they've got an agenda to ignore whatever I say so you aren't even discussing the issue, just having a jolly old witch hunt



You *"know"* so much stuff, I'm surprised you are Commissioner of the Met.
Then again, it's fairly obvious that your "knowledge" is ill-informed opinion, dressed up as meaningful comment.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> no, the person who said personality disorders weren't treatable



Ok, but I don't think I was a bad person before treatment and medication, I just wasn't coping anymore. 
My state of mind was effecting my ability to work and most importantly my relationships with my husband, family and friends who mean the world to me. 
My general opinions about the world haven't changed because of medication and therapy.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (May 29, 2014)

fogbat said:


> But the truth of something often (note this word, because you seem to have missed it when Spangles wrote it) has an influence over how many people believe it.



That is unfortunately akin to how lynch mobs worked in the past. 
Truth has little to do with mass belief. Truth has to be independent  arrived at through scrupulous examination of facts, best practice and true wisdom....but even after all of this it still can be a subjective thing. Especially moral truths. ... as opposed to factual or scientific proofs of truth.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:
			
		

> That is unfortunately akin to how lynch mobs worked in the past.
> Truth has little to do with mass belief. Truth has to be independent  arrived at through scrupulous examination of facts, best practice and true wisdom....but even after all of this it still can be a subjective thing. Especially moral truths. ... as opposed to factual or scientific proofs of truth.



But I think the original point Spangle's was making was that just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make them a deluded monothought clique. 
Regardless of the fact that they "might" be wrong.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> I got into problems on Twitter with one of the defenders of PC Blakelock's murderers - he threatened to kill me



Was that one of Blakelock's *actual* murderers, or one of the several people who've been accused of participating, but later cleared?
Have you used special deductive powers, or are you yet again going on intuition, and pretending that your intuition is meaningful?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

tim said:


> It's not justice. It's journalism. If you  aren't making the case for censorship then presumably you have to accept that the Mail have the right to print this sort of stuff about Carr. As to Carr herself I don't accept either the "wicked woman" assessment  or the frankly patronising one that  she was a naive innocent another of Huntley's victims. She was an adult who lied to give Huntley an alibi. Her lies resulted in her being convicted and gaoled She made a choice and she served time in prison for making that choice and now that she's free perhaps she'll just have to accept that  to some degree that decision will  always haunt her, as our pasts haunt us all. The Mail ,and the rest of the press, does what it does and and there is more to be lost than gained from preventing it from doing so.
> 
> I really don't see how she's more  deserving of anonymity than any other high profile ex-con



Is this journalism? It's not really in the public interest other than to play to the Mail's social agenda. Why mention the cost of her dress for example? Is that relevant? Is 2 grand a lot of money for the average wedding dress? Why do I need to be informed that she is getting married? Why is it ncessary to tell me the cost involved in her protection - by the very newspaper that's been at the forefront of agitating the situation and necessitating that protection.

I don't think this is a case of rights. I think it's a case of responsibility. They could have chosen to discuss something else. Is it the job of the Mail to decide her fate even after she's done her time?

I have no idea what goes on in her mind; it's quite likely she does regret what happened, but it isn't the job or responsibility of Dacre and his disgusting cronies to force that or to make someone feel guilty forevermore until they day they die.

She's deserving of anonymity as long as even one person wants to put her life in danger. She is no less entitled to protection as a citizen than anyone else, that's the law in a civilised society. If people behaved themselves this wouldn't happen and the media in this country, including and espcially the Mail, are central in cointually agitating it.


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> That is unfortunately akin to how lynch mobs worked in the past.
> Truth has little to do with mass belief. Truth has to be independent  arrived at through scrupulous examination of facts, best practice and true wisdom....but even after all of this it still can be a subjective thing. Especially moral truths. ... as opposed to factual or scientific proofs of truth.


All true. But nessa has the causality the other way round: if lots of people believe something, they are wrong, sheeple. Sometimes they are right. Sometimes lots of people believe something because it's blindingly obvious or because the force of available evidence drives the vast majority of people to that conclusion.

There is virtue in being sceptical, in questioning and thinking for yourself, but there is a point when it turns into paranoia, conspira-looney or obsession. There is no virtue in disbelieving things *just because* lots of other people believe them


----------



## weltweit (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Was that one of Blakelock's *actual* murderers, or one of the several people who've been accused of participating, but later cleared?
> Have you used special deductive powers, or are you yet again going on intuition, and pretending that your intuition is meaningful?


It is quite clear she said "One of the defenders of .... "


----------



## equationgirl (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> they've 'gone native' then


Ok stop. Stop now. 

There are a lot of people with Asperger's on here. They don't conform necessarily. But they're damn well not rude, dismissive and insulting to everyone else for having different opinions to theirs.

This is not a mainstream or conformist website by any stretch of the imagination. There are a lot of different people who disagree about all sorts of things. Have opinions by all means, but be respectful of other opinions besides your own.

And for the record, you're getting a much, MUCH easier time of it than some new posters. You're not being bullied. You're having your opinions challenged. Learn to recognise the difference.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> All true. But nessa has the causality the other way round: if lots of people believe something, they are wrong, sheeple. Sometimes they are right. Sometimes lots of people believe something because it's blindingly obvious or because the force of available evidence drives the vast majority of people to that conclusion.
> 
> There is virtue in being sceptical, in questioning and thinking for yourself, but there is a point when it turns into paranoia, conspira-looney or obsession. There is no virtue in disbelieving things *just because* lots of other people believe them



I was talking about "truth"... not Nessa .


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Ok stop. Stop now.
> 
> There are a lot of people with Asperger's on here. They don't conform necessarily. But they're damn well not rude, dismissive and insulting to everyone else for having different opinions to theirs.
> 
> ...



tell that to some of the other people on here then!


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> tell that to some of the other people on here then!



They do already know that.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Was that one of Blakelock's *actual* murderers, or one of the several people who've been accused of participating, but later cleared?
> Have you used special deductive powers, or are you yet again going on intuition, and pretending that your intuition is meaningful?



He admitted he was there at the time and arrested but let go - he was involved, as were most of those arrested but police messed up the evidence by paying witnesses

these people crow about it basically which I find sickening

the way he spoke to me left me in no uncertainty he'd do such a thing, hence I called the police and amazingly enough they dealt with it very fast


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> They do already know that.



calling someone a fantasist and all the other stuff I've been called is not respectful


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I was talking about "truth"... not Nessa .


And I think everyone on here would be inclined to agree with you (apart, obviously from nessa the iconoclast....)


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> All true. But nessa has the causality the other way round: if lots of people believe something, they are wrong, sheeple. Sometimes they are right. Sometimes lots of people believe something because it's blindingly obvious or because the force of available evidence drives the vast majority of people to that conclusion.
> 
> There is virtue in being sceptical, in questioning and thinking for yourself, but there is a point when it turns into paranoia, conspira-looney or obsession. There is no virtue in disbelieving things *just because* lots of other people believe them



I still think a lot of actual truth is lost by this majority opinion prevailing concept


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> calling someone a fantasist and all the other stuff I've been called is not respectful


You earn respect. You don 't get given it because you demand it.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> And I think everyone on here would be inclined to agree with you (apart, obviously from nessa the iconoclast....)



That was not what I meant.
And I know you know that.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> You earn respect. You don 't get given it because you demand it.



hang on a sec though I was told to respect others just but they don't have to respect me?  how does that work then?

equationgirl:- "There are a lot of different people who disagree about all sorts of things. Have opinions by all means, but be respectful of other opinions besides your own."


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> calling someone a fantasist and all the other stuff I've been called is not respectful



It could have maybe, maybe, been put better but they are not really being disrespectful going on some of the things you have said. 

It's also understandable that people get wound up and exasperated when people act the way you have. 

Again, I'm not having a go go at you. Just saying what I've seen.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> And I think everyone on here would be inclined to agree with you (apart, obviously from nessa the iconoclast....)



I would agree as bubbles seems to talk sense


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> You earn respect. You don 't get given it because you demand it.


I've always operated from the standpoint of giving respect to all unless and until they prove themselved not worthy of my respect.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> I still think a lot of actual truth is lost by this majority opinion prevailing concept



But here it hasn't been a concept. 
People have expressed their own opinions. 
Believe me I have been here long enough to know people will and do often vehemently disagree with each other when they want to.


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> That was not what I meant.
> And I know you know that.


Sorry, you've lost me.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> It could have maybe, maybe, been put better but they are not really being disrespectful going on some of the things you have said.
> 
> It's also understandable that people get wound up and exasperated when people act the way you have.
> 
> Again, I'm not having a go go at you. Just saying what I've seen.



yes, you agree with the general consensus as you prefer the status quo


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I've always operated from the standpoint of giving respect to all unless and until they prove themselved not worthy of my respect.



I do usually but how I put myself across rubs people up the wrong way

if you don't mix with people you get used to saying what you think without having to keep thinking how it comes across

no peer group to challenge me


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> But here it hasn't been a concept.
> People have expressed their own opinions.
> Believe me I have been here long enough to know people will and do often vehemently disagree with each other when they want to.



I believe you

I didn't think the points I raised were totally wrong though - there is some value in them


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> yes, you agree with the general consensus as you prefer the status quo



Please, I have tried my best to be polite and understanding here. 
Please don't write me off like that. 
If I preferred the status quo than much I wouldn't be posting on this thread in the first place as I'm actually finding it quite challenging.


----------



## tim (May 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Is this journalism? It's not really in the public interest other than to play to the Mail's social agenda. Why mention the cost of her dress for example? Is that relevant? Is 2 grand a lot of money for the average wedding dress? Why do I need to be informed that she is getting married? Why is it ncessary to tell me the cost involved in her protection - by the very newspaper that's been at the forefront of agitating the situation and necessitating that protection.



Journalism is what journalists write and  newspapers print - not what you or I might like them to print. As to "the public interest" whatever that means. I  can't think of anyone who should be in a position to decide what that is or isn't. Carr's wedding is certainly of interest to those prurient members of the public who buy the Mail. You "me" "me" "me" in your post but the Mail isn't written for you; If you're not interested don't read about it. I usually manage to survive without doing so


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> Please, I have tried my best to be polite and understanding here.
> Please don't write me off like that.
> If I preferred the status quo than much I wouldn't be possible on this thread in the first place as I'm actually finding it quite challenging.



ok


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I've always operated from the standpoint of giving respect to all unless and until they prove themselved not worthy of my respect.


I behave politely to people, but respect? Nope. I respect people's rights, their right to have opinions, but actually respecting the opinions themselves depends on the opinions being coherent, well argued, useful, constructive, and sane.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> I behave politely to people, but respect? Nope. I respect people's rights, their right to have opinions, but actually respecting the opinions themselves depends on the opinions being coherent, well argued, useful, constructive, and sane.



..in your opinion


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> I believe you
> 
> I didn't think the points I raised were totally wrong though - there is some value in them



But the tone that came from them was that you could see stuff in the situation that nobody else could. 
And why should we really believe what you say? We don't have the evidence to believe what you say in the way you seem to want us to.


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> ..in your opinion


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

tim said:


> Journalism is what journalists write and  newspapers print - not what you or I might like them to print. As to "the public interest" whatever that means. I  can't think of anyone who should be in a position to decide what that is or isn't. Carr's wedding is certainly of interest to those prurient members of the public who buy the Mail. You "me" "me" "me" in your post but the Mail isn't written
> 
> 
> for you; If you're not interested don't read about it. I usually manage to survive without doing so



yes it's supply and demand

I think programmes like the X Factor are disgusting in the way people are treated but they are popular so won't get taken off


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> ok



Thank you


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> But the tone that came from them was that you could see stuff in the situation that nobody else could.
> And why should we really believe what you say? We don't have the evidence to believe what you say in the way you seem to want us to.



I gave the reasons I thought what I did but if people don't want to listen that's up to them - I won't say I'm wrong, just that it's not a majority viewpoint


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:
			
		

> I behave politely to people, but respect? Nope. I respect people's rights, their right to have opinions, but actually respecting the opinions themselves depends on the opinions being coherent, well argued, useful, constructive, and sane.



I think that was very well put Manter.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I do usually but how I put myself across rubs people up the wrong way
> 
> if you don't mix with people you get used to saying what you think without having to keep thinking how it comes across
> 
> no peer group to challenge me



Well....freedom of expression is fine. I'm sure you wouldn't be abusive in saying what you think to anyone. You cant always be walking on eggshells worrying that what you say will offend because it's not a majority view .. or because it is alternative. 
In my experience people who take offence are reacting....they feel aggrieved. ... but they are responsible for their own feelings and reactions...and as long as one is not deliberately provocative then the onus is on the other person to control their reaction to their own feelings.
That goes for everyone. 
It's a way of looking at things that has helped me quite a lot.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> yes it's supply and demand
> 
> I think programmes like the X Factor are disgusting in the way people are treated but they are popular so won't get taken off



I totally agree with you there.


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> But the tone that came from them was that you could see stuff in the situation that nobody else could.
> And why should we really believe what you say? We don't have the evidence to believe what you say in the way you seem to want us to.


She read it in the mail. Therefore it must be true. And we're sheeple for daring to challenge the iconoclastic views if the newspaper with the widest internet reades.... Oh, see a logical fallacy in there?! 

I reckon Blagsta's right (it was you, wasn't it?) this is a wind up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

weltweit said:
			
		

> It is quite clear she said "One of the defenders of .... "



..of Blakelock's murderers.
Now, re-read my question.  See how it logically pertains to "Blakelock's murderers"?

You're frighteningly obtuse sometimes.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Well....freedom of expression is fine. I'm sure you wouldn't be abusive in saying what you think to anyone. You cant always be walking on eggshells worrying that what you say will offend because it's not a majority view .. or because it is alternative.
> In my experience people who take offence are reacting....they feel aggrieved. ... but they are responsible for their own feelings and reactions...and as long as one is not deliberately provocative then the onus is on the other person to control their reaction to their own feelings.
> That goes for everyone.
> It's a way of looking at things that has helped me quite a lot.



Thanks


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> I gave the reasons I thought what I did but if people don't want to listen that's up to them - I won't say I'm wrong, just that it's not a majority viewpoint



But no one has asked you to say that you are wrong.


----------



## tim (May 29, 2014)

Nessa as managed in two days to make 250 posts it's taken me 10 years to get to 2,435.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> ..of Blakelock's murderers.
> Now, re-read my question.  See how it logically pertains to "Blakelock's murderers"?
> 
> You're frighteningly obtuse sometimes.


He was both - a defender of the people accused and also an accused person himself at one point

most of them are up the their necks in it but know the police can't touch them

all well and good - I can't do anything about that but it was his crowing article in the Guardian about it that set me off


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> She read it in the mail. Therefore it must be true. And we're sheeple for daring to challenge the iconoclastic views if the newspaper with the widest internet reades.... Oh, see a logical fallacy in there?!
> 
> I reckon Blagsta's right (it was you, wasn't it?) this is a wind up.



no it's not and it's not been just the mail either and it's seeing her on tv and reading interviews as well and the police opinion - various things

how are you so sure a jury knew what they were doing?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

tim said:


> Nessa as managed in two days to make 250 posts it's taken me 10 years to get to 2,435.



lack of social outlet


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> But no one has asked you to say that you are wrong.



they've rubbished my views which to me says they are saying 'you are wrong' and expect me to agree


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

tim said:
			
		

> Nessa as managed in two days to make 250 posts it's taken me 10 years to get to 2,435.


----------



## Blagsta (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> 'treatment' seems to be making you conform to a standard template of thought and behaviour and I don't want to basically - I don't see myself as a bad person in the first place
> 
> To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting.
> e. e. cummings



Well...yes and no.  There are socially acceptable standards of behaviour, its not socially acceptable to threaten to kill someone, for example.

You don't seem very happy and appear to have great difficulty with personal relationships. If you view being helped to lead a better life as being forced to conform, well...dunno how to respond to that really.  Seems a bit self defeating.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:
			
		

> She read it in the mail. Therefore it must be true. And we're sheeple for daring to challenge the iconoclastic views if the newspaper with the widest internet reades.... Oh, see a logical fallacy in there?!
> 
> I reckon Blagsta's right (it was you, wasn't it?) this is a wind up.



I do think that they said that they were not pro-mail at all. I think.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> He admitted he was there at the time and arrested but let go - he was involved...



Actually, what can be *proven* is that he was in Blakelock's vicinity at the time Blakelock was being killed, that is *all*.  There's no evidence of involvement in the actual murder besides some rap lyrics he wrote.
because, obviously, rap lyrics aren't *ever* based on fantasy, are they?



> ....as were most of those arrested but police messed up the evidence by paying witnesses



Your reading of the case makes it clear you've not gone beyond the media accounts.  Some of the actual investigative accounts go into detail about how the police *actually* messed up, and it's not to do with paying witnesses, either.



> ...these people crow about it basically which I find sickening



As you're entitled to.



> the way he spoke to me left me in no uncertainty he'd do such a thing, hence I called the police and amazingly enough they dealt with it very fast



They would. it was a "threat to kill".
That said, as you haven't said about any action beyond speaking to him, I suspect they looked at the tweets and drew their own conclusions.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> they've rubbished my views which to me says they are saying 'you are wrong' and expect me to agree



I don't agree.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Well...yes and no.  There are socially acceptable standards of behaviour, its not socially acceptable to threaten to kill someone, for example.
> 
> You don't seem very happy and appear to have great difficulty with personal relationships. If you view being helped to lead a better life as being forced to conform, well...dunno how to respond to that really.  Seems a bit self defeating.



I have a good relationship with the person I live with, it's outside the house stuff not good at I've held down a job for over 10 years in past so managed up to a point reached burnout now though imo too fixed in ideas

I can't change - I'm too stubborn - find people too annoying and vice versa


----------



## Blagsta (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> She read it in the mail. Therefore it must be true. And we're sheeple for daring to challenge the iconoclastic views if the newspaper with the widest internet reades.... Oh, see a logical fallacy in there?!
> 
> I reckon Blagsta's right (it was you, wasn't it?) this is a wind up.



Wasn't me.  I'm taking nessa at face value tbh.  Someone with aspergers complicated by personality disorder.


----------



## equationgirl (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> hang on a sec though I was told to respect others just but they don't have to respect me?  how does that work then?
> 
> equationgirl:- "There are a lot of different people who disagree about all sorts of things. Have opinions by all means, but be respectful of other opinions besides your own."


If you want to quote what somebody says, use the 'Reply' button at the bottom right of every post. If you want to quote multiple posts use the '+Quote' button.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Actually, what can be *proven* is that he was in Blakelock's vicinity at the time Blakelock was being killed, that is *all*.  There's no evidence of involvement in the actual murder besides some rap lyrics he wrote.
> because, obviously, rap lyrics aren't *ever* based on fantasy, are they?
> 
> 
> ...



No it's not that person, it's another one

read between the lines

no one has been charged with his murder so did ghosts do it??


----------



## Blagsta (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I have a good relationship with the person I live with, it's outside the house stuff not good at I've held down a job for over 10 years in past so managed up to a point reached burnout now though imo too fixed in ideas
> 
> I can't change - I'm too stubborn - find people too annoying and vice versa



Just seems odd setting yourself up here for a kicking.  Takes all sorts I suppose.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Wasn't me.  I'm taking nessa at face value tbh.  Someone with aspergers complicated by personality disorder.



yes that's it imo but to myself I'm normal so v hard to accept


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> I can't change - I'm too stubborn - find people too annoying and vice versa



Change doesn't have to mean change to the fundamental person you are. 
But sometimes if you want to have a happier easier life, some change can be a good thing.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Just seems odd setting yourself up here for a kicking.  Takes all sorts I suppose.



I didn't do it deliberately, I wanted to make my point and don't back down easily - it shows how used to conforming you are that you dont like to see others not doing it ie it's not normal to you for a person to disagree with the majority

I will never accept a system/society that sees giving dissenters 'a kicking' as an ok thing


----------



## Blagsta (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> yes that's it imo but to myself I'm normal so v hard to accept



Well of course, its normal to view how we are, think, feel and behave as "normal".  Yet if people continually tell us we're not and we continually get into repeated patterns of conflicts with others...maybe its time to start listening.


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Wasn't me.  I'm taking nessa at face value tbh.  Someone with aspergers complicated by personality disorder.


Sorry, maybe it was Belushi? B---- something


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> I didn't do it deliberately, I wanted to make my point and don't back down easily - it shows how used to conforming you are that you dont like to see others not doing it ie it's not normal to you for a person to disagree with the majority
> 
> I will never accept a system/society that sees giving dissenters 'a kicking' as an ok thing



But that really, in my opinion, is not what has happened here.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> Change doesn't have to mean change to the fundamental person you are.
> But sometimes if you want to have a happier easier life, some change can be a good thing.



I've had to change a lot already

I never used to do all my food shopping or pay in cheques - have to do that now


----------



## Red Cat (May 29, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> If you view being helped to lead a better life as being forced to conform, well...dunno how to respond to that really.  Seems a bit self defeating.



Well, it's a bit paranoid. Not sure you can argue logically with that.


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I didn't do it deliberately, I wanted to make my point and don't back down easily - it shows how used to conforming you are that you dont like to see others not doing it ie it's not normal to you for a person to disagree with the majority
> 
> I will never accept a system/society that sees giving dissenters 'a kicking' as an ok thing



It's not on to make unfounded statements like that about posters who have already said they are finding this conversation difficult. That's not about respect, that's just unkind


----------



## Red Cat (May 29, 2014)

You can't talk people out of their world view; it's not something that can be taught.

ETA: General point about thread, and life, not a comment on your post Manter


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> But that really, in my opinion, is not what has happened here.



why have 2 people said it then?  they seem horrified that I stand my ground in the face of majority derision

I've been having to do it all my adult life though so it's hardly a new experience

I don't relate to fluffy conversations that are all 'you're SO right' 'there there' etc

in fact if everyone agreed with me I'd feel very uneasy and wonder when someone was going to turn everyone else against me

I usually hope for one person agreeing which backs up my thoughts on intelligence being very limited on forums


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> why have 2 people said it then?  they seem horrified that I stand my ground in the face of majority derision
> 
> I've been having to do it all my adult life though so it's hardly a new experience
> 
> I don't relate to fluffy conversations that are all 'you're SO right' 'there there' etc


So why do you get so angry and upset when the derided 'majority' you so despise disagree with you? You're simply not making any sense.


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> You can't talk people out of their world view; it's not something that can be taught.
> 
> ETA: General point about thread, and life, not a comment on your post Manter


Yeah, understood.


----------



## Gingerman (May 29, 2014)

It really does make a fucking mockery of the justice system in this country if people are allowed to be hounded long after they have 'paid the price' in the eyes of the law, we don't ever need to hear about Carr again, but our scummy media live for whipping hate so we'll continue to be  constantly updated on her life,feel sorry for the parents of the girls


----------



## Red Cat (May 29, 2014)

Logic will not win the day.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> So why do you get so angry and upset when the derided 'majority' you so despise disagree with you? You're simply not making any sense.



because they don't argue fairly on the point at hand - they move goalposts and stonewall and insult


----------



## tim (May 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I have no idea what goes on in her mind; it's quite likely she does regret what happened, but it isn't the job or responsibility of Dacre and his disgusting cronies to force that or to make someone feel guilty forevermore until they day they die.




Dacre's job is to flog newspapers to prurient right-wing fuck-wits. He doesn't do what he does to torture the soul of Maxine Carr. 

Maybe Car feels guilty, maybe she doesn't. Maybe this sort of article makes her feel bad, maybe it doesn't.

Whatever she feels or doesn't feel, I doubt that she needs patronising,  do-gooders riding to her rescue.and absolving her


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> because they don't argue fairly on the point at hand - they move goalposts and stonewall and insult


You've just said we're all lacking in intelligence! But you're not a fan of insults....

I think my brain may explode if I try and follow this logic any further....


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> You've just said we're all lacking in intelligence! But you're not a fan of insults....
> 
> I think my brain may explode if I try and follow this logic any further....



i didn't start the insults, I just defended myself

it started with being called a fantasist - I'm not


----------



## equationgirl (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I didn't do it deliberately, I wanted to make my point and don't back down easily - it shows how used to conforming you are that you dont like to see others not doing it ie it's not normal to you for a person to disagree with the majority
> 
> I will never accept a system/society that sees giving dissenters 'a kicking' as an ok thing


Have you read any other posts that people are making? 

People aren't conforming just because they disagree with YOUR viewpoint. Also, we disagree with each other ALL THE TIME here, for us it is completely normal to disagree. Dissent is what urban does best!


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> I've had to change a lot already
> 
> I never used to do all my food shopping or pay in cheques - have to do that now



Ok. That's good. 
So you can make changes that helped you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> No it's not that person, it's another one
> 
> read between the lines
> 
> no one has been charged with his murder so did ghosts do it??



You reckon you're 48, so I suppose it's possible that pre-senile dementia is making you forget Winston Silcott, Engin Raghip and Mark Braithwaite, who were all charged with Blakelock's murder?

Fucking hell.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> Ok. That's good.
> So you can make changes that helped you?



i had to do it, I don't see it as that helpful as it means more exposure to people, more stress
it's just a necessity and gets me out the house so I don't go mad/madder


----------



## equationgirl (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> why have 2 people said it then?  they seem horrified that I stand my ground in the face of majority derision
> 
> I've been having to do it all my adult life though so it's hardly a new experience
> 
> ...


You can't complain that you get insults and then throw them about to everyone.


----------



## Red Cat (May 29, 2014)

Sometimes it's best to just let things go....


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> i didn't start the insults, I just defended myself
> 
> it started with being called a fantasist - I'm not


"I didn't start it" 

Playground logic. Nice.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You reckon you're 48, so I suppose it's possible that pre-senile dementia is making you forget Winston Silcott, Engin Raghip and Mark Braithwaite, who were all charged with Blakelock's murder?
> 
> Fucking hell.



and all released on appeal - I meant charged and jailed permanently 

my Dad has Alzheimers so that's no joke either


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Sometimes it's best to just let things go....


Yes, you're quite right.... I am out


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> intelligence being very limited on forums



Comments like that are not going to get you much further. 
If you want to get further on here that is. 
But maybe, from what you've said, you don't?


----------



## tim (May 29, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Have you read any other posts that people are making?
> 
> People aren't conforming just because they disagree with YOUR viewpoint. Also, we disagree with each other ALL THE TIME here, for us it is completely normal to disagree. Dissent is what urban does best!



NO IT ISN'T!!!!


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> Comments like that are not going to get you much further.
> If you want to get further on here that is.
> But maybe, from what you've said, you don't?



most topics wont be of interest - depends if I get bored


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> Yes, you're quite right.... I am out



To demonstrate how I am unable to tolerate most people just you using the phrase 'I am out' annoys the f-k out of me


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> i had to do it, I don't see it as that helpful as it means more exposure to people, more stress
> it's just a necessity and gets me out the house so I don't go mad/madder



Sometimes changes that are essentially positive don't really feel like it initially until we're used to it being the norm.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

tim said:
			
		

> NO IT ISN'T!!!!



In comparison to other forums it is.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> Sometimes changes that are essentially positive don't really feel like it initially until we're used to it being the norm.



my brain doesn't like discomfort basically and life is wall to wall discomfort
I hate having to have showers even - discomfort


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> and all released on appeal - I meant charged and jailed permanently



Released after serving 4 years, in Rgahip and Braithwaite's cases.  4 years after being fitted up by coppers who were more interested in clearing their estate of "troublemakers" and coercing kids into testimony, than they were in actually tracking down their colleague's murderer(s).
That's why no-one has been "jailed permanently": Because the police fucked up.  They lied and lied and lied, and they're still lying.



> my Dad has Alzheimers so that's no joke either



I never said it was, toodles.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Released after serving 4 years, in Rgahip and Braithwaite's cases.  4 years after being fitted up by coppers who were more interested in clearing their estate of "troublemakers" and coercing kids into testimony, than they were in actually tracking down their colleague's murderer(s).
> That's why no-one has been "jailed permanently": Because the police fucked up.  They lied and lied and lied, and they're still lying.
> 
> 
> ...



Who did it then?  some of the accused did basically and they're laughing about it


----------



## equationgirl (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> most topics wont be of interest - depends if I get bored


Have a look round the other forums here - there really is something for everybody on urban. There's lots of really good stuff here, and I've learnt a lot from urban.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> my brain doesn't like discomfort basically and life is wall to wall discomfort



I know we have very different issues (for want of a better word) but my (and many other people's) life has been wall to wall discomfort for a long time. 
Nobody's brain "likes discomfort".


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> I know we have very different issues (for want of a better word) but my (and many other people's) life has been wall to wall discomfort for a long time.
> Nobody's brain "likes discomfort".



mine is less equipped to cope with it than most peoples'

eg most people could eat something with ketchup/sauce on - I couldn't


----------



## equationgirl (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> In comparison to other forums it is.


I think tim was making a joke about urbanites loving to disagree


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Have a look round the other forums here - there really is something for everybody on urban. There's lots of really good stuff here, and I've learnt a lot from urban.



I'll see


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> mine is less equipped to cope with it than most peoples'
> 
> eg most people could eat something with ketchup/sauce on - I couldn't



Ok, I get that. That's a better way of saying it. 
Do you maybe see now how the wording of what you type can be seen in so many different ways depending on the words you use.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> Ok, I get that. That's a better way of saying it.
> Do you maybe see now how the wording of what you type can be seen in so many different ways depending on the words you use.



yes but I will feel I've made things clear - I don't speak the lingo of the majority


----------



## equationgirl (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> yes but I will feel I've made things clear - I don't speak the lingo of the majority


There is no majority on urban. We're all very different people. Bluntness is generally fine, rudeness is generally not.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> There is no majority on urban. We're all very different people. Bluntness is generally fine, rudeness is generally not.



well people often seem very similar to me as they all seem to agree with each other a lot of the time in similar ways

their communication style is often very similar


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Released after serving 4 years, in Rgahip and Braithwaite's cases.  4 years after being fitted up by coppers who were more interested in clearing their estate of "troublemakers" and coercing kids into testimony, than they were in actually tracking down their colleague's murderer(s).
> That's why no-one has been "jailed permanently": Because the police fucked up.  They lied and lied and lied, and they're still lying.
> 
> 
> ...



you joked about me having senile dementia so clearly you see having it as a joke - this is what people do all the time - say something then deny they said it!

I said my Dad has it as an indication that I might well have it too eventually so it's certainly not going to be funny to me

it's all one big joke to you though isn't it as long as it isn't at your expense eh?


----------



## elbows (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> well people often seem very similar to me as they all seem to agree with each other a lot of the time in similar ways
> 
> their communication style is often very similar



Ah go on, take a moment to marvel at the wide variation in the amount of patience, kindness and desire to understand that different people will show towards you and the various things you say.


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> why have 2 people said it then?  they seem horrified that I stand my ground in the face of majority derision
> 
> I've been having to do it all my adult life though so it's hardly a new experience
> 
> ...



who seemed "horrified"...?  or do you mean something less than horrified, like you meant something less than "vicious" earlier?  Hyperbole isn't a good way to be taken seriously.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

tim said:


> Dacre's job is to flog newspapers to prurient right-wing fuck-wits. He doesn't do what he does to torture the soul of Maxine Carr.
> 
> Maybe Car feels guilty, maybe she doesn't. Maybe this sort of article makes her feel bad, maybe it doesn't.
> 
> Whatever she feels or doesn't feel, I doubt that she needs patronising,  do-gooders riding to her rescue.and absolving her



I'm not posting for her benefit.


----------



## Welsh lad (May 29, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/02/maxine-carr-no-ghoul-we-are

This is a good article. Yet again, the Guardian is the only paper with the dare to go against the lynch mob.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 29, 2014)

fogbat said:


> But the truth of something often (note this word, because you seem to have missed it when Spangles wrote it) has an influence over how many people believe it.



I don't agree.



> Nearly half of Republicans (49%) now say Obama was definitely or probably born in the U.S., up from 35%. The same is true for 65% of independents, up from 56%, and 81% of Democrats, up from 78%. Republicans are 20 percentage points less likely to say Obama was definitely or probably born in another country, though 23% remain steadfast in this view. They are joined by 14% of independents and 5% of Democrats.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/147530/Obama-Birth-Certificate-Convinces-Not-Skeptics.aspx


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I don't agree.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/147530/Obama-Birth-Certificate-Convinces-Not-Skeptics.aspx


OFTEN.  Not EVERY SINGLE TIME.  Jesus Christ, are you taking the piss?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> OFTEN.  Not EVERY SINGLE TIME.  Jesus Christ, are you taking the piss?



Quantify "often" ... ?

It implies a definitive.

If "sometimes" was used it would allow for possibility and indicate that.


----------



## Greebo (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> yes but I will feel I've made things clear - I don't speak the lingo of the majority


Stick around, give yourself time to get used to the different voices and atmospheres in different bits of urban.  Some bits are fluffier than others.  

You might not like all of urban, but there's probably at least one corner which you'll prefer, give it time.


----------



## friedaweed (May 29, 2014)

20 pages since 11am What page does the bunfight start and who's running the book on the hundred page prize?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 29, 2014)

> *The alarming misconception that sexual intercourse with a virgin can cure HIV infection still endures in South African society today, with tragic consequences.*


*
*
http://www.mediaaids.org/blog/entry/virgin_cure_myth_alive_well/


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> http://www.mediaaids.org/blog/entry/virgin_cure_myth_alive_well/


Oh you really are a deliberate wind-up merchant.  You're the only poster my husband has on ignore and I reckon I'll follow his lead.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:
			
		

> OFTEN.  Not EVERY SINGLE TIME.  Jesus Christ, are you taking the piss?



Knowing Johnny, yes.


----------



## Greebo (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> you joked about me having senile dementia so clearly you see having it as a joke - this is what people do all the time - say something then deny they said it!
> 
> I said my Dad has it as an indication that I might well have it too eventually so it's certainly not going to be funny to me
> 
> it's all one big joke to you though isn't it as long as it isn't at your expense eh?


Nessa239, ViolentPanda is my partner.  For your information if he didn't laugh about dementia and other cognitive impairments, he'd cry.  I could tell you more, but fuck it, when he'd rather that I don't, I won't.

Not everything is about you, even when it's said to you.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> OFTEN.  Not EVERY SINGLE TIME.  Jesus Christ, are you taking the piss?



No I'm not taking the piss. Imo the link between truth and belief is highly tenuous at best.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 29, 2014)

> Most parents who opt-out of vaccinations are being guided by "irrational fears" that are a luxury of living in the developed world, a leading world health expert says.



http://www.bbc.com/news/health-22384788


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:
			
		

> No I'm not taking the piss. Imo the link between truth and belief is highly tenuous at best.



Yes it is. 
But it's just as tenuous as the like between truth and disbelief.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 29, 2014)

That she's had her ID changed and the paper knows it's Maxine Carr means that they have access to information they shouldn't. They are not the police/social services. This is outrageous and by posting that i's maxine carr that got married they are flirting with breaking the law.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Oh you really are a deliberate wind-up merchant.  You're the only poster my husband has on ignore and I reckon I'll follow his lead.



Do whatever you think is best, but I'd be interested in knowing what it is about what I'm posting here that strikes you as so outrageous that you must henceforth refuse to look at anything I say.

I'm being totally honest when I say that imo, there are many factors that go into determining what people believe - and that for lots of people lots of the time, truth, and critical thought, play a very minor role.



> *4 Benefit fraud Perception: £24 in every £100 spent on benefits is claimed fraudulently.
> Reality: £0.70 in every £100 spent on benefits is claimed fraudulently.*
> 
> *3 Unemployment*
> ...



http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/09/top-10-common-misconceptions-among-britons-about-britain-3874983/


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

Oh Johnny ffs 

Yes, you're giving stuff that supports your claim. 
The point is you misunderstood the initial claim.


----------



## 8ball (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> really?  you think that if most people believe something it is likely to be wrong?


 
It's a good general rule.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

8ball said:
			
		

> It's a good general rule.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html



Why are people willingly missing Spangle's point!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Oh you really are a deliberate wind-up merchant.  .




You believe that.

It's not true. 

But I suspect that nothing on earth would be able to make you change your mind about it.


----------



## fogbat (May 29, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> That is unfortunately akin to how lynch mobs worked in the past.
> Truth has little to do with mass belief. Truth has to be independent  arrived at through scrupulous examination of facts, best practice and true wisdom....but even after all of this it still can be a subjective thing. Especially moral truths. ... as opposed to factual or scientific proofs of truth.



Oh, ffs. I'm not saying popular belief = truth 

The other way around.


----------



## 8ball (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> Why are people willingly missing Spangle's point!


 
I think you mean willfully.  And I wasn't.


----------



## 8ball (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> I behave politely to people, but respect? Nope. I respect people's rights, their right to have opinions, but actually respecting the opinions themselves depends on the opinions being coherent, well argued, useful, constructive, and sane.


 
If you meant respecting people is something quite different to respecting opinions then I'd agree.


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

8ball said:


> If you meant respecting people is something quite different to respecting opinions then I'd agree.


You put it much more simply than me- yes, that's the gist of it


----------



## fogbat (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> To demonstrate how I am unable to tolerate most people just you using the phrase 'I am out' annoys the f-k out of me



Special snowflake again.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 29, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think you mean willfully.  And I wasn't.



Nor was I.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

8ball said:
			
		

> I think you mean willfully.  And I wasn't.



I possibly did. 
And I think even offer you're not willfully not doing so, you missed the beginning gist of what she was saying and why.


----------



## fogbat (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> OFTEN.  Not EVERY SINGLE TIME.  Jesus Christ, are you taking the piss?



Contrarian Canadian Carpetbomber. It's his only tune.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 29, 2014)

fogbat said:


> Contrarian Canadian Carpetbomber. It's his only tune.




Sorry: no bunfight tonight, friend.


----------



## fogbat (May 29, 2014)

"Bubbles agrees with me".

Jesus, may as well believe Dwyer's got your back.


----------



## fogbat (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Oh you really are a deliberate wind-up merchant.  You're the only poster my husband has on ignore and I reckon I'll follow his lead.



Ditto. Back he goes.


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

you can give examples of when the majority believe something erroneous.  there are quite a few.  but there are eve more when the majority believe something true.  

the majority believe 1+1=2
the majority believe 1+2=3
...and so the fuck on.


----------



## fogbat (May 29, 2014)

Smoking causes cancer.
Gravity, ffs.


----------



## 8ball (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> I possibly did.
> And I think even offer you're not willfully not doing so, you missed the beginning gist of what she was saying and why.


 
No I get what Spangles is saying.  But where I agree partially, I think it's more useful to say that when a lot of people hold a common opinion there is definitely a reason or reasons for it, and sometimes one of those reasons will relate to truth value.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (May 29, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The quantity of people disbelieving or believing something, doesn't really tell me much about anything.





fogbat said:


> But the truth of something often (note this word, because you seem to have missed it when Spangles wrote it) has an influence over how many people believe it.



No it doesn't. The truth of something has nothing to do with how many people believe or disbelieve it. 
Truth stands alone....it exists whether or not anyone believes.




fogbat said:


> Oh, ffs. I'm not saying popular belief = truth
> 
> The other way around.



What does this mean? Are you saying popular belief is not truth or that unpopular beliefs are truth?



fogbat said:


> Special snowflake again.


That's a bit cruel imo.


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

8ball said:


> No I get what Spangles is saying.  But where I agree partially, I think it's more useful to say that when a lot of people hold a common opinion there is definitely a reason or reasons for it, and sometimes one of those reasons will relate to truth value.


She was also arguing against a position which was if a lot of people hold an opinion it must by definition be untrue. (And they are all stupid sheeple who like the status quo.)


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 29, 2014)




----------



## 8ball (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> ..in your opinion


 
People on here only have opinions.  Often they relate to well-argued debate or substantial evidence but they're still opinions, same goes for all of us.


----------



## 8ball (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> She was also arguing against a position which was if a lot of people hold an opinion it must by definition be untrue. (And they are all stupid sheeple who like the status quo.)


 
Sometimes they are stupid sheeple who like Def Leppard.

I feel soiled and dirty after doing that joke - please accept my apologies.


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

8ball said:


> Sometimes they are stupid sheeple who like Def Leppard.
> 
> I feel soiled and dirty after doing that joke - please accept my apologies.


----------



## friedaweed (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> To demonstrate how I am unable to tolerate most people just you using the phrase 'I am out' annoys the f-k out of me





nessa239 said:


> most topics wont be of interest - depends if I get bored





nessa239 said:


> yes but I will feel I've made things clear - I don't speak the lingo of the majority



Don't let the door hit you on the way out then.

Stinks of troll to me


----------



## Greebo (May 29, 2014)

fogbat said:


> "Bubbles agrees with me".
> 
> Jesus, may as well believe Dwyer's got your back.


Don't you believe in that rare miracle of even wrong uns sometimes being right?


----------



## fogbat (May 29, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Don't you believe in that rare miracle of even wrong uns sometimes being right?



Not when they're deliberate contrarians, no.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> you can give examples of when the majority believe something erroneous.  there are quite a few.  but there are eve more when the majority believe something true.
> 
> the majority believe 1+1=2
> the majority believe 1+2=3
> ...and so the fuck on.


I saw some graffiti on the way home saying "does 2+2 really =4?"

Well, yes. Yes, it does. It's inherent in the concepts of 2 and 4. 2+2=4 is a tautology.


----------



## catinthehat (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> She was friendly with them at the school beforehand and might have encouraged them to visit the house.  I have noticed that teachers/those in the teaching profession often seem to cross professional boundaries these days and it never ends well.  There is no reason for school children to be visiting the house of a teaching assistant unless she'd crossed professional boundaries ie acted more like a friend than a teacher.  I suspect she's a lot more manipulative than people realise.


In some countries - Finland, Sweden, Iceland - it is considered part of the normal relationship with primary teachers to go to the homes of their students and the pupils to visit the teacher.  This might be done before the child starts school and the teacher gets to know the child and its family and form a relationship before school starts thus reducing any of the trauma of suddenly being out of the house five days a week.  The teachers relationship is not just with the child but also with the family the child comes from.  Personally I think this is an excellent idea and connects the family to the school in a way we can only dream of in the uk - some parents have almost no contact with teachers and teachers have no idea of the home circumstances of the child.  Given their educational outcomes are somewhat better than ours and their crime rate lower it would suggest that this is a pretty good system.  Professional boundries are not an exact science and ours are informed a lot by moral panics around poor risk assessments about where the risks lay.  I suspect the 'do not touch under any circumstances' rule that exists in many schools is more damaging than the small risk associated with not having that rule.  Ye olden days teacher up here, pupil down there power relationship is being changed bit by bit because we no longer need to enforce the blind obedience and conformity demanded by the factory system.


----------



## 8ball (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> Nobody's brain "likes discomfort".


 
You've led a sheltered life.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

8ball said:
			
		

> You've led a sheltered life.



Oh stop it. You know what I mean.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (May 29, 2014)

Sorry but that is completely wrong.
Math equations are proven as true or false. 
There's no option for "belief","opinion" or "disbelief" because they are known and given quantities. 



spanglechick said:


> you can give examples of when the majority believe something erroneous.  there are quite a few.  but there are eve more when the majority believe something true.
> 
> the majority believe 1+1=2
> the majority believe 1+2=3
> ...and so the fuck on.


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Sorry but that is completely wrong.
> Math equations are proven as true or false.
> There's no option for "belief","opinion" or "disbelief" because they are known and given quantities.


So try 'it's raining' or 'there are more slugs in my garden than this time last year' or 'if I drop this cup of coffee I'll make a mess on the floor'


----------



## 8ball (May 29, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Sorry but that is completely wrong.
> Math equations are proven as true or false.
> There's no option for "belief","opinion" or "disbelief" because they are known and given quantities.


 
There are plenty of facts out there - that doesn't mean people are going to believe them.

Though I like to think on this website there is a slightly higher likelihood of chucking a brick in the air and braining a poster who has at least some grasp of the existence of facts that are independent of their own set of personal opinions.

P&P does not count, obv.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 29, 2014)

A few years back there was a doc about people who had been mistaken for Carr. It had ruined quite a few lives. Tragic. I've looked for it online but it's not there in full. Think it was Channel 4.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 29, 2014)

Of course, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-classical_logic


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> So try 'it's raining' or 'there are more slugs in my garden than this time last year' or 'if I drop this cup of coffee I'll make a mess on the floor'




Try them to prove what?
"It's raining" is a statement of fact.
"There are more slugs in the garden than last year" is an opinion unless you've counted every single slug...both years.
"If I drop this cup of coffee on the floor I'll make a mess" is a forecast or prediction of possibility but not necessarily a given.  

What's your point?


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Try them to prove what?
> "It's raining" is a statement of fact.
> "There are more slugs in the garden than last year" is an opinion unless you've counted every single slug...both years.
> "If I drop this cup of coffee on the floor I'll make a mess" is a forecast or prediction of possibility but not necessarily a given.
> ...


an alternative to the mathematical equations you were rejecting.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> an alternative to the mathematical equations you were rejecting.



And?


----------



## 8ball (May 29, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> "It's raining" is a statement of fact.


 
Ah, but _what_ is raining?

<stares meaningfully into the distance>


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> And?


Are you being deliberately obtuse? Just out of interest


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (May 29, 2014)

8ball said:


> Ah, but _what_ is raining?
> 
> <stares meaningfully into the distance>



Live in Ireland and you will know the truth of rain


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> Are you being deliberately obtuse? Just out of interest



I wanted you to elaborate.....but on second thoughts I'm sensing some hostility.....so let's leave it at that.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:
			
		

> I wanted you to elaborate.....but on second thoughts I'm sensing some hostility.....so let's leave it at that.



Oh come on. Everyone's (ok some people's) emotions have been running high here today.


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> Oh come on. Everyone's (ok some people's) emotions have been running high here today.


kitty - i don't know why but whenever you quote someone on my ignore list (it's only three people, tbf), i can see their quote - but whenever anyone else quotes them I can't.  It's most peculiar.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:
			
		

> kitty - i don't know why but whenever you quote someone on my ignore list (it's only three people, tbf), i can see their quote - but whenever anyone else quotes them I can't.  It's most peculiar.



Hmmm that is odd. 

Maybe I'm magic!


----------



## fishfinger (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> Hmmm that is odd.
> 
> Maybe I'm magic!


I think it might be the browser/forum reader/whatever that you are using. When most people quote there is a little upward pointing arrow after the poster-name said: which (if clicked on) points to the post that it was quoted from. In the posts where you quote someone, there is no such arrow.


----------



## spanglechick (May 29, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> I think it might be the browser/forum reader/whatever that you are using. When most people quote there is a little upward pointing arrow after the poster-name said: which (if clicked on) points to the post that it was quoted from. In the posts where you quote someone, there is no such arrow.


I get an arrow when kitty posts.


----------



## fishfinger (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> I get an arrow when kitty posts.


Weird! This is what I see:

 

Are you using a browser, or some forum reader?


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I wanted you to elaborate.....but on second thoughts I'm sensing some hostility.....so let's leave it at that.


I've already elaborated, in about four posts.... There are lots of things 'people'* believe that are true. Thatincludes mathematical equations, or, if you reject those, observations about the weather, wildlife or floor cleaning. Or any number of things, we could be here all night thinking of examples.  Providing a list of things 'people' believe that are not true, however outlandish, as Jonny did, does not disprove that. 

Additional points: things are not true *because* people believe them to be  true. People may hold fallacious beliefs.  Things are not fallacious because people believe them. People (individually or as a group) can believe a variety of thing, some of which are true, some of which are not. 

*'the majority', 'a majority', 'mainstream opinion' 'sheeple' whatever form of words used in previous posts you prefer 

Can we give up on undergraduate philosophy now and have a discussion in good faith like grown ups?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> Providing a list of things 'people' believe that are not true, however outlandish, as Jonny did, does not disprove that.



What it does prove though, is that one can't assume a one to one correlation - or even anything close - between what is true and what is believed.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

fishfinger said:
			
		

> I think it might be the browser/forum reader/whatever that you are using. When most people quote there is a little upward pointing arrow after the poster-name said: which (if clicked on) points to the post that it was quoted from. In the posts where you quote someone, there is no such arrow.



It could be that I'm using Forum Runner but much more likely that I'm magic I think


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What it does prove though, is that one can't assume a one to one correlation - or even anything close - between what is true and what is believed.


And no one has claimed that it does, apart from the nessa, who seemed to think that there is a perfect negative correlation.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 29, 2014)

It's also possible for something that might seem a fundamental principle - like 1 = 1 - to  vary, depending on belief.

The Christian concept of the Trinity tells us that in certain circumstances, 1 = 3.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:
			
		

> It's also possible for something that might seem a fundamental principle - like 1 = 1 - to  vary, depending on belief.
> 
> The Christian concept of the Trinity tells us that in certain circumstances, 1 = 3.



Oh nonsense. 
The Christian belief does not tell us that in a mathematical sense that 1=3.


----------



## 8ball (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> It could be that I'm using Forum Runner but much more likely that I'm magic I think


 
Does it have a 'disable monothought clique' setting?

I'm for it now...


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

8ball said:
			
		

> Does it have a 'disable monothought clique' setting?
> 
> I'm for it now...



Nothing to do with that.
Just a "Harry Potter is real" setting


----------



## NoXion (May 29, 2014)

The Christian concept of the Trinity is incoherent nonsense masquerading as profundity, frankly.


----------



## 8ball (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> Oh nonsense.
> The Christian belief does not tell us that in a mathematical sense that 1=3.


 
Although it does give a value of 3 for pi...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> Oh nonsense.



I also believe it to be nonsense; but millions of Christians believe otherwise.

The trinity is also a unity, just as it is with the Hindu trinity of Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma.


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:
			
		

> I also believe it to be nonsense; but millions of Christians believe otherwise.
> 
> The trinity is also a unity, just as it is with the Hindu trinity of Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma.



You deleted half of what I said ffs so your reply does not correlate to what I said.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> who seemed "horrified"...?  or do you mean something less than horrified, like you meant something less than "vicious" earlier?  Hyperbole isn't a good way to be taken seriously.



I exaggerate to emphasise the effect something has on me personally ie it seems like that to me but I can see that most people don't' see it that way

this is why a lot of people take drugs imo ie reality can be very safe and  banal for them but it's already far too much of a major head f-k for me so no need!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> You deleted half of what I said ffs so your reply does not correlate to what I said.



Why are you affecting this hostile tone?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> You deleted half of what I said ffs so your reply does not correlate to what I said.



The other half of what you said amounted to 'no it doesn't'.

So, it was already covered by your first comment of 'nonsense'.


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Do whatever you think is best, but I'd be interested in knowing what it is about what I'm posting here that strikes you as so outrageous that you must henceforth refuse to look at anything I say.
> 
> I'm being totally honest when I say that imo, there are many factors that go into determining what people believe - and that for lots of people lots of the time, truth, and critical thought, play a very minor role.
> 
> ...



I'd agree a bit as I believe in God but I don't' need any proof of his existence and part of me knows it couldn't be proved yet I still prefer to believe in him - I was sent to Sunday school and it just stuck in my brain and I find it comforting to have the idea of God there in the background

so I can sort of see him as not existing and existing at the same time


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> The Christian belief does not tell us that in a mathematical sense that 1=3.



In fact, it does.



> The doctrine of the Trinity — that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are each equally and eternally the one true God — is admittedly difficult to comprehend, and yet is the very foundation of Christian truth. Although skeptics may ridicule it as a mathematical impossibility, it is nevertheless a basic doctrine of Scripture as well as profoundly realistic in both universal experience and in the scientific understanding of the cosmos.



http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t002.html




> The word "Trinity" comes from the Latin noun "trinitas" meaning "three are one." The Trinity expresses the belief that God is one Being made up of three distinct Persons who exist in co-equal essence and co-eternal communion as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.



http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/g/trinitydoctrine.htm


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> She was also arguing against a position which was if a lot of people hold an opinion it must by definition be untrue. (And they are all stupid sheeple who like the status quo.)



No I meant it's not a foregone conclusion that if the majority believe something that it's true

what can happen is that majority opinion automatically becomes the truth by the very fact of it being majority opinion ie the majority create what everyone classes as the truth (sometimes)

after all what is usually the truth - it's what most believe


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:
			
		

> Why are you affecting this hostile tone?



I'm not effecting anything. 
I'm just telling you clearly what I think.


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> In fact, it does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Details of doctrine is different across orthodoxy, Catholicism, and the different branches of Protestantism *. There have been schisms about what the trinity means, it was one of the key debating points in the split of Eastern and Western Christianity and in the reformation/counter reformation. 

*i don't know the details of Mormonism and other cults


----------



## kittyP (May 29, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:
			
		

> In fact, it does.
> 
> http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t002.html
> 
> http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/g/trinitydoctrine.htm



On stop it is grew up catholic so on know what you're getting at but mathematics has nowt to do with it.


----------



## 8ball (May 29, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> this is why a lot of people take drugs imo ie reality can be very safe and  banal for them but it's already far too much of a major head f-k for me so no need!



A lot of people take drugs to self-medicate _because_ their life is a major head fuck.

And a lot of people just do it for fun, not because the rest of life is so banal but because it's one of several fun things they like to do.  And some people just take them to stay alive.


----------



## 8ball (May 29, 2014)

kittyP said:


> On stop it is grew up catholic so on know what you're getting at but mathematics has nowt to do with it.



Yeah, whether you think it makes sense or not it's nothing to do with maths.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2014)

shit the bed how is this bizarre discussion still going on?


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

8ball said:


> A lot of people take drugs to self-medicate _because_ their life is a major head fuck.
> 
> And a lot of people just do it for fun, not because the rest of life is so banal but because it's one of several fun things they like to do.  And some people just take them to stay alive.



I meant the recreational type of drug use


----------



## nessa239 (May 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> shit the bed how is this bizarre discussion still going on?



this is a standard post on all forums - "why is this thread still going because I lost interest ages ago"

as if there's a standard length for all threads - what is it exactly?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 29, 2014)

Manter said:


> Details of doctrine is different across orthodoxy, Catholicism, and the different branches of Protestantism *. There have been schisms about what the trinity means, it was one of the key debating points in the split of Eastern and Western Christianity and in the reformation/counter reformation.
> 
> *i don't know the details of Mormonism and other cults



I'm sure; but that doesn't alter the fact that some Christians accept the definitions I've quoted above. In fact, there might be differences about how the Trinity manifests, but most branches of Christianity seem to accept the basic concept.


----------



## kittyP (May 30, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:
			
		

> I'm sure; but that doesn't alter the fact that some Christians accept the definitions I've quoted above. In fact, there might be differences about how the Trinity manifests, but most branches of Christianity seem to accept the basic concept.



There is a difference between theology and mathematics.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 30, 2014)

The reason I brought up the Trinity in the first place, was as a demonstration that depending on the circumstances, even the things held to be fundamental truths, can be in play, in flux, vis a vis human belief.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 30, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> this is a standard post on all forums - "why is this thread still going because I lost interest ages ago"
> 
> as if there's a standard length for all threads - what is it exactly?


 there's two ways I could react to this. I could react as if I've got a persecution complex and say something about how dare you try and tell me what I can and can't say. stop oppressing me maaan. which is how you've reacted to disagreement on this thread. 

or I could react sensibly and point out that you're not a mind reader even if you think you are one. your attempts to categorise people and put them in a box 'this is what people on forums do' or 'you fit into this category in the database in my head' are extremely offensive. you may not realise this so I won't be a dick about it, I'll just say that this may be one of the reasons why people react badly to you. 

in answer to your question, It's not the length of the thread that's the issue  - take a look around here, there's threads of over 100 pages. its the fact that this discussion is going round in circles as you refuse to acknowledge what others are saying. I'm expressing surprise, not disapproval - if people want to do it then fill yer boots. but generally threads end fairly quickly when nobody has anything new to say. so it is a surprise to know its managed over 20 pages.


----------



## kittyP (May 30, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:
			
		

> The reason I brought up the Trinity in the first place, was as a demonstration that depending on the circumstances, even the things held to be fundamental truths, can be in play, in flux, vis a vis human belief.



No one is denying this. 
Not in the way you seem to be thinking they are.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 30, 2014)

..because in the end, it's all illusion; and truth is agreed-upon illusion.


----------



## nessa239 (May 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> there's two ways I could react to this. I could react as if I've got a persecution complex and say something about how dare you try and tell me what I can and can't say. stop oppressing me maaan. which is how you've reacted to disagreement on this thread.
> 
> or I could react sensibly and point out that you're not a mind reader even if you think you are one. your attempts to categorise people and put them in a box 'this is what people on forums do' or 'you fit into this category in the database in my head' are extremely offensive. you may not realise this so I won't be a dick about it, I'll just say that this may be one of the reasons why people react badly to you.
> 
> in answer to your question, It's not the length of the thread that's the issue  - take a look around here, there's threads of over 100 pages. its the fact that this discussion is going round in circles as you refuse to acknowledge what others are saying. I'm expressing surprise, not disapproval - if people want to do it then fill yer boots. but generally threads end fairly quickly when nobody has anything new to say. so it is a surprise to know its managed over 20 pages.



i can see new things being said

I don't have the same quality control on what I expect to see as you

if I relate to what's being said I reply if I don't I pass over the thread

I'd never in my whole life ever say 'wow this thread still going??' - it's anathema to me; a completely redundant comment as if to just get your voice heard

is that the purpose?

if the thread went on forever it would be fine by me

the average person wants to move onto a new topic a lot faster than me

I get that you want us all to shut up to please you though and I find your dismissiveness of other peoples' posts quite breathtaking

please stun us all with your far more interesting posts/threads


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 30, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> i can see new things being said
> 
> I don't have the same quality control on what I expect to see as you
> 
> ...


I quite explicitly said I don't care if it goes on - I was just expressing surprise. what was the point of it? there wasn't one. there doesn't always have to be. as for there being new stuff - there's a lot of stuff about you (in fact you've managed to make both threads you've posted on all about you) but nothing remotely new about the actual topic (despite Awesome Wells heroic efforts - you see, I can't remember ever agreeing with him before, which will probably shock you, but well played on this one wells!). I don't care though - its not hurting me.

but since you've asked for it, I shall now stun you and everyone else with my interesting posting ability. since We're already wildly off topic I don't think it will hurt.

you'll notice my avatar is the legendary Sheffield Wednesday striker David hirst and my tagline is WAWAW. wawaw stands for We're all Wednesday aren't we? a cimmon saying among we owls. let me tell you the tale of how that saying came to be born - or at least the legend behind it. 
back in the 70s and early 80s we were shit - much like today. I can't remember the year but we eventually made it back to the old first division. we had a centre half called Mick Lyons. he was a fearless indestructible beast of a man - once famously got studs run down his thigh, slicing it open so you could see muscle and bone. a lesser man would have gone to hospital. not Mick. he insisted the club doctore sewed it up at the side of the pitch then proceeded to go back on and play the remaining hour. so Mick was a bit of a cult hero for us. 

anyway, we finally won promotion and naturally enough the lads booked a hotel and had. afew celebratory sherbets. Mick could really drink, was still in the bar well into the early hours when everyone else had either retired to their beds or passed out. 

the following morning another of the players - I forget who now, I'm one of those people who's taken a lot of drugs as a coping mechanism and its taken its toll on my memory, I'm not neurotypical either - went down for breakfast. but as he walked past the pool he couldbt believe his eyes. theres Mick in the Jacuzzi with the managers wife, and let's just say they weren't fully clad, swigging expensive champagne from the bottle. so he shouts at Mick, 'what the fuck are you doing? that's the gaffers missus, you're fucked if he catches you.' 

Mick replied with the immortal words, 'We're all Wednesday aren't we?' 

and so the phrase was born. now, if ever owls fans have had a few too many and fall out at a match, or get a bit too heated in debate over anything concerning the club, someone is bound to say 'We're all Wednesday aren't we?' and the tension is eased as we think back to good old Mick boning the boss's wife in the hotel Jacuzzi and have a little Chuckle. in fact, so common is the saying that its abbreviated to wawaw, as in my tagline. 

in the same vein, I would like to say to you, and anyone else getting wound up on this thread, We're all urbanites aren't we? or if that's too conformist or in group for you, how's about We're all human aren't we? nobody can object to that. 


*steps back and takes a bow, and says in his best Elvis voice, 'thann verrr much'*


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 30, 2014)

I don't know anything about any of that, so I googled it. I got this:



> Sheffield Wednesday
> ..... Wendy / Wednesday Bastards / Pigs / Scum (whichever takes your fancy at the time). A poor football team and the laughing stock of Sheffield; spending the last 9 years in the shadow of Sheffield United. Pigs play at a large but crumby ground on the outskirts of Sheffield city centre (Hillsborough).
> 
> Pigs, in any response to someone who makes fun of their "MASSIVE" club, will try to come back with information about the glory days of wendy. Constantly rewinding to the 90's, when their club reached 3rd in the first tier of English football. What they won't tell you, is that they were relegated in 2000, and that they have never finished above United in the league since then. If you ever have the misfortune to visit the Pigs’ ground on a match day, you'll find it’s half empty. This is the result of most people avoiding the embarrassment of being seen there.



http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sheffield+wednesday&defid=4042460


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 30, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I don't know anything about any of that, so I googled it. I got this:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sheffield wednesday&defid=4042460



Yes, our porcine neighbours do have a bit of a complex about the fact that we are superior to them in every imaginable way. We started calling them pigs because their strip is red and white - streaky bacon innit? Having no imagination of their own they reacted in schoolboy 'I know you are I said you are so what am I style and called us the same. It's a bit of a habit for them - we played at Bramall lane before them, but moved because it was shit and they moved in. We used to be nicknamed the blades but changed to the owls when we moved to a ground in Owlerton. They're forever in our shadow. In fact we set their club up so that we'd have some local opposition to play against. Unfortunately for them we have in fact finished above them in each of the last three seasons - in the first of which they continued to play their star striker while he was being tried for rape. He's due to get out on license this summer and despite showing no remorse whatsoever - even down to still denying that him penetrating an unconscious woman is rape - and they've offered him a contract. 

They're inferior to us on the pitch but the real gulf between us is in terms of class. There was almost a revolt among our fans when we held on to Gary Madine after he was jailed for assaulting someone on a night out. In contrast, when their star striker was jailed for rape - and the evidence was overwhelming and indesputible - they started a 'justice for Ched' campaign.

I think that says it all.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 30, 2014)

I'm totally confused: I thought you were a Sheffield Wednesday fan?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 30, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'm totally confused: I thought you were a Sheffield Wednesday fan?



I am - the piece in the link you posted is written by a United fan. They only call us the pigs beause that's what we call them and they don't have the imagination to come up with anyone else. And although the piece claims we've not finished above them since relegation from the premiership that's not actually true - we've finished above them for the last three seasons (and will finish above them next season too as we're a division above them).


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (May 30, 2014)

Manter said:


> I've already elaborated, in about four posts.... There are lots of things 'people'* believe that are true. Thatincludes mathematical equations, or, if you reject those, observations about the weather, wildlife or floor cleaning. Or any number of things, we could be here all night thinking of examples.  Providing a list of things 'people' believe that are not true, however outlandish, as Jonny did, does not disprove that.
> 
> Additional points: things are not true *because* people believe them to be  true. People may hold fallacious beliefs.  Things are not fallacious because people believe them. People (individually or as a group) can believe a variety of thing, some of which are true, some of which are not.
> 
> ...



My point all along is that belief is meaningless when it comes to truth.


----------



## Batboy (May 30, 2014)

Somebody put this thread out of its misery!


----------



## NoXion (May 30, 2014)

I didn't know that about your tagline SpineyNorman, thanks for sharing.


----------



## Manter (May 30, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The reason I brought up the Trinity in the first place, was as a demonstration that depending on the circumstances, even the things held to be fundamental truths, can be in play, in flux, vis a vis human belief.


Yeah, fair enough.


----------



## fogbat (May 30, 2014)

kittyP said:


> No one is denying this.
> Not in the way you seem to be thinking they are.



When he pulls this crap, I can never tell whether he's just trolling, or thinks he's actually arguing constructively.

e2a: You're definitely magic. I see ignored posters' quotes when you post them, too.


----------



## Red Cat (May 30, 2014)

fogbat said:


> When he pulls this crap, I can never tell whether he's just trolling, or thinks he's actually arguing constructively.



I think he enjoys the argument, but I don't think he's a nasty person. He sometimes really puts his foot in it too, but I've also seen him be thoughtful and apologise when he's got something wrong.


----------



## nessa239 (May 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I quite explicitly said I don't care if it goes on - I was just expressing surprise. what was the point of it? there wasn't one. there doesn't always have to be. as for there being new stuff - there's a lot of stuff about you (in fact you've managed to make both threads you've posted on all about you) but nothing remotely new about the actual topic (despite Awesome Wells heroic efforts - you see, I can't remember ever agreeing with him before, which will probably shock you, but well played on this one wells!). I don't care though - its not hurting me.
> 
> but since you've asked for it, I shall now stun you and everyone else with my interesting posting ability. since We're already wildly off topic I don't think it will hurt.
> 
> ...



Good story


----------



## fogbat (May 30, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I think he enjoys the argument, but I don't think he's a nasty person. He sometimes really puts his foot in it too, but I've also seen him be thoughtful and apologise when he's got something wrong.



Fair enough. Also I'm talking about someone I have on ignore, which is dickish. Sorry, Johnny.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 30, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Who did it then?  some of the accused did basically and they're laughing about it



*NOBODY KNOWS* who did it, Not you, not me, and certainly not the police..  You might *suspect* that "some of the accused" did it, but the crux of the matter is: What are your suspicions informed by?  As we've established earlier, you believe you have some kind of insight because of...well, because you're you.

The police could never establish which weapons were used, or whether the machete blow(s) to the neck were _ante or post mortem_, so they couldn't tell whether Blakelock died from those, or from numerous stab wounds.
The police failed to directly link *any* of the people who've so far been tried for Blakelock's murder, to the actual murder.  They've relied entirely on evidence coerced from unsupervised children, or purchased from criminals.

*You* know as much as the police, which boils down to sweet Fanny Adams.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 30, 2014)

Since we're unlikely to ever get back on topic I think this thread should now be given over to the telling of cool stories


----------



## Red Cat (May 30, 2014)

fogbat said:


> Fair enough. Also I'm talking about someone I have on ignore, which is dickish. Sorry, Johnny.



Well, I don't feel so strongly that I'm going to argue with the many people who have a different experience of him. I know he's really upset people, but it isn't my impression that he means to do that. I often wonder if I missed something though.

Anyway.....


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 30, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> you joked about me having senile dementia so clearly you see having it as a joke - this is what people do all the time - say something then deny they said it!



1) *Pre-*senile dementia.
2) Pre-senile dementia isn't Alzheimers, it's a non-Alzheimers dementia that happens for entirely-different reasons.
3) I didn't deny I said it, I attempted to inform you that you'd taken me out of context.
4) I wasn't making a joke.



> I said my Dad has it as an indication that I might well have it too eventually so it's certainly not going to be funny to me



Alzheimers isn't hereditary, so it's hardly an indication of anything that you might have to worry about.



> it's all one big joke to you though isn't it as long as it isn't at your expense eh?



Give the self-pity a rest, eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 30, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's also possible for something that might seem a fundamental principle - like 1 = 1 - to  vary, depending on belief.
> 
> The Christian concept of the Trinity tells us that in certain circumstances, 1 = 3.



A fair point.
However, one has to move outside of natural sciences (mathematics being one) and enter the realm of the supernatural for 1 = 3 to work, so the *principle* that pertains to the lived world doesn't vary, because outside of the supernatural realm, one can only ever equal one, however much belief is invested in claiming otherwise.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 30, 2014)

NoXion said:


> The Christian concept of the Trinity is incoherent nonsense masquerading as profundity, frankly.



The Trinity was just a way of the Church shoring up Jesus-worship by linking it directly to the boss of the Old Testament.  Priests, eh?  Can't live with them, can't burn them on massive pyres in Trafalgar Square.


----------



## Athos (May 30, 2014)

Wilf said:


> The media reaction to Maxine Carr, who didn't murder children, shows how stupid Myra Hindley was wanting to be let out.


 
Which is why they had to fake her death.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 30, 2014)

8ball said:


> A lot of people take drugs to self-medicate _because_ their life is a major head fuck.
> 
> And a lot of people just do it for fun, not because the rest of life is so banal but because it's one of several fun things they like to do.  And some people just take them to stay alive.



Some of us even take drugs because they keep us alive, which is a *terribly* banal reason to do so.


----------



## 8ball (May 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Some of us even take drugs because they keep us alive, which is a *terribly* banal reason to do so.


 
That's what I meant by the third one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 30, 2014)

8ball said:


> That's what I meant by the third one.



Two types of "taking drugs to stay alive" though, to be fair.
1) Taking prescription medication.
2) Self-medicating just to stay alive, i.e. beyond "headfuck" and into  "escape from reality + a hardcore addiction" territory.

Thought, in the context of the rest of your post, you were talking about #2.


----------



## 8ball (May 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Two types of "taking drugs to stay alive" though, to be fair.
> 1) Taking prescription medication.
> 2) Self-medicating just to stay alive, i.e. beyond "headfuck" and into  "escape from reality + a hardcore addiction" territory.
> 
> Thought, in the context of the rest of your post, you were talking about #2.


 
Ah, ok.  I just meant the kind that stop you physically dying, but see what you mean there.


----------



## nessa239 (May 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> 1) *Pre-*senile dementia.
> 2) Pre-senile dementia isn't Alzheimers, it's a non-Alzheimers dementia that happens for entirely-different reasons.
> 3) I didn't deny I said it, I attempted to inform you that you'd taken me out of context.
> 4) I wasn't making a joke.
> ...



Alzheimers can be hereditary

"In a very small number of families, Alzheimer's disease is inherited. The impact of these genes was first discovered more than 100 years ago and accounts for less than one per cent of all cases of Alzheimer's disease."

http://alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=917


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 30, 2014)

I've got a story about when I shat myself on the monkey bars if anyone wants to hear/read it?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 30, 2014)

only if you were hanging upside down and managed to skiddy your own back


----------



## 8ball (May 30, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Alzheimers can be hereditary
> 
> "In a very small number of families, Alzheimer's disease is inherited. The impact of these genes was first discovered more than 100 years ago and accounts for less than one per cent of all cases of Alzheimer's disease."
> 
> http://alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=917


 
And is it front-temporal dementia in your family?


----------



## xenon (May 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've got a story about when I shat myself on the monkey bars if anyone wants to hear/read it?



Hell yeah.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've got a story about when I shat myself on the monkey bars if anyone wants to hear/read it?


Please.


----------



## xenon (May 30, 2014)

I once puked on my mate's back in a bar in Prague and nearly got into a fight with an angry Czech bloke.


----------



## Wilf (May 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've got a story about when I shat myself on the monkey bars if anyone wants to hear/read it?


 I'd like that very much, but could you wait till we are sat round the campfire?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 30, 2014)

Well, the demand appears to be there so I shall now regale you of the monkeybar shitting incident.

It was the summer of 1990 - I know that because I distinctly remember the Gazza world cup was on, in fact England had lost to Germany on penalties the evening before (some things never change!). I'd been laid up with a stomach upset and was getting really pissed off that my mates were all out having fun in the sun and I was stuck at home, shitting my ring at regular intervals.

Anyway, I was feeling a lot better, hadn't had to run to the bog all day, so I decided to go out to play (I'd have been 11 at the time). There was a primary school about half a mile from my house with a kind of mini adventure playground that was left open to the public after school hours so we decided to go there.

We'd been merrily playing for an hour or two when I was challenged to do the monkey bars. They were on a slight incline so to make it more challenging we used to do it up hill. I was about half way across when some little shit came up behind me and tried to pull me down by the legs. After a back healing in the face failed to stop him - in fact it made him do it more aggressively - what I assumed to be a mini miracle took place. I suddenly felt the urge to fart and the pressure in my guts led me to believe it would be a monster. What better way to punish the vile little shit?

At first it appeared to be a success - the fart exceeded all expectations - went on for several seconds and changed tone more than once. But towards the end of my mamoth wind break disaster struck. The tone changed once more, becoming more sloppy sounding - there could be no doubt in anyone's mind that I'd shat myself. It was no consolation that as the shit began to run down my leg my harrasser let go of my legs. 

It was months before people shut up about that as well!


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2014)

The very definition of a Pyrrhic victory.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 30, 2014)

And that reminds me of another incident - this time involving my late brother.

When I was about 3 or 4 I used to go to a church playgroup. For some reason there were regular outbreaks of bum worms there and I'd contract them on a fairly regular basis. When this happened the entire family - including my elder brother and sister - had to take what can only be described as the most vile medicine in history. It came in a powder that you mixed with milk, it was supposedly a black currant milkshake. It killed off the worms and then had a laxative effect, making you crap them out. I became distinctly unpopular with my brother and sister as a result.

This one time, the day after we'd had the medicine my brother went to play pitch and put with his mate Darren and Darren's dad. While he was on the course the laxatives kicked in and he badly soiled his kecks. However, my brother was craftier than me - whereas I always got caught whenever I did anything wrong, he always got away with everything. And his response to this was a stroke of genius. He knew he was going home in Darren's dad's car and they'd be bound to smell it. But he didn't let on he'd shit himself - instead he waited until it was his shot and deliberately hit his ball into the trees. He then went to retrieve it and while he was in there slid along the ground on his arse to smear it across the seat of his jeans. When he came out he told them he'd fallen over in dog shit.

I think he'd have really liked to kill me for reducing him to this kind of action


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 30, 2014)

I just came into this thread to read about Maxine Carr - WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON?


----------



## Wilf (May 30, 2014)

Ah, reminiscences of those long lost days of childhood, those never ending Summers. Urban pastoral.


----------



## Wilf (May 30, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I just came into this thread to read about Maxine Carr - WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON?


 If you haven't got a shit stained story, fuck off the thread!


----------



## DotCommunist (May 30, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Ah, reminiscences of those long lost days of childhood, those never ending Summers. Urban pastoral.




shitpiles for goalposts


----------



## og ogilby (May 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> It was months before people shut up about that as well!


Says the bloke who posted the story on the internet 24 years later.


----------



## maomao (May 30, 2014)

I shat myself on a school trip when I was 4. I asked a teacher if I could go to the toilet when we are at a farm and she said I should just go 'over there' pointing at some bushes and thinking I wanted a wee. So I walked over to the bushes and did a poo in my pants. No-one would sit next to me on the bus back but the teacher only became aware when we were all sitting down on the carpet back at class and there was a growing brown stain around me. A classmate from that time was at my FE college and insisted to all my friends that this had happened when I was 10 or 11.


----------



## _angel_ (May 30, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I just came into this thread to read about Maxine Carr - WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON?


Leave a bunch of blokes alone on the internet for long enough and......


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 30, 2014)

Belushi  I think you'll know where the monkey bars were - William law


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> A fair point.
> However, one has to move outside of natural sciences (mathematics being one) and enter the realm of the supernatural for 1 = 3 to work, so the *principle* that pertains to the lived world doesn't vary, because outside of the supernatural realm, one can only ever equal one, however much belief is invested in claiming otherwise.



'Supernatural' just describes another area of human belief, which is all we're talking about.  Some people believe 1 =1 is proven and immutable. Some others also believe that it's possible for something that is one, to also be three, at the same time.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> 'Supernatural' just describes another area of human belief, which is all we're talking about.  Some people believe 1 =1 is proven and immutable. Some others also believe that it's possible for something that is one, to also be three, at the same time.


Basic Mathematics is based on axioms that are by definition unchallengeable in the field of maths. You're being silly and making a category error in your post. You tiresome twat.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 30, 2014)

... not to mention the fact that the categories of 'natural' and 'supernatural' shift with time and with the expansion of human explication of the so-called natural world.

For instance, at one time, many psychological disorders were considered to be the work of evil spirits investing the patient; and therefore a consequence of the supernatural.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2014)

Yet, axioms don't. Sort of by definition.


----------



## elbows (May 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> When this happened the entire family - including my elder brother and sister - had to take what can only be described as the most vile medicine in history. It came in a powder that you mixed with milk, it was supposedly a black currant milkshake. It killed off the worms and then had a laxative effect, making you crap them out.



If its the stuff I had a couple of times then I don't remember it being mixed with milk, just water. I don't think I hated the taste much compared to others, but I do remember that it made the farts and the shit smell funny, essence of blackcurrant is not expected in the world of farts and shits.

I shat myself at primary school at the perfect time - during the most tedious live tv programming ever, the raising of the Mary Rose, which we were being forced to watch despite being no older than 6 or 7. My mum had to come and pick me up, sorted. Also at the same school I remember doing a small solid poop in my pants and feeling it rolling down my trouser leg as I was leaving school at the end of the day. A strategic thrusting of the leg to one side at the right moment launched the offending poop off to the side of the beaten track. Never looked back.

I believe my dad admitted to me once that when he shit himself at school, and then panicked and tried to cover it up in a way that made the situation worse. He put his shitty pants inside his desk (old school desk with flip-up lid revealing storage space) and then had to sit there in dread for hours as he slowly realised the smell was gradually filling the entire classroom.

Also, a lion pissed on me at the zoo once.


----------



## twentythreedom (May 30, 2014)

So, any further news on the obviously-guilty brazen hussy and how much she is rubbing our faces in it by enjoying married life?


----------



## Wilf (May 30, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> So, any further news on the obviously-guilty brazen hussy and how much she is rubbing our faces in it by enjoying married life?


 But do you not a shitty kecks story?  I really do have to press you.


----------



## elbows (May 30, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> So, any further news on the obviously-guilty brazen hussy and how much she is rubbing our faces in it by enjoying married life?



The latest earth-shattering revelation, carried in the Sun and copied by the Mail, is that she met her husband on Facebook, and spent months chatting with him there before revealing her past.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 30, 2014)

elbows said:


> If its the stuff I had a couple of times then I don't remember it being mixed with milk, just water. I don't think I hated the taste much compared to others, but I do remember that it made the farts and the shit smell funny, essence of blackcurrant is not expected in the world of farts and shits.
> 
> I shat myself at primary school at the perfect time - during the most tedious live tv programming ever, the raising of the Mary Rose, which we were being forced to watch despite being no older than 6 or 7. My mum had to come and pick me up, sorted. Also at the same school I remember doing a small solid poop in my pants and feeling it rolling down my trouser leg as I was leaving school at the end of the day. A strategic thrusting of the leg to one side at the right moment launched the offending poop off to the side of the beaten track. Never looked back.
> 
> ...



It might have been water - I remember it more from being told about it than from my own experience as I was very young. But I'm pretty sure when you mixed it it was supposed to form a milkshake.

oh, and LOL


----------



## twentythreedom (May 30, 2014)

elbows said:


> The latest earth-shattering revelation, carried in the Sun and copied by the Mail, is that she met her husband on Facebook, and spent months chatting with him there before revealing her past.



One might perhaps think she would stay away from Facebook. Surely it would only ever be a matter of time before the papers etc would find out.


----------



## Greebo (May 30, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> One might perhaps think she would stay away from Facebook. Surely it would only ever be a matter of time before the papers etc would find out.


Take it as a measure of her lack of thought that she assumed that she'd be safe enough with no higher privacy settings than a lot of people, and with her social contacts being equally careless/relaxed.


----------



## UrbaneFox (May 30, 2014)

It could have been a lot worse. She could have been doing one of them lesbian so-called civil partnership so-called weddings. 

Then what would have happened?


----------



## Greebo (May 30, 2014)

UrbaneFox said:


> It could have been a lot worse. She could have been doing one of them lesbian so-called civil partnership so-called weddings.
> 
> Then what would have happened?


For a start, the tabloids would have gone into meltdown, speculating at length about what lesbians do when they have sex.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 31, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> One might perhaps think she would stay away from Facebook. Surely it would only ever be a matter of time before the papers etc would find out.


I'm sure they already know who she is.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I'm sure they already know who she is.



Nevermind that, have you got any good stories about shitting yourself?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Alzheimers can be hereditary
> 
> "In a very small number of families, Alzheimer's disease is inherited. The impact of these genes was first discovered more than 100 years ago and accounts for less than one per cent of all cases of Alzheimer's disease."
> 
> http://alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=917



Less than 1% being around .04%, or a one in 250 chance.  In real terms you're less likely by far to inherit Alzheimers than to inherit a predisposition to heart disease, stroke or most other well-known late-adult illnesses.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> 'Supernatural' just describes another area of human belief, which is all we're talking about.  Some people believe 1 =1 is proven and immutable. Some others also believe that it's possible for something that is one, to also be three, at the same time.



In the natural realm, things like mathematics can be quantified.  In the supernatural realm they cannot, no matter how deep your belief.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Less than 1% being around .04%, or a one in 250 chance.  In real terms you're less likely by far to inherit Alzheimers than to inherit a predisposition to heart disease, stroke or most other well-known late-adult illnesses.



I didn't dispute that

You said Alzheimers isn't hereditary and I showed you that it can be

I was castigated for not getting my facts right on another thread yesterday so it seems, as usual it's one rule for everyone else and another for me ie people make the rules up to suit themsleves

they can be as inaccurate as they like when they or a friend do it but if it's a person not in the club they need to be as accurate as fk or to stop being so pedantic

ie it's nothing to do with accuracy or inaccuracy at all it's all to do with social standing in the group ie how liked a person is

people never admit this though as it's just natural to them and they don't relate to talking at this meta-level - their brains don't compute it usually and they say stuff like 'you're mad!'  'wtf are you going on about' etc


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I didn't dispute that
> 
> You said Alzheimers isn't hereditary and I showed you that it can be
> 
> ...



But have you ever shat yourself in an amusing or interesting way?


----------



## isvicthere? (May 31, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Sometimes the Daily Heil really offends me, more than usual.
> 
> Yesterday they had a front page article informing us that Maxine Carr, former girlfriend of Ian Huntley, had gotten married by telling us her wedding dress cost two grand. Apparently this is important. I didn't read the article close enough to discern whether she paid for it herself, or whether it was 'taxpayer funded' - ie, is she on benefits after beinghounded by the Mail for ten odd years.
> 
> ...



Spot on, AW. And also: shades of the tabloid (Express, I think) that went to Dunblane on an anniversary of the shooting to find the survivors - now late teens - callously having fun, and selfishly not spending their entire lives in mourning. 

And, on the subject of the Mail, I can never get tired of this.....


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> But have you ever shat yourself in an amusing or interesting way?



No but a lad in my junior school class did once - we first realised it from the smell and when we saw it sliding down his leg and he had to walk home in his PE kit with his clothes in a plastic bag 

I an neurotic about such things and would rather die than have that happen to me in front of others


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2014)

Greebo said:


> For a start, the tabloids would have gone into meltdown, speculating at length about what lesbians do when they have sex.



It's something to do with exchanging knitting patterns, isn't it?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 31, 2014)

isvicthere? said:


> Spot on, AW. And also: shades of the tabloid (Express, I think) that went to Dunblane on an anniversary of the shooting to find the survivors - now late teens - callously having fun, and selfishly not spending their entire lives in mourning.
> 
> And, on the subject of the Mail, I can never get tired of this.....



The Express doesn't just cross the line, it flies over and carpet bombs it. I think it should be closed down personally.


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I was castigated for not getting my facts right on another thread yesterday so it seems, as usual it's one rule for everyone else and another for me ie people make the rules up to suit themsleves
> 
> they can be as inaccurate as they like when they or a friend do it but if it's a person not in the club they need to be as accurate as fk or to stop being so pedantic
> 
> ie it's nothing to do with accuracy or inaccuracy at all it's all to do with social standing in the group ie how liked a person is



Bollocks, people apart from you on this forum get picked up all the time for inaccuracies/challenged to provide a source/get criticised for being pedantic. The main difference is that unlike you, they largely argue back or otherwise get on with things rather than playing up this ridiculous "oh woe is me" routine.



> people never admit this though as it's just natural to them and they don't relate to talking at this meta-level - their brains don't compute it usually and they say stuff like 'you're mad!'  'wtf are you going on about' etc



I'm hardly a member of this forum's "in-crowd" (whatever the hell that may be), and I must say that I don't see this at all. Maybe if you didn't insinuate that your brain is somehow better than that of others, you wouldn't get the kind of reactions you're talking about. People tend not to take kindly to being condescended to.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> The Express doesn't just cross the line, it flies over and carpet bombs it. I think it should be closed down personally.



What kind of precedent do you think that would set? Give the state the power to close down newspapers and which papers do you think will be targeted most? 

Hint: It won't be the Express or the Mail.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> Bollocks, people apart from you on this forum get picked up all the time for inaccuracies/challenged to provide a source/get criticised for being pedantic. The main difference is that unlike you, they largely argue back or otherwise get on with things rather than playing up this ridiculous "oh woe is me" routine.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hardly a member of this forum's "in-crowd" (whatever the hell that may be), and I must say that I don't see this at all. Maybe if you didn't insinuate that your brain is somehow better than that of others, you wouldn't get the kind of reactions you're talking about. People tend not to take kindly to being condescended to.



I never insinuated my brain was better at all- quite the opposite in fact 

I've been condescended to massively on here as well

I don't have the temperament for how people are on here


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> What kind of precedent do you think that would set? Give the state the power to close down newspapers and which papers do you think will be targeted most?
> 
> Hint: It won't be the Express or the Mail.



Once you start closing newspapers down you become like Turkey or Russia - what's next, killing DM journalists?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Once you start closing newspapers down you become like Turkey or Russia - what's next, killing DM journalists?


Depends - if it's Melanie Phillips to be liquidated and we do it ourselves rather than asking the state to do it for us I wouldn't have a problem with it.


----------



## isvicthere? (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> what's next, killing DM journalists?



As a colleague of mine used to say - it's a _nice_ idea, but it's not a _good_ idea.


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I never insinuated my brain was better at all- quite the opposite in fact



You said "they don't relate to talking at this meta-level - their brains don't compute it usually and they say stuff like 'you're mad!' 'wtf are you going on about' etc"

A lack of computational ability is usually seen as a bad thing. Can you at least appreciate how you might be coming across to others?



> I've been condescended to massively on here as well



So two wrongs make a right?



> I don't have the temperament for how people are on here



I'm disappointed to see that you're willing to give up so easily, especially considering that people on this forum are hardly carbon copies of each other.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I never insinuated my brain was better at all- quite the opposite in fact
> 
> I've been condescended to massively on here as well
> 
> I don't have the temperament for how people are on here



let's try to avoid returning to all that stuff shall we? It's clear agreement can't be reached and it'll just derail the thread even more 

(this isn't just directed at you btw)


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Depends - if it's Melanie Phillips to be liquidated and we do it ourselves rather than asking the state to do it for us I wouldn't have a problem with it.



I like her 

I can see why people dislike her though


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> You said "they don't relate to talking at this meta-level - their brains don't compute it usually and they say stuff like 'you're mad!' 'wtf are you going on about' etc"
> 
> A lack of computational ability is usually seen as a bad thing. Can you at least appreciate how you might be coming across to others?
> 
> ...



I know it's tempting but I for the sake of the thread can we leave/forget about this stuff?


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

Alright.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> You said "they don't relate to talking at this meta-level - their brains don't compute it usually and they say stuff like 'you're mad!' 'wtf are you going on about' etc"
> 
> A lack of computational ability is usually seen as a bad thing. Can you at least appreciate how you might be coming across to others?
> 
> ...



Well if the average person thinks in a different way to me, saying that stuff I say won't compute with them is mroe of an observation than criticism

I mean it's true that I don't tend to click with most people as I think differently 

I didn't' say I was giving up - I generally stay on a forum until banned lol


----------



## maomao (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I didn't dispute that
> 
> You said Alzheimers isn't hereditary and I showed you that it can be
> 
> ...



If you stop your post where I inserted a broken line then the conversation can continue normally without it becoming about you. You can even add more, or be abusive if you like (or not if you don't), lively and robust debate is encouraged. But it's you that's turning every thread into a conversation about you not other people by disagreeing with you. If you'd like to have a conversation about yourself you can do that in the health, relationships and sexuality forum.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

maomao said:


> If you stop your post where I inserted a broken line then the conversation can continue normally without it becoming about you. You can even add more, or be abusive if you like (or not if you don't), lively and robust debate is encouraged. But it's you that's turning every thread into a conversation about you not other people by disagreeing with you. If you'd like to have a conversation about yourself you can do that in the health, relationships and sexuality forum.



I see what you mean


----------



## DotCommunist (May 31, 2014)

what the hell on gods green earth is there to like about melanie philips?


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

That she's mortal?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> what the hell on gods green earth is there to like about melanie philips?



I just relate to a lot of what she says

I think it's all to do with whether a person has a more authoritarian viewpoint on the world or not and how much control they feel they need over their environment

I like Peter Hitchens too

I relate to people who battle against mainstream opinion and a lot of what they say seems common sense but I can see that the majority don't relate to it or the
method of delivery


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

Oh God.


----------



## frogwoman (May 31, 2014)

What about Putin?


----------



## maomao (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I just relate to a lot of what she says
> 
> I think it's all to do with whether a person has a more authoritarian viewpoint on the world or not and how much control they feel they need over their environment
> 
> ...



Well Hitchens is at odds with mainstream opinion in that he's totally fucking insane but Mad Mel is just playing a trick where she claims that the establishment is made up of liberals and marxists. She's as mainstream and establishment as they come.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> What about Putin?



Bad but we're f-king things up as well

Ukraine shouldn't have been asked to join European Union in the first place imo - Russia is hardly Europe

The way it's all reported in the media is too simplistic imo ie Ukraine good/Russia evil


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I just relate to a lot of what she says
> 
> I think it's all to do with whether a person has a more authoritarian viewpoint on the world or not and how much control they feel they need over their environment
> 
> I like Peter Hitchens too



What's the _justification_ for authoritarianism?



> I relate to people who battle against mainstream opinion and a lot of what they say seems common sense but I can see that the majority don't relate to it or the
> method of delivery



Are you aware that what constitutes mainstream/non-mainstream opinion is far from monolithic, and varies according to place and time? So to value ideas simply because they go against the "mainstream" is nothing more than pointless contrarianism?

Sod whether an opinion is mainstream or not, is an opinion worth listening to, and why?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 31, 2014)

maomao said:


> Well Hitchens is at odds with mainstream opinion in that he's totally fucking insane but Mad Mel is just playing a trick where she claims that the establishment is made up of liberals and marxists. She's as mainstream and establishment as they come.




its all getting a bit dial-a-rant from her as well. Last incursion by the idf (pillar of cloud was it?) she'd got her pro-zionist everyone who disagrees is a jew hater piece out befor they'd even warmed the engines up on the F16's


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

maomao said:


> Well Hitchens is at odds with mainstream opinion in that he's totally fucking insane but Mad Mel is just playing a trick where she claims that the establishment is made up of liberals and marxists. She's as mainstream and establishment as they come.



Well I relate to them


----------



## xenon (May 31, 2014)

I never shat myself at school. One bad thing I did do I still remember with stark clarity 30 odd years later.

I was 5. It was dinner time one hot early summer's day. Everyone eat at the same time in the school hall, Busy, noisy. On this day it was sausage pie, mash and I forget what else. It's the pie I remember. That near perfect square portion cut from the serving tin. Golden brown crumbly pastry crust. Meat of dubious province. But you know not of such things at that age. I liked it. It looked right. Like a pie should. I had to have another piece, - went up for seconds. 

Arriving back at my table with anticipation, took my seat amongst my fellow pupils. I don't recall their names or faces. I remember the dark haired girl opposite me though, she may remember me... I took up my cutlery, had one last look at the pastry perfection. It seemed almost a shame to spoil that near aureate  surface. Tentatively dug my fork in to remove the top. As I raised this to my mouth, something disappointing happened.

Before any of that crust made it into my waiting maur, I felt something touch the back of my throat. A fly? A Hair? flour?... What ever the foreign object was, the result was a fairly typical explosive reflex, - a real apetite spoiler. A belly full of milk, juice and at least one full partly digested dinner, erupted from me. Gushed, splashed, bounced, into my plate, my lap, across the table and perhaps most grimly of all, into whatshername's dinner.

I remember briefly glimpsing the look of horor and shock on her face before I was taken away by a teacher...


----------



## tim (May 31, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> The Express doesn't just cross the line, it flies over and carpet bombs it. I think it should be closed down personally.



Can you carpet bomb a two dimensional object such as a line?  Or indeed something that you've already flown over? I'm quite tempted to report you for cliche abuse.			

With regard for your Whitehouseque musings. Do you wish to close the Daily Express because t offends you personally; or because it might corrupt and mislead the lower orders?

Returning to the topic of Maxine carr, do you think we should also forbid public mention of the past deeds and misdeed of other public figures: politicians, capitalists, journalists, television presenters, publicists etc?


----------



## xenon (May 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's something to do with exchanging knitting patterns, isn't it?



I believe there are quite a few videos on the internet that touch on the matter.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Well I relate to them


What does relate mean ffs? Do you mean that you agree with their views? Spit it out.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> What's the _justification_ for authoritarianism?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If a mainstream opinion seems valid to me I'd agree with it; I don't disagree for the sake of it

To me, society needs to be more authoritarian to prevent corruption/crime/unfairness

It all depends on your individual situation

Like if you let a murderer out and he kills again to me that was avoidable hence he should have been assessed more accurately and possibly never let out

I'm for what benefits the majority - utilitarian


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What does relate mean ffs? Do you mean that you agree with their views? Spit it out.



see what I mean about the insults?

stop being so aggressive

you accuse me of stuff and yet look how you talk to me

I intrinsically don't relate to people who are rude

it depends what the subject matter is - I don't agree wholesale with everything they say - I don't agree totally with what any one person says

they just often seem to talk common sense in an intelligent way


----------



## spanglechick (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> see what I mean about the insults?
> 
> stop being so aggressive
> 
> ...


No actual insults there, tbf.


----------



## frogwoman (May 31, 2014)

Authoritarianism won't prevent murders by the state though.


----------



## frogwoman (May 31, 2014)

It won't prevent corruption either.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Authoritarianism won't prevent murders by the state though.



no but it's like having a stronger grip on what's happening in order to prevent bad stuff happening

obviously I don't advocate a dictatorship, more benign authoritarianism 

it's all very subjective though ie impossible to get consensus of agreement as a lot of people like breaking the law


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no but it's like having a stronger grip on what's happening in order to prevent bad stuff happening
> 
> obviously I don't advocate a dictatorship, more benign authoritarianism
> 
> it's all very subjective though ie impossible to get consensus of agreement as a lot of people like breaking the law



I mean yes it's going to be corrupt - police can be corrupt so it's flawed premise from the outset obviously as it involves human beings who are flawed, but I think we ought to be more authoritarian or things will get worse

sentences don't fit the crime


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> If a mainstream opinion seems valid to me I'd agree with it; I don't disagree for the sake of it
> 
> To me, society needs to be more authoritarian to prevent corruption/crime/unfairness



Except that history is pretty plain on the subject that more authoritarian societies have more corruption, crime and unfairness overall than less authoritarian societies.



> It all depends on your individual situation
> 
> Like if you let a murderer out and he kills again to me that was avoidable hence he should have been assessed more accurately and possibly never let out



None of which requires more authoritarianism, just better assessments of criminality and better ways of dealing with criminals. Rehabilitation has a chance of reforming people, locking them up forever like animals doesn't.

You can also nip things in the bud by shaping society so that people don't commit so many crimes in the first place.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I mean yes it's at risk of being corrupt - police can be corrupt so it's flawed premise from the outset obviously as it involves human beings who are flawed, but I think we ought to be more authoritarian or things will get worse
> 
> that's why you need inbuilt failsafes to guard against corruption


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> Except that history is pretty plain on the subject that more authoritarian societies have more corruption, crime and unfairness overall than less authoritarian societies.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Too any people aren't rehabilitated though - they go on to repeat their crime - I'm more on the side of the victim than the criminal

if a murderer is released and murders again, the people who released him should go to prison imo - there is no penalty for getting something so important wrong so this is an error in the system


----------



## frogwoman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no but it's like having a stronger grip on what's happening in order to prevent bad stuff happening
> 
> obviously I don't advocate a dictatorship, more benign authoritarianism
> 
> it's all very subjective though ie impossible to get consensus of agreement as a lot of people like breaking the law



Authoritarianism doesn't protect people who have different options from the government though does it? If society did get more authoritarian you'd be the one getting banged up ffs.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 31, 2014)

tim said:


> Can you carpet bomb a two dimensional object such as a line?  Or indeed something that you've already flown over? I'm quite tempted to report you for cliche abuse.
> 
> With regard for your Whitehouseque musings. Do you wish to close the Daily Express because t offends you personally; or because it might corrupt and mislead the lower orders?
> 
> Returning to the topic of Maxine carr, do you think we should also forbid public mention of the past deeds and misdeed of other public figures: politicians, capitalists, journalists, television presenters, publicists etc?



'Whitehouseesque musings'? Grow up. Wanting a society free from the disgusting influence of a newspaper that peddles shite like "75% of sick benefit claimants are scroungers" on an almost daily basis is not a statement worthy of mary Whitehouse. You have a rather odd chip on your shoulder.

Maxine Carr is not a public figure.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Authoritarianism doesn't protect people who have different options from the government though does it? If society did get more authoritarian you'd be the one getting banged up ffs.



Why would I get banged up?

and is there any needs for the 'ffs'?

aggresssion is always there with the left - a major reason I dislike it

As I said, it wouldn't be a dictatorship, it would just deal with stuff better eg crime


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

At least we've found some common ground between wells and nessa. The former wants to ban papers and views he doesn't agree with or like and the latter supports benign authoritarianism. The sort that bans papers.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

I've said nothing about banning newspapers

I'd dismantle the BBC tomorrow though - I resent my money being used for leftwing propaganda and to excuse paedophiles


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Too any people aren't rehabilitated though - they go on to repeat their crime - I'm more on the side of the victim than the criminal



Why do you think people re-offend? Is it perhaps because instead of being given a chance to go on the straight and narrow after being caught for a minor crime, they get thrown out on the streets after being banged up with hardened career criminals for years on end and thus have no recourse but to use the skills they acquired in their company?

Brutalising people in prisons doesn't help victims, it just helps to create more of them in the long run. And create more profits for private prisons in the process, not coincidentally.



> if a murderer is released and murders again, the people who released him should go to prison imo - there is no penalty for getting something so important wrong so this is an error in the system



So people who might get a chance to become decent citizens are kept banged up for life, simply because the parole board have the threat of prison hang over their own heads?


----------



## xenon (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Why would I get banged up?
> 
> and is there any needs for the 'ffs'?
> 
> ...



you've stated a few times that you feel angry a times and feel you're going to some effort to restrain yourself from committing acts of aggression. How do you think you'd fare in an authoritarian state? What do you think would happen if your thoughts and actions are deamed dangerous or potentially so by the authorities in this state that has a better grip on things?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> Why do you think people re-offend? Is it perhaps because instead of being given a chance to go on the straight and narrow after being caught for a minor crime, they get thrown out on the streets after being banged up with hardened career criminals for years on end and thus have no recourse but to use the skills they acquired in their company?
> 
> Brutalising people in prisons doesn't help victims, it just helps to create more of them in the long run. And create more profits for private prisons in the process, not coincidentally.
> 
> ...



I prefer that a person who has murdered once doesn't do it again - stopping it is more important to me than having sympathy for the murderer 

I don't' think people should be brutalised in prison but they should be far more accurately assessed and prevented from doing it again

we are no good at attributing blame correctly


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

xenon said:


> you've stated a few times that you feel angry a times and feel you're going to some effort to restrain yourself from committing acts of aggression. How do you think you'd fare in an authoritarian state? What do you think would happen if your thoughts and actions are deamed dangerous or potentially so by the authorities in this state that has a better grip on things?



I'd live by the system's rules 

As I said it would not be a dictatorship, just more authoritarian than it is now

I've been in trouble with the police before now for threatening someone and had to abide by what they said so this isn't a new concept to me at all


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I'd live by the system's rules
> 
> As I said it would not be a dictatorship, just more authoritarian than it is now
> 
> I've been in trouble with the police before now for threatening someone and had to abide by what they said so this isn't a new concept to me at all


Astonishing that you use your inability to play by the rules to suggest that you are someone that plays by the rules. Total lack of self-awareness. A danger to society.


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I prefer that a person who has murdered once doesn't do it again - stopping it is more important to me than having sympathy for the murderer



It's not about "sympathy", it's about doing right by society. And creating a society where an increasing proportion of the population is spending decades to whole lifetimes in prison is not a way to do that. It's simply avoiding the problem of why people offend and re-offend rather than actually addressing it.



> I don't' think people should be brutalised in prison but they should be far more accurately assessed and prevented from doing it again



Fine, but that does not require locking people up for longer. Indeed, locking people up can make things worse because they end up being more cut off from the rest of society and thus find it harder to re-integrate at the conclusion of their sentence.



> we are no good at attributing blame correctly



?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Astonishing that you use your inability to play by the rules to suggest that you are someone that plays by the rules. Total lack of self-awareness. A danger to society.



well evidently I have some ability to play by the rules as I'm not in prison and have my own house

people vary in terms of which rules they play by and how good they are at playing them

how on earth am I a danger to society??

I'd say I'm a lot more self-aware than you

I can also be polite to people of differing opinions which you seem incapable of doing


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> It's not about "sympathy", it's about doing right by society. And creating a society where an increasing proportion of the population is spending decades to whole lifetimes in prison is not a way to do that. It's simply avoiding the problem of why people offend and re-offend rather than actually addressing it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We aren't doing a very good job with the current system though imo ie the rehabilitation isn't working - the criminal justice system is like a revolving door - there to suit the legal system more than anyone else

if a person harms another person they need to be prevented from doing it again, not given a slap on the wrist ie they need to be discouraged from doing it again, not encouraged

people talk about going to prison as if it's no big deal - this is wrong - it should be a deterrent


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> well evidently I have some ability to play by the rules as I'm not in prison and have my own house
> 
> people vary in terms of which rules they play by and how good they are at playing them
> 
> ...


Shall we just cut to the chase? The bit where i call you a sociopath who uses societies rules as cover for your violent fantasies and you get to walk away with your head head high, justified and basking in your rejection? What sort of person dreams of smashing a girls face into a sink and has actually been in trouble with the police for threatening people? What sort of person uses the latter to suggests that they are superior to others and everyone else needs to sharpen up?


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> We aren't doing a very good job with the current system though imo ie the rehabilitation isn't working - the criminal justice system is like a revolving door - there to suit the legal system more than anyone else
> 
> if a person harms another person they need to be prevented from doing it again, not given a slap on the wrist ie they need to be discouraged from doing it again, not encouraged
> 
> people talk about going to prison as if it's no big deal - this is wrong - it should be a deterrent


Do you think it would work on you? Would it stop your violent fantasies and your threatening people?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Shall we just cut to the chase? The bit where i call you a sociopath who uses societies rules as cover for your violent fantasies and you get to walk away with your head head high, justified and basking in your rejection? What sort of person dreams of smashing a girls face into a sink and has actually been in trouble with the police for threatening people? What sort of person uses the latter to suggests that they are superior to others and everyone else needs to sharpen up?



If all this is making you feel better about yourself knock yourself out


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Do you think it would work on you? Would it stop your violent fantasies and your threatening people?



many 'average' people don't stop at violent fantasies - they do it for real and many people have violent fantasies as a release valve so you can stop trying to imply I'm something I'm not 

I've struggled in life, as most people do, spoken openly about my difficulties and I don't appreciate you being such a cunt towards me

if you think I'm dangerous call the police


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> If all this is making you feel better about yourself knock yourself out


Making me feel better about what - the knowledge that _you walk among us? _Not really. About how your self-defence mechanisms are so rounded, so all encompassing - again, no. Slightly worried though.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Making me feel better about what - the knowledge that _you walk among us? _Not really. About how your self-defence mechanisms are so rounded, so all encompassing - again, no. Slightly worried though.



good for you


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> many 'average' people don't stop at violent fantasies - they do it for real and many people have violent fantasies as a release valve so you can stop trying to imply I'm something I'm not
> 
> I've struggled in life, as most people do, spoken openly about my difficulties and I don't appreciate you being such a cunt towards me
> 
> if you think I'm dangerous call the police


The only person on this thread acting the cunt is yourself. You have been cut extraordinary amounts of slack for your simple-minded drivel - something which fatally undermines your view of majorities etc btw not that you'd be aware enough ti notice this - and in return you have simply abused every other poster, cast aspersions on their motivations, their abilities and so on. And it seems the police are already aware of the threat you pose.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The only person on this thread acting the cunt is yourself. You have been cut extraordinary amounts of slack for your simple-minded drivel - something which fatally undermines your view of majorities etc btw not that you'd be aware enough ti notice this - and in return you have simply abused every other poster, cast aspersions on their motivations, their abilities and so on. And it seems the police are already aware of the threat you pose.



God just fuck off will you

do you seriously think I'd take a blind bit of notice of a person with an attitude like yours towards mental health?

people talk about authoritarianism being a bad thing and yet you seem to be implying that I should be locked up for thought crime

can you see how stupid you are? no evidently not


----------



## rioted (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The only person on this thread acting the cunt is yourself. You have been cut extraordinary amounts of slack for your simple-minded drivel - something which fatally undermines your view of majorities etc btw not that you'd be aware enough ti notice this - and in return you have simply abused every other poster, cast aspersions on their motivations, their abilities and so on. And it seems the police are already aware of the threat you pose.


Some people have mental health issues, some people are just plain, nasty, vindictive arseholes. Not difficult choosing which is which in this exchange. If you can't help, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Tosser.


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> We aren't doing a very good job with the current system though imo ie the rehabilitation isn't working - the criminal justice system is like a revolving door - there to suit the legal system more than anyone else



What makes you say this? The drop in violent crime over recent decades would suggest otherwise. There could also be other explanations for the drop which have nothing to do with punitive legal regimes or their lack. 



> if a person harms another person they need to be prevented from doing it again, not given a slap on the wrist ie they need to be discouraged from doing it again, not encouraged



Has it occurred to you that there might be other ways of encouraging people to behave better rather than just locking them up?



> people talk about going to prison as if it's no big deal - this is wrong - it should be a deterrent



The _media_ (tabloids especially) often talk about how prisons these days are holiday camps, and yet actual people still seem to want to avoid being sent there. Maybe the media are chatting shit?


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> God just fuck off will you
> 
> do you seriously think I'd take a blind bit of notice of a person with an attitude like yours towards mental health?
> 
> ...


Now, with really old hippies help we can all get steered onto the correct ground can't we? And really old hippy gets to get in a few digs whilst looking like a concerned soul. Great work.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> What makes you say this? The drop in violent crime over recent decades would suggest otherwise. There could also be other explanations for the drop which have nothing to do with punitive legal regimes or their lack.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They've admitted a lot of crime isn't even recorded or not recorded accurately so I'm suspicious about the stats

I know things have been worse in the past but some things have been better eg more respectful attitudes 

some people won't ever behave well - the essential problem is how to deal with them


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I've said nothing about banning newspapers
> 
> I'd dismantle the BBC tomorrow though - I resent my money being used for leftwing propaganda and to excuse paedophiles



lol


----------



## cesare (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Now, with really old hippies help we can all get steered onto the correct ground can't we? And really old hippy gets to get in a few digs whilst looking like a concerned soul. Great work.


Oh, I hadn't realised that was him. Explains the vehemence, eh


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Wow there are incredible amounts of unpleasantness on here


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> people talk about going to prison as if it's no big deal - this is wrong - it should be a deterrent


Only people who've never been and have no clue what prison is actually like.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

rioted said:


> Some people have mental health issues, some people are just plain, nasty, vindictive arseholes. Not difficult choosing which is which in this exchange. If you can't help, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Tosser.



Yes, confirming and legitimising the paranoia of a mentally ill person is definitely the best way to help them. for fuck's sake.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Only people who've never been and have no clue what prison is actually like.



Why do so many keep returning then?  their first experience evidently didn't put them off sufficiently


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes, confirming and legitimising the paranoia of a mentally ill person is definitely the best way to help them. for fuck's sake.



I'm not mentally ill imo - society is a sick place and it fks most people up to some degree or other


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Why do so many keep returning then?  their first experience evidently didn't put them off sufficiently



You know that they don't offend with the intention of going back to prison, right? Nobody actually thinks they'll get caught again.

look at re-offending rates - countries like the US with harsher penalties and more brutal systems than ours have higher rates for re-offenders.

Countries like Norway, with extremely liberal prison systems with a focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment have much lower re-offending rates.

Doesn't that tell you something?


----------



## tim (May 31, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Maxine Carr is not a public figure.



Since most people know who she is; what she looks like; and what she did she clearly is a public figure.

[QUOTE]someone who is famous because of what they do, and is written about in newspapers and magazines or is often on television or the radio
[/QUOTE]


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I'm not mentally ill imo - society is a sick place and it fks most people up to some degree or other



I agree with the second part of that statement but with respect I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the first.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I agree with the second part of that statement but with respect I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the first.



So what's your definition of a mentally ill person then?  one who doesn't have your world view?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 31, 2014)

tim said:


> Since most people know who she is; what she looks like; and what she did she clearly is a public figure.
> 
> [QUOTE]someone who is famous because of what they do, and is written about in newspapers and magazines or is often on television or the radio


[/QUOTE]

Most people shouldn't know who she is. That's the whole point of her changing her identity. Her life is now noone else's business. She has been prosecuted. Why is it necessary for you to defend the actions of cunts like Dacre?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> So what's your definition of a mentally ill person then?  one who doesn't have your world view?


No, and I don't really have a fully worked out definition. Only a tiny minority of the population shares my world view and nobody else sees the world exactly as I do but I don't think they're mentally ill. You seem to think everyone here is tied to the mainstream and thinks whatever the liberal elites or whatever tell us to think. This is laughable. You're not on a messageboard full of mainstream conformists and you'll get on better here when you realise this.

I don't feel too comfortable saying this because it's not your fault but when you ask a question like that I feel compelled to say that someone who appears to think everyone is persecuting them and as a result has to put in great efforts not to go on a violent rampage would certainly be included in any sensible definition of mental illness.


----------



## tim (May 31, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> 'Whitehouseesque musings'? Grow up. Wanting a society free from the disgusting influence of a newspaper that peddles shite like "75% of sick benefit claimants are scroungers" on an almost daily basis is not a statement worthy of mary Whitehouse. You have a rather odd chip on your shoulder.



How does challenging your enthusiasm for the control and censorship of the media reflect my (to be honest plentiful) personal inadequacies? Can you elucidate upon the chip you perceive?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 31, 2014)

tim said:


> How does challenging your enthusiasm for the control and censorship of the media reflect my (to be honest plentiful) personal inadequacies?


You have inferred enthusiasm. In fact i said i was against censorship, but clearly you can't read nor understand nuance. Ta ta.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> No, and I don't really have a fully worked out definition. Only a tiny minority of the population shares my world view and nobody else sees the world exactly as I do but I don't think they're mentally ill. You seem to think everyone here is tied to the mainstream and thinks whatever the liberal elites or whatever tell us to think. This is laughable. You're not on a messageboard full of mainstream conformists and you'll get on better here when you realise this.
> 
> I don't feel too comfortable saying this because it's not your fault but when you ask a question like that I feel compelled to say that someone who appears to think everyone is persecuting them and as a result has to put in great efforts not to go on a violent rampage would certainly be included in any sensible definition of mental illness.



I'm not entirely wrong in terms of the persecution though am I?  your personal remarks and those of others prove that

you are proving my point basically

I gave an insight into some of my thoughts - I've never gone on a rampage, I was saying i related to the alienation of the rampage killer - and what have people done?  turned on me for it

If this isn't a conformist environment why does every other post tell me to stop doing this, stop thinking that?

it's far more conformist than you'd like to think - there's a very narrow margin beyond which a person will be rejected

I don't have violent thoughts all the time either - I'd say the average person has far more than me tbh - they jsut arent' in the habit of discussing them on forums as they know full well that people like you will judge them for them!

on the contrary they just kick people to death outside pubs when they've had too much to drink - are these people mentally ill or just normal people who've had a bit too much to drink??

these so-called normal people are the potential killers in your midst, not me i'm afraid and you are all the more unsafe for not realising this basic fact


----------



## tim (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I just relate to a lot of what she says
> 
> 
> I like Peter Hitchens too



I agree with him on trains!


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I'm not entirely wrong in terms of the persecution though am I?  your personal remarks and those of others prove that
> 
> you are proving my point basically
> 
> ...



Which comments? I only make personal comments in response to you making it about you - when you do that it's impossible not to make personal comments. If you insist on turning every thread you post on into a thread about you people will make personal comments - how else can they possibly respond? I never said you had been on a rampage - just that the restraint you've had to show in order not to suggests there's something a bit worrying going on.

Nobody's telling you to stop doing or thinking anything - just that the things you think are worrying. And they are. Do you seriously dispute this?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

tim said:


> I agree with him on trains!



I see, I'm not aware of his views on them


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

Fuck's sake, I've been a fucking idiot and let myself get dragged into it again


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Which comments? I only make personal comments in response to you making it about you - when you do that it's impossible not to make personal comments. If you insist on turning every thread you post on into a thread about you people will make personal comments - how else can they possibly respond? I never said you had been on a rampage - just that the restraint you've had to show in order not to suggests there's something a bit worrying going on.
> 
> Nobody's telling you to stop doing or thinking anything - just that the things you think are worrying. And they are. Do you seriously dispute this?



I think I'm just far more honest than the average person

Do you think thsi man was mentally ill?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rtner-30-years-abuse-jailed-years-months.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/04/man-jailed-shaking-killing-child-birmingham

or him?

what do you think their diagnosis was prior to their crime?  do you think they were even known to mental health services?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-26632165

or him - was he mentally ill?

plenty of these people about aren't there?

are these the normal people I'm meant to be emulating?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I think I'm just far more honest than the average person



No. I can assure you that the average person cannot relate to or sympathise with why Elliot Rodger did what he did and the average person, while they may entertain violent thoughts, does not have any trouble at all not acting on them.

And this is another of those cases where you put yourself above and beyond - superior to - everyone else. This is what gets people's backs up. It's incredibly insulting and I'm amazed that you don't understand why.

And with that I'm out.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> No. I can assure you that the average person cannot relate to or sympathise with why Elliot Rodger did what he did and the average person, while they may entertain violent thoughts, does not have any trouble at all not acting on them.
> 
> And this is another of those cases where you put yourself above and beyond - superior to - everyone else. This is what gets people's backs up. It's incredibly insulting and I'm amazed that you don't understand why.
> 
> And with that I'm out.



I haven't acted on my thoughts and I'd dispute that the average person has problems not acting on violent thoughts - see above!

it happens all the time and most who do it do not have Asperger's Syndrome or any previous history of mental illness ie it's the so-called perfect normals who do most of the killing but don't let that stop you feeling superior enough to lecture me


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Fuck's sake, I've been a fucking idiot and let myself get dragged into it again



Head, brick wall, bang.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I think I'm just far more honest than the average person
> 
> Do you think thsi man was mentally ill?
> 
> ...



Yes. Sometimes people do bad things. I'm amazed by this revelation and take back everything I've ever said before.


----------



## tim (May 31, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> You have inferred enthusiasm. In fact i said i was against censorship, but clearly you can't read nor understand nuance. Ta ta.




There doesn't seem anything terribly nuanced about your comment about the Express



> I think it should be closed down personally.



Perhaps you could clarify by explaining who you think should do the closing down. If it were Dirty Desmond in a moment of personal moral recalibration or because it was losing money then it wouldn't be censorship but for the state or a Quango to do so it would.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I haven't acted on my thoughts and I'd dispute that the average person has problems not acting on violent thoughts - see above!
> 
> it happens all the time and most who do it do not have Asperger's Syndrome or any previous history of mental illness ie it's the so-called perfect normals who do most of the killing but don't let that stop you feeling superior enough to lecture me



I never said that people with aspergers or mental illnesses were bound to commit violent crimes - mostly because I don't think they are. We've got plenty of aspies on here and I've never been worried about the behaviour or views of any of them. I also never said that only mentally ill people commit crimes. But the people you point to there are clearly not the average person - if they were it would not be newsworthy would it?

I don't feel superior and I'm not lecturing you - it wasn't me who brought it up ffs


----------



## Roadkill (May 31, 2014)

Hmm.  In the wake of post #750, among others, I'm starting to think Belushi had a point the other day.


----------



## tim (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I see, I'm not aware of his views on them




Then you don't know the full man. I'd reveal them to you but I fear it might lead you disillusioned.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I never said that people with aspergers or mental illnesses were bound to commit violent crimes - mostly because I don't think they are. We've got plenty of aspies on here and I've never been worried about the behaviour or views of any of them. I also never said that only mentally ill people commit crimes. But the people you point to there are clearly not the average person - if they were it would not be newsworthy would it?



My point was that prior to their committing these murders they were almost certainly seen as normal ie they weren't talking about their violent fantasies on forums so no one was any the wiser about the threat they posed 

I spoke about some stuff I thought - caused by the meds I was on at the time and how I came off them as a result as I didn't want to end up doing something bad ie I acted responsibly - I haven't harmed anyone

fitting in socially and not saying disturbing stuff is no guarantee that a person isn't potentially dangerous and talking about disturbing stuff is no guarantee a person is!


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

tim said:


> Then you don't know the full man. I'd reveal them to you but I fear it might lead you disillusioned.



I'm used to disillusionment lol


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Hmm.  In the wake of post #750, among others, I'm starting to think Belushi had a point the other day.



What did he say?  don't keep us in the dark


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> They've admitted a lot of crime isn't even recorded or not recorded accurately so I'm suspicious about the stats



The consistent decline of violence over the centuries demands a more substantial explanation than your mere suspicions about recent statistics gathering, however.



> I know things have been worse in the past but some things have been better eg more respectful attitudes



That's a complaint at least as old as Socrates:

_“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”_

Frankly I think such complaints have everything to do with cultural differences between the generations, and nothing to do with any real decline in attitudes. I'm sure that an older person from the 1920s would find you or I frightfully disrespectful if they could see us now.



> some people won't ever behave well - the essential problem is how to deal with them



Of course they won't ever behave well if you act on such a belief. Even in the event that there is an incorrigible segment of society, it seems pretty clear to me that they are a minority and as such should not form the basis for general social policy.


----------



## Red Cat (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> What did he say?  don't keep us in the dark



That you're a troll.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> That you're a troll.



yep it's conformity or you're a troll on most forums isn't it?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> The consistent decline of violence over the centuries demands a more substantial explanation than your mere suspicions about recent statistics gathering, however.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How old are you?


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> How old are you?



I'm 27. Why do you ask?


----------



## Red Cat (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> yep it's conformity or you're a troll on most forums isn't it?



I have no idea about any other forums but I know this one fairly well and I get the impression that you do too.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> I'm 27. Why do you ask?



You are right about it being generational - I'm 48 and do not relate to the younger generation much at all


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I have no idea about any other forums but I know this one fairly well and I get the impression that you do too.



no I only joined the other day but it's same attitude as on most forums - if you can't talk the talk in the same way as everyone else you're not accepted


----------



## Red Cat (May 31, 2014)

Yeh, whatever.


----------



## tim (May 31, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Why is it necessary for you to defend the actions of cunts like Dacre?



Because I don't wish for others or myself to be censored. And for the sake of clarity can I reiterate that I defend his right to publish not anything that he publishes. It may seem confusing to you, but it is possible to despise the Mail and its values and yet not want it banned.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

tim said:


> Why is it necessary for you to defend the actions of cunts like Dacre?



Because I don't wish for others or myself to be censored. And for the sake of clarity can I reiterate that I defend his right to publish not anything that he publishes. It may seem confusing to you, but it is possible to despise the Mail and its values and yet not want it banned.[/QUOTE]

We wouldn't know what was happening at all without the Mail - regardless of the agenda, it reports far more actual news items than any other paper/website


----------



## tim (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no I only joined the other day but it's same attitude as on most forums - if you can't talk the talk in the same way as everyone else you're not accepted



As has already been made clear to you, whoever you are and whatever you post here there will be fuckers who won't accept you.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

tim said:


> As has already been made clear to you, whoever you are and whatever you post here there will be fuckers who won't accept you.



I know that


----------



## tim (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> We wouldn't know what was happening at all without the Mail - regardless of the agenda, it reports far more actual news items than any other paper/website




Possibly ,I've certainly not seen this anywhere else.



*Man with manure fetish jailed for eight-year vendetta against farmer who banned him rolling naked in cowpats
*
or this
*
The return of Sad Keanu? Reeves has a solitary drink and cigarette outside his hotel

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...nk-cigarette-outside-hotel.html#ixzz33J09nJH1 
*
Can't say I regret it, though.
*
*


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

It's more interesting than the Guardian and BBC websites and the Times  - which I usually have if I buy a paper, is behind a paywall


----------



## equationgirl (May 31, 2014)

tim said:


> Possibly ,I've certainly not seen this anywhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The BBC is currently reporting the slurry fetishist:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-27643702


----------



## equationgirl (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> It's more interesting than the Guardian and BBC websites and the Times  - which I usually have if I buy a paper, is behind a paywall


More interesting, or more salacious? Most of what the mail reports is not news, it's gossip and rumour.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> More interesting, or more salacious? Most of what the mail reports is not news, it's gossip and rumour.



there is news when I read it and some of the gossip is interesting too

I'm not a paragon of virtue like you


----------



## equationgirl (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> there is news when I read it and some of the gossip is interesting too
> 
> I'm not a paragon of virtue like you


I've never set myself up as paragon of virtue.  But the mail is not a bastion of quality reporting no matter how much you want it to be.


----------



## tim (May 31, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> More interesting, or more salacious? Most of what the mail reports is not news, it's gossip and rumour.



And he even has his own festering thread here!

Sorry meant to quote this



> The BBC is currently reporting the slurry fetishist:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-27643702​






not the bit at the top


----------



## maomao (May 31, 2014)

Well The Mail does carry an unusually large number of articles, especially on its website, even once you disregard the celebrity nonsense and the syndicated US stories. Most of them are regional crime stories that generally get left to local press because the Mail knows that if you make people angry and afraid, especially if you give the sense that you're reporting stories that the other papers aren't, then people will keep coming back.


----------



## equationgirl (May 31, 2014)

maomao said:


> Well The Mail does carry an unusually large number of articles, especially on its website, even once you disregard the celebrity nonsense and the syndicated US stories. Most of them are regional crime stories that generally get left to local press because the Mail knows that if you make people angry and afraid, especially if you give the sense that you're reporting stories that the other papers aren't, then people will keep coming back.


Quantity reporting rather than quality reporting.


----------



## twentythreedom (May 31, 2014)

Carr/Daily Mail/vigilantes/pervy teachers/aspie outsider/hive mind/victimisation/mental health/drugs/Hitchens/Phillips/BBC/paedos/establishment/prisons etc etc

Troll, or banned returnee, sock puppet, something along those lines. Something's up 

nessa239 

Good thread


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> In the natural realm, things like mathematics can be quantified.  In the supernatural realm they cannot, no matter how deep your belief.



The natural vs the supernatural realm is not like England vs France. First off, many people reject the concept of a 'supernatural realm'. Second: unlike France, we can only conjecture about the attributes of any 'supernatural realm', should one exist. You say it can't be quantified. Maybe, maybe not. No one knows for sure.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I've never set myself up as paragon of virtue.  But the mail is not a bastion of quality reporting no matter how much you want it to be.



I've never said it's a quality paper at all - they can't even use correct grammar and spelling half the time - quality it aint!

It just has the largest accumulation of news articles so there's more to read

I find the Guardian good for comment articles but the news is v boringly done


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> Carr/Daily Mail/vigilantes/pervy teachers/aspie outsider/hive mind/victimisation/mental health/drugs/Hitchens/Phillips/BBC/paedos/establishment/prisons etc etc
> 
> Troll, or banned returnee, sock puppet, something along those lines. Something's up
> 
> ...



I'm not a banned returnee or sock puppet

I often do get banned though, for presumably not editing my thoughts to suit other forum members sufficiently and having a more right wing viewpoint


----------



## twentythreedom (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I'm not a banned returnee or sock puppet
> 
> I often do get banned though, for presumably not editing my thoughts to suit other forum members sufficiently and having a more right wing viewpoint


No shit

Eta so are you some kind of obsessive forum-baiter, going from board to board making enemies and confirming how right you are before getting banned for being a dick?


----------



## equationgirl (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I'm not a banned returnee or sock puppet
> 
> I often do get banned though, for presumably not editing my thoughts to suit other forum members sufficiently and having a more right wing viewpoint


Not because you're being offensive then.


----------



## maomao (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I've never said it's a quality paper at all - they can't even use correct grammar and spelling half the time - quality it aint!
> 
> It just has the largest accumulation of news articles so there's more to read
> 
> I find the Guardian good for comment articles but the news is v boringly done


Yeah, The Guardian doesn't put key words in capital letters so that I know what I should be angry and indignant about. V v boring.


----------



## Greebo (May 31, 2014)

maomao said:


> <snip>If you'd like to have a conversation about yourself you can do that in the health, relationships and sexuality forum.


Nessa might have to wait a bit to get in there - enough posting, but not enough days here yet.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

maomao said:


> Well The Mail does carry an unusually large number of articles, especially on its website, even once you disregard the celebrity nonsense and the syndicated US stories. Most of them are regional crime stories that generally get left to local press because the Mail knows that if you make people angry and afraid, especially if you give the sense that you're reporting stories that the other papers aren't, then people will keep coming back.



It's just become a habit and if I try not to visit the site I get withdrawal

I don't think the 'look how bad this celebrity is looking' type stuff is healthy at all so I try and just look at the news but your eye inevitably gets drawn to a story

I think it's schadenfreude that the paper plays on more than fear

righteous anger and schadenfreude - 'A stupid footballer said _what_ during Question Time??  what a twat!'

makes ppl feel better if someone is seen to be behaving worse than them

'Oh, a formerly perfect-looking supermodel has put on weight and become an alcoholic?' - oh dear

people gloat over others' misfortunes unfortunately as it makes them forget their own

not admirable traits but more human to acknowledge you do it than pretend not imo

I end up clicking on Lily Allen stories for some reason - I can't stand her but something interests me about her


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Russia is hardly Europe



Turkey?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

maomao said:


> Yeah, The Guardian doesn't put key words in capital letters so that I know what I should be angry and indignant about. V v boring.



No, it's all so worthy and ideological

sometimes I agree with comment articles but generally find the news hard going

and yes it's all same font size so lose bearings

there seems to be no rhyme or reason as to what is made a priority on the page


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Turkey?



No and should never be

I'll be accused of racism if i say more


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I've said nothing about banning newspapers
> 
> I'd dismantle the BBC tomorrow though - I resent my money being used for leftwing propaganda and to excuse paedophiles



And let's face it. That is all the BBC does.


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> No and should never be
> 
> I'll be accused of racism if i say more



Heaven forfend that you'll ever have to defend your positions!


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> No shit
> 
> Eta so are you some kind of obsessive forum-baiter, going from board to board making enemies and confirming how right you are before getting banned for being a dick?



You are implying that I should change my opinions just to fit in

I just express an opinion and that opinion often seems to rub people up the wrong way

I don't go out of my way to do it, it seems to come naturally 

people also ignore it when I say neutral or agreeing-type stuff as well so it's a biased view as well


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> Heaven forfend that you'll ever have to defend your positions!



on the contrary all I tend to end up doing is defend myself on forums

probably because I'm not hip and cool like everyone else


----------



## frogwoman (May 31, 2014)

You think everyone here is hip and cool?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> people also ignore it when I say neutral or agreeing-type stuff as well so it's a biased view as well



Taking notice of those things is not conducive to bullying.


----------



## twentythreedom (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> You are implying that I should change my opinions just to fit in
> 
> I just express an opinion and that opinion often seems to rub people up the wrong way
> 
> ...


Maybe you're just a dick


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> You think everyone here is hip and cool?



of a type I'd say

predominantly leftwing and activist types

the type to protest at a G8 summit and be glad if a policeman got killed


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> Maybe you're just a dick



maybe you are but you're in good company as surrounded by other dicks of your kind?


----------



## twentythreedom (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> maybe you are but you're in good company as surrounded by other dicks of your kind?


I called you a dick first


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> on the contrary all I tend to end up doing is defend myself on forums
> 
> probably because I'm not hip and cool like everyone else



Everyone has a role to play on a forum.

Yours is 'courageous martyr'.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> I called you a dick first



we're not in the playground here at all are we lol


----------



## twentythreedom (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Everyone has a role to play on a forum.
> 
> Yours is 'courageous martyr'.


What's yours Johnny?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Everyone has a role to play on a forum.
> 
> Yours is 'courageous martyr'.



Thanks


----------



## twentythreedom (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> we're not in the playground here at all are we lol


I'm right though


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> I'm right though



I'm hardly going to agree am I?


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> on the contrary all I tend to end up doing is defend myself on forums
> 
> probably because I'm not hip and cool like everyone else



The only one whinging on and on about being outcast is you. Is it any wonder that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Take for example one of your more recent posts, where you insinuate that you'll be "accused of racism" for explaining why you think Turkey shouldn't be part of Europe. Instead of explaining your position in any detail and allowing others to debate and decide, you pre-empt everyone else with what you _think_ will be said, effectively putting words in peoples' mouths before things even begin.


----------



## twentythreedom (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I'm hardly going to agree am I?


I suspect you will disagree somehow


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> The only one whinging on and on about being outcast is you. Is it any wonder that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy?
> 
> Take for example one of your more recent posts, where you insinuate that you'll be "accused of racism" for explaining why you think Turkey shouldn't be part of Europe. Instead of explaining your position in any detail and allowing others to debate and decide, you pre-empt everyone else with what you _think_ will be said, effectively putting words in peoples' mouths before things even begin.



because I know full well what will be said

it's the wrong forum to have my type of views on - I can see that

and if you can't see the obvious fact that I am being overly penalised for my viewpoint you're a total idiot!

it's a bloodbath! lol


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> I suspect you will disagree somehow



I can live with you thinking me a dick as we have nothing in common and I haven't seen you say anything interesting 

it's opinion


----------



## twentythreedom (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I can live with you thinking me a dick as we have nothing in common and I haven't seen you say anything interesting
> 
> it's opinion


...opinions are like arseholes. We all have them, but yours smells worse than mine


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> ...opinions are like arseholes. We all have them, but yours smells worse than mine



God that's witty - must remember that


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> What's yours Johnny?



Depends how I feel when I wake up in the morning.


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> because I know full well what will be said



Ah, so you're psychic?



> it's the wrong forum to have my type of views on - I can see that



What type of views would those be?



> and if you can't see the obvious fact that I am being overly penalised for my viewpoint you're a total idiot!
> 
> it's a bloodbath! lol



How are you being penalised exactly? Disagreement isn't the same thing as punishment.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I'm hardly going to agree am I?



You should try agreeing with someone sometime - it's shockingly liberating, like pissing your pants.

It helps to liberate you from your own ego.


----------



## twentythreedom (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> God that's witty - must remember that


You can have that one for nothing


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You should try agreeing with someone sometime - it's shockingly liberating, like pissing your pants.
> 
> It helps to liberate you from your own ego.



I have done but as I said it's ignored as it isn't what ppl want to hear


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You should try agreeing with someone sometime - it's shockingly liberating, like pissing your pants.
> 
> It helps to liberate you from your own ego.



I think everyone needs to experience ego death at least once. For lack of a better term, it's spiritually purifying.


----------



## tim (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I've said nothing about banning newspapers
> 
> I'd dismantle the BBC tomorrow though - I resent my money being used for leftwing propaganda and to excuse paedophiles



"employ" rather than "excuse" - surely!


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> I think everyone needs to experience ego death at least once. For lack of a better term, it's spiritually purifying.



What a joke

people are seriously up themselves on here - thinking they're so arch and funny when 99% of the time they are not


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> What a joke
> 
> people are seriously up themselves on here - thinking they're so arch and funny when 99% of the time they are not



I wasn't joking.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

tim said:


> "employ" rather than "excuse" - surely!



they tried to stop the programme on Jimmy Savile going out and they keep saying 'things were different back then'


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> I wasn't joking.



I meant in terms of you seeming to think you aren't egotists - you are

wanting to express your opinion on a forum is egotism


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I have done but as I said it's ignored as it isn't what ppl want to hear



Do you base your actions on what others want or expect?


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I meant in terms of you seeming to think you aren't egotists - you are
> 
> wanting to express your opinion on a forum is egotism



Except that I never said I wasn't an egotist. I said that the experience of ego death was "spiritually purifying". See, different statements.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Do you base your actions on what others want or expect?



depends on who the other person is


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> What a joke
> 
> people are seriously up themselves on here - thinking they're so arch and funny when 99% of the time they are not



You were just complaining that people were putting you down for saying what you think. Now you're doing it.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You were just complaining that people were putting you down for saying what you think. Now you're doing it.



yes and I'm being castigated for it - so make your mind up - is it ok to say what you think on here or not?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> Except that I never said I wasn't an egotist. I said that the experience of ego death was "spiritually purifying". See, different statements.



ego death is ultimately death imo


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> yes and I'm being castigated for it - so make your mind up - is it ok to say what you think on here or not?



Why are you asking me?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Why are you asking me?



because you seem to be one of the people baiting me for not toeing the party line

don't nail your colours to the mast though - people like you never do - someone might not like you for it and you can't be having that


----------



## twentythreedom (May 31, 2014)

NO IT'S NOT OK


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> NO IT'S NOT OK



so where are the rules as to what is ok to say and what is not?


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> ego death is ultimately death imo



Now that _is_ an interesting statement. Why?

The ego in my experience is a mere passing thing, more illusion than reality. Certainly it is compared to the body, which is an actual material thing with measurable properties, and which can easily survive ego death and reconstitute the ego anew.


----------



## twentythreedom (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> so where are the rules as to what is ok to say and what is not?


I've never read it, but there's a FAQ, button is at top of page


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

yes that's what Buddhism teaches but imo it's a dangerous idea

the ego is our essential self so without it we're not there at all

I don't think it's possible to cancel out the ego completely

yes it's good not to be overly materialistic or have loads of desires that might not be fulfilled but you need some level of desire for something to motivate you to keep living and that desire is the need for ego fulfillment

plus you lose touch with other people the more you cut out stuff others do - I've done a lot of it - don't want the material possessions the average person wants and it alienates me a lot from others

a lot of materialism covers up the meaninglessness of life so it's protective imo


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> someone might not like you for it and you can't be having that





You haven't been here long, have you?

You don't need my permission one way or the other concerning what you do here.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> because you seem to be one of the people baiting me for not toeing the party line



You've made a couple of comments here today that I took exception to; other than that, I can't really say that I'm aware of what your position is on things.


----------



## Red Cat (May 31, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> You think everyone here is hip and cool?



You mean we're not?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> yes that's what Buddhism teaches but imo it's a dangerous idea
> 
> the ego is our essential self so without it we're not there at all
> 
> I don't think it's possible to cancel out the ego completely



That's a lie that the ego tells.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You've made a couple of comments here today that I took exception to; other than that, I can't really say that I'm aware of what your position is on things.



people are making comments I take exception to all the time  - I just don't feel the need to tell them all the time

you make it sound as if you are the arbiter of all that is correct and right

you aren't


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> you make it sound as if you are the arbiter of all that is correct and right
> 
> you aren't



That is so true.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That's a lie that the ego tells.



if you take away ego what is there then?


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> yes that's what Buddhism teaches but imo it's a dangerous idea
> 
> the ego is our essential self so without it we're not there at all



Why is it dangerous?

So if you think that the ego is the essential self, does that mean you think that people who undergo personality changes (following severe brain trauma, say) should be treated as different people (legally, socially, etc?)

What about the body? Do you think it nothing more than a shell? Do you believe in souls?

Personally, I don't believe in souls and I think that we are our bodies.



> I don't think it's possible to cancel out the ego completely



My experiences with magic mushrooms and heavy doses of ketamine tells me otherwise.


----------



## Greebo (May 31, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> You mean we're not?


You could be Dwayne Dibley for all I care.







nessa239 said:


> if you take away ego what is there then?


That which is.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> Why is it dangerous?
> 
> So if you think that the ego is the essential self, does that mean you think that people who undergo personality changes (following severe brain trauma, say) should be treated as different people (legally, socially, etc?)
> 
> ...



Because if you have a fragile sense of self to try and wipe out your ego is going to put you at risk of losing your identity,
getting depressed and possibly seeing life as meaningless and seeing no reason not to end it all

Seymour in the JD Salinger books illustrates this - he was into Buddhism and he killed himself - I think this was Salinger warning people against it

A personality change isn't the same as ego change or loss of ego

I don't know about the soul - suspect when we die that's it but still have a belief in God

would never take illegal drugs

I've had a peak experience once, when felt connected with the universe but only briefly and can't see how it would be practical to live in that way of being all the time as the majority aren't


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Greebo said:


> You could be Dwayne Dibley for all I care.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



not very informative


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Because if you have a fragile sense of self to try and wipe out your ego is going to put you at risk of losing your identity,
> getting depressed and possibly seeing life as meaningless and seeing no reason not to end it all
> 
> Seymour in the JD Salinger books illustrates this - he was into Buddhism and he killed himself - I think this was Salinger warning people against it



If life is meaningless, why bother ending it? In order to go to the trouble of ending life you have to feel strongly about it in a certain way. That's still meaningful, even if it is entirely in a negative sense.

My view is that the fact that life is meaningless gives me the freedom to stamp my _own_ meaning onto life, rather than having it predetermined for me.



> A personality change isn't the same as ego change or loss of ego



What would you say is the difference between an ego change and a personality change?



> I don't know about the soul - suspect when we die that's it but still have a belief in God



So then the body is still important. Then why dismiss it? It's the surest sign that we exist at all, since nobody's ever gone without one.



> would never take illegal drugs



And if they were legal?


----------



## Greebo (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> not very informative


Just google Dwayne Dibley and Red Dwarf, you might find that it brings enlightenment.  BTW you claim to be roughly my age - how can you be unaware of that programme?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> If life is meaningless, why bother ending it? In order to go to the trouble of ending life you have to feel strongly about it in a certain way. That's still meaningful, even if it is entirely in a negative sense.
> 
> My view is that the fact that life is meaningless gives me the freedom to stamp my _own_ meaning onto life, rather than having it predetermined for me.
> 
> ...



Because a meaningless life can be unbearable and give people mental torment

ego is the internal driver of a person, personality is the outward manifestation of their ego so linked but not the same thing

I haven't dismissed the body

I take antidepressants so yes legal ones ok, illegal a lot more unpredictable in terms of what they might do to your brain plus the illegal element


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Just google Dwayne Dibley and Red Dwarf, you might find that it brings enlightenment.  BTW you claim to be roughly my age - how can you be unaware of that programme?



no it quoted the wrong bit

your explanation of what was beyond ego was what I found lacking in informational content

I know of Dwayne Dibley - I like him


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> if you take away ego what is there then?



Being


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Because if you have a fragile sense of self to try and wipe out your ego is going to put you at risk of losing your identity,
> getting depressed and possibly seeing life as meaningless and seeing no reason not to end it all
> 
> Seymour in the JD Salinger books illustrates this - he was into Buddhism and he killed himself - I think this was Salinger warning people against it
> ...



Some people listen to AC/DC, then kill themselves.  Most people don't, though.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> would never take illegal drugs




Would you try marijuana if it was legalized?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I've had a peak experience once, when felt connected with the universe but only briefly and can't see how it would be practical to live in that way of being all the time as the majority aren't



Maybe peak experience is like orgasm: really good, and worth pursuing - but you don't want it to be happening all the time. Makes it hard to do the dishes.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Would you try marijuana if it was legalized?



tried it once and got into a fight at a party and had my credit card stolen so wouldn't bother again


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Maybe peak experience is like orgasm: really good, and worth pursuing - but you don't want it to be happening all the time. Makes it hard to do the dishes.



what I mean is if you're walking round feeling at peace and as one with the universe but all around you people aren't you're going to get hurt probably


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> what I mean is if you're walking round feeling at peace and as one with the universe but all around you people aren't you're going to get hurt probably



I don't think it's all peace and bliss - it's awareness, and being centred in your world. You are calm, and ready.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Some people listen to AC/DC, then kill themselves.  Most people don't, though.



Well people have different triggers


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Because a meaningless life can be unbearable and give people mental torment



So can a meaningful life, if that meaningfulness is of the "right" kind. If one thinks that the meaning of life is an existence of Earthly torment followed by an eternity of Hellish torture, then I hardly think that one is going to enjoy it much.

But at least with a meaningless life, there is a neutral emptiness that can be filled up with a meaning on one's own choosing.



> ego is the internal driver of a person, personality is the outward manifestation of their ego so linked but not the same thing



I think you are confusing ego with agency. You can have the latter without the former, for example computer programs can act without human input but have no ego, and most animals don't have egos.



> I haven't dismissed the body



But the ego is a product of the body, so it follows that the body is a greater determinant than the ego's ephemeral nature.



> I take antidepressants so yes legal ones ok, illegal a lot more unpredictable in terms of what they might do to your brain plus the illegal element



The unpredictability is largely a consequence of their illegality.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Well people have different triggers



That's right: AC/DC might trigger some, and Buddhistic awareness might trigger others. But neither seem to be a trigger for most people.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> So can a meaningful life, if that meaningfulness is of the "right" kind. If one thinks that the meaning of life is an existence of Earthly torment followed by an eternity of Hellish torture, then I hardly think that one is going to enjoy it much.
> 
> But at least with a meaningless life, there is a neutral emptiness that can be filled up with a meaning on one's own choosing.
> 
> ...



the ego is the brain 

well I prefer not to take the risk with illegal drugs as my brain is bad enough already


----------



## Red Cat (May 31, 2014)

When people talk of life being meaningless, they are talking about life feeling empty and painful. It's not about it not having an objective or handed down meaning.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That's right: AC/DC might trigger some, and Buddhistic awareness might trigger others. But neither seem to be a trigger for most people.



I said a risk

Bhuddism alone can't help me - I need anti-depressants as well as self-help

Sometimes it's the brain chemicals that need help and no amount of belief in something will improve things without that assistance


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> When people talk of life being meaningless, they are talking about life feeling empty and painful. It's not about it not having an objective or handed down meaning.



it's quite easy to see life as essentially meaningless - you're born and you die - everyone is waiting to die - that's pretty meaningless and nihilistic!

people usually just distract themselves from this fact most of the time


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Sometimes it's the brain chemicals that need help and no amount of belief in something will improve things without that assistance



True enough.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> True enough.



which implies that 'self' is just differing levels of brain chemicals


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> which implies that 'self' is just differing levels of brain chemicals



If I had the answer to that, people would be visiting me on a mountaintop somewhere.


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> it's quite easy to see life as essentially meaningless - you're born and you die - everyone is waiting to die - that's pretty meaningless and nihilistic!
> 
> people usually just distract themselves from this fact most of the time



So what if we die? Of course I'd rather not have to die, living is worth it even if it can be difficult at times. Given the choice between spending my limited decades moping about the fact that the universe wasn't built to my exact tastes and desires, and the alternative of enjoying whatever bits of it I can, the answer to me seems pretty damn obvious; enjoy the ride while it lasts!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> So what if we die? Of course I'd rather not have to die, living is worth it even if it can be difficult at times. Given the choice between spending my limited decades moping about the fact that the universe wasn't built to my exact tastes and desires, and the alternative of enjoying whatever bits of it I can, the answer to me seems pretty damn obvious; enjoy the ride while it lasts!


The part that was/is hard for me, is realizing that not all of the ride is nor can be enjoyable, but that the non-enjoyable parts are also an intrinsic part of the ride.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> So what if we die? Of course I'd rather not have to die, living is worth it even if it can be difficult at times. Given the choice between spending my limited decades moping about the fact that the universe wasn't built to my exact tastes and desires, and the alternative of enjoying whatever bits of it I can, the answer to me seems pretty damn obvious; enjoy the ride while it lasts!



people have varying abilities to get pleasure out of things imo


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The part that was/is hard for me, is realizing that not all of the ride is nor can be enjoyable, but that the non-enjoyable parts are also an intrinsic part of the ride.



yes I find that hard

I focus on trying to avoid the painful bits but it gets boring

like say a person you know treats you badly but you do get some enjoyment out of the interaction - should you see them or not?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> like say a person you know treats you badly but you do get some enjoyment out of the interaction - should you see them or not?



That's a hard one. I think what people do in that sort of situation is stress over what to do, but never be sure that they're doing the right thing.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

I think we crave certainty in a world where we can never have it. I think it's a flaw in our design.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

Anyway, bye: I have to take a walk to the store - the kid needs some new stuff for work.


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The part that was/is hard for me, is realizing that not all of the ride is nor can be enjoyable, but that the non-enjoyable parts are also an intrinsic part of the ride.



It's not as if we're utterly powerless to reduce the unpleasant parts or maximise the pleasant parts, though.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I think we crave certainty in a world where we can never have it. I think it's a flaw in our design.



Definitely


----------



## Greebo (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> what I mean is if you're walking round feeling at peace and as one with the universe but all around you people aren't you're going to get hurt probably


Maybe, but if you remain in that state, you're likely to be too open to picking up every bit of pain around you - neither pleasant nor safe.


NoXion said:


> It's not as if we're utterly powerless to reduce the unpleasant parts or maximise the pleasant parts, though.


Up to a point.  Beyond that, there's hubris.


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

Hubris is just what the priesthood call ambition if it threatens their power.


----------



## Greebo (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> Hubris is just what the priesthood call ambition if it threatens their power.


I forgive you, my child.


----------



## twentythreedom (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> tried it once and got into a fight at a party and had my credit card stolen so wouldn't bother again


SKUNK STOLE MY SANITY AND MY VISA CARD


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 31, 2014)

NoXion said:


> It's not as if we're utterly powerless to reduce the unpleasant parts or maximise the pleasant parts, though.



Your parents will die. Your pet will die. You will lose things as you age.


----------



## NoXion (May 31, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Your parents will die. Your pet will die. You will lose things as you age.



I kind of take your point, but such things are to be expected, which I think can be used as a stepping-off point for coming to terms with them in a healthy manner that isn't to the detriment of everything else.

I mean, what's the alternative? To collapse into a self-pitying heap of mournful despair? I don't see anything life-enhancing in that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 1, 2014)

Who said anything about 'life affirming' or 'life-enhancing'? That yin yang circle, half is yin, half yang. Life, death: equally big. Pleasure, pain. 'Life-affirming'  etc are  feel-good slogans that people come up with, like mixing a spoonful of sugar with the medicine to make the whole thing more palatable.

I think the thing is a recognition of what existence is, then a coming to terms, an acceptance. That isn't the same thing as collapsing in a pile of tears.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> not very informative


 
Let's not diss Dwayne.


----------



## bendeus (Jun 1, 2014)

This is magnificent trolling. Thread about Maxine Carr becomes thread about Nessa's issues/opinions/worldview for thirty three fucking pages.


----------



## snadge (Jun 1, 2014)

Isn't it, once again Urban fails to see the obvious.


----------



## snadge (Jun 1, 2014)

Although I must admit, it has been mainly entertaining.


----------



## bendeus (Jun 1, 2014)

snadge said:


> Although I must admit, it has been mainly entertaining.



It has, in a slow-motion car crash kind of way.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

bendeus said:


> This is magnificent trolling. Thread about Maxine Carr becomes thread about Nessa's issues/opinions/worldview for thirty three fucking pages.



I didn't set out to divert the subject matter - it happened inadvertently

I don't think of myself as a troll, I try to join in but things go wrong when people turn against me


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The natural vs the supernatural realm is not like England vs France. First off, many people reject the concept of a 'supernatural realm'. Second: unlike France, we can only conjecture about the attributes of any 'supernatural realm', should one exist. You say it can't be quantified. Maybe, maybe not. No one knows for sure.



Well quite.
Now apply your reasoning to your arguments about 1 = 3.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

Wilf said:


> But do you not a shitty kecks story?  I really do have to press you.



One should never press shitty kecks.  The smell is awful!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I like her
> 
> I can see why people dislike her though



I used to enjoy reading her, purely for the stimulation of reading a dissenting opinion.
Since she took up her "Londonistan" thesis (you may or may not have read it), however, she's manifested too much intellectual dishonesty/willingness to manipulate facts to fit her thesis for me to take her seriously anymore as anything but a creator of fiction.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> what the hell on gods green earth is there to like about melanie philips?



The way that, when she appears on Question Time, even bitter enemies come together to rebut her insane claims?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Authoritarianism won't prevent murders by the state though.



Arguably, authoritarianism often goes hand-in-hand with a crackdown by the state, especially the security apparatus.  That's certainly been the case in the UK.

#hildamurrell


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I used to enjoy reading her, purely for the stimulation of reading a dissenting opinion.
> Since she took up her "Londonistan" thesis (you may or may not have read it), however, she's manifested too much intellectual dishonesty/willingness to manipulate facts to fit her thesis for me to take her seriously anymore as anything but a creator of fiction.



I haven't read it

No one person can have all the answers

I like Theodore Dalrymple too - they're people who 'tell it like it is' but get shot down for it

the right and left are as bad as each other imo, just in different ways

you can't possibly hope for agreement among people


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Arguably, authoritarianism often goes hand-in-hand with a crackdown by the state, especially the security apparatus.  That's certainly been the case in the UK.
> 
> #hildamurrell



But if we look at us having to have the existence of the police to prevent people committing crime ( up to a point) - that is an example of authoritarianism working - I'd rather they were there than not 

Without the police what do you think would happen?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Too any people aren't rehabilitated though - they go on to repeat their crime - I'm more on the side of the victim than the criminal



The single over-riding reason (this isn't my opinion, by the way, it's researched fact - researched by the Home Office, and by NACRO) that rehabilitation fails, is because it's not seriously applied.
In a prison *every* program an inmate undertakes is dependant on the authorities (in this case the governor) sanctioning and funding it. That applies to everything to literacy training, to anger management classes, to Sex Offender Treatment Programmes, to general prison education for those who are already literate.
Have a guess what's the first thing to suffer when budgets come under scrutiny?

Add to that the issues around actually providing prison officers as "security" staff for most of these activities, and the major reason for non-rehabilitation isn't down to inmates not wanting to change, it's down to institutional obstacles, however much the media try to paint it otherwise.



> if a murderer is released and murders again, the people who released him should go to prison imo - there is no penalty for getting something so important wrong so this is an error in the system



Hmmm, you're simplifying a rare but complex social occurrence into an a/b dichotomy that can see innocent people imprisoned for making an error of judgement that may have all sorts of causes other than human error.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> <snip> Without the police what do you think would happen?


More or less the same as currently happens - most people would continue to do the right thing as they understand it.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The single over-riding reason (this isn't my opinion, by the way, it's researched fact - researched by the Home Office, and by NACRO) that rehabilitation fails, is because it's not seriously applied.
> In a prison *every* program an inmate undertakes is dependant on the authorities (in this case the governor) sanctioning and funding it. That applies to everything to literacy training, to anger management classes, to Sex Offender Treatment Programmes, to general prison education for those who are already literate.
> Have a guess what's the first thing to suffer when budgets come under scrutiny?
> 
> ...



I've worked in a hostel for homeless ex offenders in an admin role and a lot of the time they didn't help themselves.  I don't know what the solution is but from my own point of view they get far to many chances and keep f-king it up without putting any effort in.  

It's easy to say they should not be dealt with harshly but what if you are the parent who keeps having to bail them out because they spend all their benefits on anything but their rent?  this was a common theme and debts were continually being written off after people left.  This is what happens when you pander to people too much.

A certain percentage of criminals are never going to improve/be rehabilitated because they don't want to or are incapable of it


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Greebo said:


> More or less the same as currently happens - most people would continue to do the right thing as they understand it.



Nope

there would be breakdown of society - riots 

think about it


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I haven't read it
> 
> No one person can have all the answers
> 
> ...



Dalrymple is as big a fairy-tale teller as Philips.  All that stuff he used to write from his perspective as a prison doctor?  He used to work one day a week at his local open nick, doing a "lumps and bumps" clinic, burning off warts and removing sebacceous cysts etc. 
I've never given a sod for his politics - I *expect* doctors of his age to be right-wing - but I *know* (because I worked for the department that contracted him to do his one day a week at an *open* nick) that a lot of his stories about meeting this or that criminal -  whose attitudes always handily reflected Dalrymple's own social prejudices - were exaggerations.  How do I know?  Because back when Dalrymple wrote for _The Spectator_, a friend cross-referenced his _Spectator_ stories of the time with the past inmate population at the prison Dalrymple worked at. A majority of his stories didn't check out.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Nope
> 
> there would be breakdown of society - riots <snip>


I don't need to think about it, I've seen it.  Even the last time that riots broke out in London, the majority of people didn't take part.

Some of them stayed away out of fear of getting caught, but more of them just didn't see what was to be gained from breaking shop windows and taking a pair of trainers etc when the people responsible for the mess this country's in are bankers and politicians.

BTW I realise that's simplistic, some of the more localised rioting was a result of incredibly bad local policing - far too heavy handed if anything.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I've worked in a hostel for homeless ex offenders in an admin role and a lot of the time they didn't help themselves.  I don't know what the solution is but from my own point of view they get far to many chances and keep f-king it up without putting any effort in.
> 
> It's easy to say they should not be dealt with harshly but what if you are the parent who keeps having to bail them out because they spend all their benefits on anything but their rent?  this was a common theme and debts were continually being written off after people left.  This is what happens when you pander to people too much.
> 
> A certain percentage of criminals are never going to improve/be rehabilitated because they don't want to or are incapable of it



I'm not saying people shouldn't be dealt with, or that they should be given endless chances.  I'm saying, very simply, that *if* rehabilitation was actually applied to the degree it is supposed to be in prisons, then the reoffending rate would be lower.  How do I know?  Because experiments where rehabilitation *has* been applied to the degree that is legislated, managed to reduce reoffending from between 65-70% to 40-45% in the five years after release.
HMIP (Her Majesty's Inspectorate for Prisons) have repeatedly produced research and data showing that rehabilitation works *if* it is funded, but guess what's always the first victim of budget cuts?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Dalrymple is as big a fairy-tale teller as Philips.  All that stuff he used to write from his perspective as a prison doctor?  He used to work one day a week at his local open nick, doing a "lumps and bumps" clinic, burning off warts and removing sebacceous cysts etc.
> I've never given a sod for his politics - I *expect* doctors of his age to be right-wing - but I *know* (because I worked for the department that contracted him to do his one day a week at an *open* nick) that a lot of his stories about meeting this or that criminal -  whose attitudes always handily reflected Dalrymple's own social prejudices - were exaggerations.  How do I know?  Because back when Dalrymple wrote for _The Spectator_, a friend cross-referenced his _Spectator_ stories of the time with the past inmate population at the prison Dalrymple worked at. A majority of his stories didn't check out.



He doesn't say anything people don't already know about though in my opinion - he just makes you feel Thank God it's not just me thinking this way about society.
If it's s heretical way to think - as it undoubtedly is in today's society, that isn't going to make me not think it.  People like him make me realise there are others who think like me so I feel better about it.  Writers often take the issues that occur with real people and make them into an amalgam so as to nto make the person recognisable and betray their confidence.  So the issues are real, just not the specific person - that could be what he did or he could be writing abotu previous times.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Greebo said:


> I don't need to think about it, I've seen it.  Even the last time that riots broke out in London, the majority of people didn't take part.
> 
> Some of them stayed away out of fear of getting caught, but more of them just didn't see what was to be gained from breaking shop windows and taking a pair of trainers etc when the people responsible for the mess this country's in are bankers and politicians.
> 
> BTW I realise that's simplistic, some of the more localised rioting was a result of incredibly bad local policing - far too heavy handed if anything.



A large number did take part though and look at the havoc they wreaked

with no police at all it would snowball

what would there be to stop anyone doing what they liked?

you blame bad policing - I am talking about if there was NO policing

it would undoubtedly be a lot worse

people with nothing would take what they wanted from people who had stuff


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not saying people shouldn't be dealt with, or that they should be given endless chances.  I'm saying, very simply, that *if* rehabilitation was actually applied to the degree it is supposed to be in prisons, then the reoffending rate would be lower.  How do I know?  Because experiments where rehabilitation *has* been applied to the degree that is legislated, managed to reduce reoffending from between 65-70% to 40-45% in the five years after release.
> HMIP (Her Majesty's Inspectorate for Prisons) have repeatedly produced research and data showing that rehabilitation works *if* it is funded, but guess what's always the first victim of budget cuts?



Well you won't find many people who think criminals should be first in the queue for funding

funding for mental health services goes into the criminal justice system far more than it does for the average person

there is a mental health team specifically for the criminal justice system in my town but nothing for people with Aspergers hence we can see who is the priority

if I committed a crime tomorrow I'd get a lot more help than I get now, which is precisely nothing - just tablets


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> But if we look at us having to have the existence of the police to prevent people committing crime ( up to a point)



The Police don't exist to prevent people committing crimes, they exist to *police* crimes that have been committed.



> - that is an example of authoritarianism working - I'd rather they were there than not



It's no example of anything.
Police Services don't "work" as a method of controlling crime, let alone preventing it.  Crime still happens, with or without police services, especially what we might term the "crimes of the powerful", where corrupt businesses and politicians don't get held to account, but shoplifters and pickpockets do.
Police Services are apparatus for social control, pure and simple.  They're walking their beat not to keep the majority safe, but to keep a minority safe from the majority.  Defence of privilege.



> Without the police what do you think would happen?



What happened before police services came into existence 170 years ago?
Mostly, people policed themselves with regard to minor crimes, and an *elected* local constable dealt with those minor crimes that required something more than just, for example, the return of stolen property.  Most localities had a small gaol for short-term imprisonment for wife-beaters and vandals.  More serious crimes were remitted to the local magistrate for disposition.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Police don't exist to prevent people committing crimes, they exist to *police* crimes that have been committed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have a touching faith in human nature

part of the police's role is to prevent the breakdown of law and order

the riots gave a taste of what would happen without the police's existence

I'm highly relieved they are there and would not want to take my chances with just my fellow humans and no police

Any form of jail, imprisonment or magistrate-based system is back into authoritarian territory ie proves the worth of it

and what is a constable if not a form of policeman?   whether he's elected or not he's being elected to have authority over others


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> A large number did take part though and look at the havoc they wreaked
> 
> with no police at all it would snowball
> 
> what would there be to stop anyone doing what they liked? <snip>


You sound like the exwife of a policeman who used to post here.  Who (or what) stops you doing bad things when a policman's not looking over your shoulder?

If you're able to resist the temptation to do things which you know are wrong (and seriously wrong, not just having an extra biscuit or being impolite to a coldcaller), what makes you think that the majority of other people lack similar self restraint?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Greebo said:


> You sound like the exwife of a policeman who used to post here.  Who (or what) stops you doing bad things when a policman's not looking over your shoulder?
> 
> If you're able to resist the temptation to do things which you know are wrong (and seriously wrong, not just having an extra biscuit or being impolite to a coldcaller), what makes you think that the majority of other people lack similar self restraint?



Enough people are of a criminal mindset for there to be major problems and peoples' tendency to go with what the majority are doing would also pull in people who werent previously criminal - it would tip the balance

I'm not the average person and if people were rampaging and looting and there were no shops running to buy stuff I'd probably end up having to get food illegally if it was an alternative to starving ie if society broke down we would all be in a mess and just having to survive 

we need order and authority


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

NoXion said:


> Except that history is pretty plain on the subject that more authoritarian societies have more corruption, crime and unfairness overall than less authoritarian societies.



Yep. "Closed societies" provide greater opportunity, and less external accountability, something made extremely apparent by the governance of the City of London, whose control of "the square mile" is authoritarian, and more corrupt than Dorian Grey's portrait.




> None of which requires more authoritarianism, just better assessments of criminality and better ways of dealing with criminals. Rehabilitation has a chance of reforming people, locking them up forever like animals doesn't.



Unfortunately, politicians being politicians, they don't like sending messages that might be read as "soft on crime", so long-term social stability is constantly sacrificed on the altar of short-term political expediency, and the whole criminal justice cycle is perpetuated.  I've often asked myself "who benefits?", and the answer never changes:  Those in power benefit, while we (the powerless) get left to pick up the pieces.



> You can also nip things in the bud by shaping society so that people don't commit so many crimes in the first place.



Although people are wary (thank fuck) of social engineering, there is something to be said for situational crime prevention, but for me that doesn't just mean designing out architectural flaws where they facilitate crime, it means changing how people view crime, so that they examine what causes crime, as well as examining crime itself.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

Round and round we go.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

Troll or not, this is getting really fucking disruptive.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Maxine Carr is not a public figure.



While she is a "public figure" by virtue of having been thrust "into the limelight" because of Soham, she's certainly not a "public figure" in the same context as the "politicians, capitalists, journalists, television presenters, publicists etc?" that tim mentions.  They all *chose* that role.  She did not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Round and round we go.



And where we stop, no-one knows...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Why would I get banged up?



Because in an authoritarian state, the first people to be scapegoated for the sins of the majority are usually those people who are "different".  The behaviour of the Department of Work and Pensions against disabled people is a fine illustration of this tendency.

*You* are self-professedly different, which makes you a prime candidate for state victimisation if the state is allowed to become even more authoritarian than it already is.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> While she is a "public figure" by virtue of having been thrust "into the limelight" because of Soham, she's certainly not a "public figure" in the same context as the "politicians, capitalists, journalists, television presenters, publicists etc?" that tim mentions.  They all *chose* that role.  She did not.



You don't choose to become a public figure - if what you do generates sufficient public interest/sells newspapers, it just happens


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because in an authoritarian state, the first people to be scapegoated for the sins of the majority are usually those people who are "different".  The behaviour of the Department of Work and Pensions against disabled people is a fine illustration of this tendency.
> 
> *You* are self-professedly different, which makes you a prime candidate for state victimisation if the state is allowed to become even more authoritarian than it already is.



Off topic!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> At least we've found some common ground between wells and nessa. The former wants to ban papers and views he doesn't agree with or like and the latter supports benign authoritarianism. The sort that bans papers.



"Benign authoritarianism".  That rings a bell!


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Benign authoritarianism".  That rings a bell!



Off topic


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> You don't choose to become a public figure - if what you do generates sufficient public interest/sells newspapers, it just happens



So you don't "choose" to do a job that puts you in the spotlight, it "just happens"?  I'm not sure you appreciate the extent to which doing even low-grade journalism etc is a choice to put yourself up for public consumption. Nothing "just happens", it's all about choice, and about benefitting from your choices.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Enough people are of a criminal mindset for there to be major problems and peoples' tendency to go with what the majority are doing would also pull in people who werent previously criminal - it would tip the balance <snip>


What exactly do you base this on?

In the last lot of riots, people who took part were neither starving, nor homeless, they were angry about the bad behaviour of the police in their area.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

xenon said:


> you've stated a few times that you feel angry a times and feel you're going to some effort to restrain yourself from committing acts of aggression. How do you think you'd fare in an authoritarian state? What do you think would happen if your thoughts and actions are deamed dangerous or potentially so by the authorities in this state that has a better grip on things?



Well, the usual route for aggressive people under authoritarianism, is to become part of the system, so that their aggression is *sanctioned* aggression.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 1, 2014)

VP why are you bothering?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

rioted said:


> Some people have mental health issues, some people are just plain, nasty, vindictive arseholes. Not difficult choosing which is which in this exchange. If you can't help, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Tosser.



For someone so anti-authority, don't you think you play thread cop a little too often?
Perhaps you're letting your personal animosity get in the way?

Again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> VP why are you bothering?



I'm an eternal optimist.
Hell, I even believe that butchersapron can be saved from the fiery pit! 

Not Pickman's model though.  He's definitely going to meet Cthulhu once he pops his clogs.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you don't "choose" to do a job that puts you in the spotlight, it "just happens"?  I'm not sure you appreciate the extent to which doing even low-grade journalism etc is a choice to put yourself up for public consumption. Nothing "just happens", it's all about choice, and about benefitting from your choices.



I thought we were talking about Maxine Carr

she had no choice in whether she became a public figure but she did by dint of her involvement with Ian Huntley


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> For someone so anti-authority, don't you think you play thread cop a little too often?
> Perhaps you're letting your personal animosity get in the way?
> 
> Again.



so is this off topic?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> VP why are you bothering?



isn't this disruptive and off topic?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Troll or not, this is getting really fucking disruptive.



off topic I think ie doing what you accuse others of doing


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> They've admitted a lot of crime isn't even recorded or not recorded accurately so I'm suspicious about the stats



Given the above, why do you believe that the police are a worthwhile social institution - purely because of their social control function, perhaps?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm an eternal optimist.
> Hell, I even believe that butchersapron can be saved from the fiery pit!
> 
> Not Pickman's model though.  He's definitely going to meet Cthulhu once he pops his clogs.



Off topic I believe

So it seems hardly anyone is discussing the thread topic so don't blame just me for it


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Given the above, why do you believe that the police are a worthwhile social institution - purely because of their social control function, perhaps?



I believe that would be off topic


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> isn't this disruptive and off topic?



Isn't constantly vomiting forth "off topic" comments, disruptive and off topic?


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> isn't this disruptive and off topic?


Your mum etc


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Isn't constantly vomiting forth "off topic" comments, diruptive and off topic?



Isn't that what others keep doing when I post?

funny how they dont' get picked up on it though


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> Your mum etc



to quote spineynorman

"Troll or not, this is getting really fucking disruptive."


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 1, 2014)




----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

hmmm funny how the thread grinds to a halt when I stop talking


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

tim said:


> I agree with him on trains!



What about when you're on a bus, or standing on the pavement?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> VP why are you bothering?


Because he can.

And because somebody on the internet is wrong.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


>



say something intelligent about the thread topic then


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Benign authoritarianism".  That rings a bell!


Heinlein among others.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> say something intelligent about the thread topic then


This thread's all about you now


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> This thread's all about you now



off topic - stop disrupting the thread


----------



## NoXion (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Off topic!



You haven't got a leg to to stand on in this respect, no more than the rest of us.

Perhaps instead of avoiding the issue, you could explain why you think a self-professedly different person such as yourself would be immune to the clutches of authoritarianism you espouse?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

NoXion said:


> You haven't got a leg to to stand on in this respect, no more than the rest of us.
> 
> Perhaps instead of avoiding the issue, you could explain why you think a self-professedly different person such as yourself would be immune to the clutches of authoritarianism you espouse?



I might if people would stop saying I'm making this thread about me


----------



## yardbird (Jun 1, 2014)

I've pretty much avoided this thread since it took the turn away from discussing Maxine Carr and climbed up it's own arse.
I'll check back.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 1, 2014)

If Carr could achieve the anonymity in real life that she has achieved on this thread, I think we'd all be happy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Turkey?



I prefer chicken or goose, thanks all the same.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> things go *wrong* when people turn against me



Do they?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> the ego is the brain
> 
> well I prefer not to take the risk with illegal drugs as my brain is bad enough already



Ego is mind. Ego is an artifact of cosciousness, not an artifact of having a brain.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> SKUNK STOLE MY SANITY AND MY VISA CARD



Badgers stole mine!


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

NoXion said:


> You haven't got a leg to to stand on in this respect, no more than the rest of us.
> 
> Perhaps instead of avoiding the issue, you could explain why you think a self-professedly different person such as yourself would be immune to the clutches of authoritarianism you espouse?



I am not likely to cause trouble

I differ in how I think more than how I act


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> He doesn't say anything people don't already know about though in my opinion - he just makes you feel Thank God it's not just me thinking this way about society.
> If it's s heretical way to think - as it undoubtedly is in today's society, that isn't going to make me not think it.



It's hardly heretical.  It's far too obvious to be heretical.  What Dalrymple farts out is basically just another version of "political correctness", only it's a version designed by old farts like Dalrymple, Rod Liddle _et al_, rather than by lefties.  it's about as heretical as a picture of a kitten.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> A large number did take part though and look at the havoc they wreaked



"A large number" = a couple of thousand people nationwide out of a population of upward of 60 million.



> with no police at all it would snowball
> 
> what would there be to stop anyone doing what they liked?



A little thing called self-control, and understanding what's best for us as individuals and communities.



> you blame bad policing - I am talking about if there was NO policing



No, you're talking about if there were no POLICE.  Different thing.  The majority of people would still police themselves in such situations.  History provides us with countless examples of that.



> it would undoubtedly be a lot worse
> 
> people with nothing would take what they wanted from people who had stuff



And yet the majority of people with nothing, *don't* take what they want from people who have stuff, they just go on with their lives.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> "A large number" = a couple of thousand people nationwide out of a population of upward of 60 million.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"you blame bad policing - I am talking about if there was NO policing" - I said that - you appear to have posted what i said as your own line

people are kept in check by the presence of the police; without them they would revert to savagery imo

people do take stuff from others as well so you are ignoring the crime that does occur - why does this happen at all if people are as wonderfully self controlled as you maintain?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Well you won't find many people who think criminals should be first in the queue for funding



Won't I?
I obviously won't find many politicians or right-wing pundits who think that, but they're not exactly "many people"< are they?  They're more of a vocal minority of self-serving gobshites.



> funding for mental health services goes into the criminal justice system far more than it does for the average person
> 
> there is a mental health team specifically for the criminal justice system in my town but nothing for people with Aspergers hence we can see who is the priority



because, of course, single instances are ALWAYS extrapolatable into national trends! 



> if I committed a crime tomorrow I'd get a lot more help than I get now, which is precisely nothing - just tablets



If that really is the case, then what are you waiting for?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> off topic I think ie doing what you accuse others of doing



We really are through the fucking rabbit hole now.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's hardly heretical.  It's far too obvious to be heretical.  What Dalrymple farts out is basically just another version of "political correctness", only it's a version designed by old farts like Dalrymple, Rod Liddle _et al_, rather than by lefties.  it's about as heretical as a picture of a kitten.



do you even know what heretical means?

this is an exercise in you blithely contradicting everything I say, whatever I say and thinking you're superior for doing it

you are an idiot basically

a wind bag full of hot air 

you love the sound of your own voice and it's both predictable and incredibly tedious

tell me again how evil the right are - it's schoolboy stuff


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> We really are through the fucking rabbit hole now.



oh are we

do you have anything even remotely interesting to say?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Because the quality of the help makes it not worth having in answer to why I don't commit a crime to get the mental health support available


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

I could tell you the stories about me getting thrown out of classes at school for farting? (There's three of those)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm an eternal optimist.
> Hell, I even believe that butchersapron can be saved from the fiery pit!
> 
> Not Pickman's model though.  He's definitely going to meet Cthulhu once he pops his clogs.


i hope you meet cthulhu before you pop *your* clogs


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I could tell you the stories about me getting thrown out of classes at school for farting? (There's three of those)



so it's fine for you to take the thread off topic I see with your boring stories about farting


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> so it's fine for you to take the thread off topic I see with your boring stories about farting



Why was it an "honour" for you when I posted the RHCP youtube clip?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> For someone so anti-authority, don't you think you play thread cop a little too often?
> Perhaps you're letting your personal animosity get in the way?
> 
> Again.


Reading these threads with a poster like nessa, there are two possibilities - they're genuine; or they're not. If not, they're trolling. If yes, they're someone dealing with a problem.

What often happens is they are viewed as and treated as trolls, which means delighted baiting. Which, if it's someone trolling, is no harm no foul.

But if they're genuine, then giving them the troll treatment might mean a worsening of their problems.

As a rule, posters here are pretty alive to and considerate of psychological problems in general. I don't understand acting toward someone in this way if there's no downside to not doing it, and not taking that risk.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Why was it an "honour" for you when I posted the RHCP youtube clip?



I don't know what RHCP means


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I don't know what RHCP means



You don't remember? The other evening...discussing local politics in Wolverhampton? Red Hot Chilli Peppers.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Reading these threads with a poster like nessa, there are two possibilities - they're genuine; or they're not. If not, they're trolling. If yes, they're someone dealing with a problem.
> 
> What often happens is they are viewed as and treated as trolls, which means delighted baiting. Which, if it's someone trolling, is no harm no foul.
> 
> ...



when people are obnoxious to me I give it back - I think you'd probably do the same

I have a different political viewpoint to the majority on here 

that doesn't mean there's anything 'wrong' with my viewpoint, just that it differs

as usual though people act in an ignorant tribal manner and have to run the offender out of town

I'd hate to be that much of a crowd-following idiot

pitchforks at dawn anyone?

and you lot think you're progressive do you?

you sound the most intelligent one on here


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You don't remember? The other evening...discussing local politics in Wolverhampton? Red Hot Chilli Peppers.



well it was another boring troll reference wasnt it so I was being sarcastic


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> well it was another boring troll reference wasnt it so I was being sarcastic



You were familiar with the reference, then?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You were familiar with the reference, then?



who wouldn't be?

what are you trying to prove exactly??

is there a blood test for being a troll that you'd like me to take

whenever any person uses the word 'troll' I write them off as an idiot and am rarely proved wrong

do you have anything at all to say as regards the thread topic because if not you're disrupting the thread


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> who wouldn't be?
> 
> what are you trying to prove exactly??
> 
> ...


Nessa, come on, you haven't had anything to say on the actual thread topic for a good 20 pages now. You can't have a go at people for something you're already doing.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> who wouldn't be?
> 
> what are you trying to prove exactly??
> 
> ...




No need for blood....





> things go *wrong* when people turn against me


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Nessa, come on, you haven't had anything to say on the actual thread topic for a good 20 pages now. You can't have a go at people for something you're already doing.



I did actually - post 995, so that is incorrect

I love the way people have a very negligible relationship with the facts on here

must be all the drugs...


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> No need for blood....



are you an anarchist then?

how strange for a person advocating anarchy to not like the rules being broken

hilarious even


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

Okay let's move on to something else.

I don't quite understand what the press are and aren't allowed to disclose in these cases post-release. In the case of Mary Bell, it seemed like reporters ust got wind of her address and were allowed to go to town on it.

How does it work?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> are you an anarchist then?
> 
> how strange for a person advocating anarchy to not like the rules being broken
> 
> hilarious even



Rules? Broken? Who did?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Rules? Broken? Who did?



Hey I asked a question. Can we forget all the sideshow now?

Good chance to go back to the OP.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Okay let's move on to something else.
> 
> I don't quite understand what the press are and aren't allowed to disclose in these cases post-release. In the case of Mary Bell, it seemed like reporters ust got wind of her address and were allowed to go to town on it.
> 
> How does it work?


I'm not 100% sure but it might depend on whether or not there's an injunction in place on revealing information. Usually these apply to those underage though. 

From the wikipedia article about Mary Bell:


> Bell's daughter's anonymity was originally protected only until she reached the age of 18. However, on 21 May 2003, Bell won a High Court battle to have her own anonymity and that of her daughter extended for life. Any court order permanently protecting the identity of a convict in Britain is consequently sometimes known as a "Mary Bell order."


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I'm not 100% sure but it might depend on whether or not there's an injunction in place on revealing information. Usually these apply to those underage though.
> 
> From the wikipedia article about Mary Bell:



It's a little half-hearted if you don't put measures in place to protect people for life, is it not?


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> It's a little half-hearted if you don't put measures in place to protect people for life, is it not?


I think the courts tend to look at things on a case by case basis.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jun 1, 2014)

This is good going. So, which returnee is nessa, then?


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I'm not 100% sure but it might depend on whether or not there's an injunction in place on revealing information. Usually these apply to those underage though.
> 
> From the wikipedia article about Mary Bell:


Maxine Carr is one of only four "Mary Bell Orders" in the country according to this (the others being Venable, Thompson and Bell herself):

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/02/maxine-carr-no-ghoul-we-are


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> This is good going. So, which returnee is nessa, then?



Ah, that's finished now. Don't stir it up.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Ah, that's finished now. Don't stir it up.


 Banned?


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2014)

Actually winds me up that anytime we get anyone a little troublesome in any sense round here that half the board thinks they must be a returnee or a troll. This site is open to the whole world after all. It's not that strange that someone genuinely new might want to come here and talk sometimes even if it isn't quite as 'trendy' as it was 12 years ago. I also think that there's fault on both sides in the direction this thread has taken, for a while at least nessa239 was making posts that didn't refer back to her inevitable persecution for being a free thinker all the time. Ok so it wasn't all on topic but what the fuck is around here?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Banned?



No, I decided to get ideas above my station and get everyone to stop fighting.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Banned?



no taking time to recover from being exposed to your breathtaking level of stupidity


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no taking time to recover from being exposed to your breathtaking level of stupidity


 
So who broke what rules, then?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

maomao said:


> Actually winds me up that anytime we get anyone a little troublesome in any sense round here that half the board thinks they must be a returnee or a troll. This site is open to the whole world after all. It's not that strange that someone genuinely new might want to come here and talk sometimes even if it isn't quite as 'trendy' as it was 12 years ago. I also think that there's fault on both sides in the direction this thread has taken, for a while at least nessa239 was making posts that didn't refer back to her inevitable persecution for being a free thinker all the time. Ok so it wasn't all on topic but what the fuck is around here?



Thanks for that; if I'd known this site was meant to be 'trendy' I'd have steered clear


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no taking time to recover from being exposed to your breathtaking level of stupidity



Hi Nessa. Give it a rest now eh? I thought we could move the thread on. What do you think of the right to anonymity in these cases?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> You have a touching faith in human nature



I have no faith whatsoever in "human nature", as I don't actually believe that such a thing exists. All "human nature" is, is an excuse trotted out by people trying to justify their own interests.
Sorry to disappoint!



> part of the police's role is to prevent the breakdown of law and order
> 
> the riots gave a taste of what would happen without the police's existence



No they didn't.  The original riots were a manifestation of resentment *against* policing, not a "breakdown of law and order", a breakdown of consent to being policed.



> I'm highly relieved they are there and would not want to take my chances with just my fellow humans and no police



I'd rather take my chances with my fellow humans. People tend to act instrumentally (i.e. for their own good) on the whole, whereas the police merely follow the orders of the powerful, even if that means acting illegally..



> Any form of jail, imprisonment or magistrate-based system is back into authoritarian territory ie proves the worth of it



You're talking bollocks.  Locally-led and adminsistrated law is consensual, not authoritarian, unless you don't have the foggiest what "authoritarianism" actually means!



> and what is a constable if not a form of policeman?   whether he's elected or not he's being elected to have authority over others



An elected constable is *given* authority over people *by* those people.  He isn't a policeman, he's a community servant in the way that a policeman - an employed operative of the state - can never be.
The fact that you can't grasp the difference between community-approved consensus "policing" and the work of a "police service" is a bit worrying.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> So who broke what rules, then?



presumably by calling someone a troll you are saying they are breaking the standard rules of posting or why else have the concept? - does your brain not stretch to working things out?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

Ah come on guys.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Hi Nessa. Give it a rest now eh? I thought we could move the thread on. What do you think of the right to anonymity in these cases?



I think it's a lot of money to spend on individuals and while you can have anonymity in terms of your name being changed etc you can't have it in terms of them being recognised

I'd feel worse trying to hide tbh as you'd never know when someone might recognise you

I'd prefer trying to find acceptance among ppl who knew who I was


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I have no faith whatsoever in "human nature", as I don't actually believe that such a thing exists. All "human nature" is, is an excuse trotted out by people trying to justify their own interests.
> Sorry to disappoint!
> 
> 
> ...



we're back on topic now


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> presumably by calling someone a troll you are saying they are breaking the standard rules of posting or why else have the concept? - does your brain not stretch to working things out?


Nessa, you're keen to stop everyone else from disrupting the thread so can you stop as well please?

What do you think about the rules of anonymity?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Because he can.
> 
> And because somebody on the internet is wrong.



Doh, why you! I oughta...!


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I think it's a lot of money to spend on individuals and while you can have anonymity in terms of your name being changed etc you can't have it in terms of them being recognised
> 
> I'd feel worse trying to hide tbh as you'd never know when someone might recognise you
> 
> I'd prefer trying to find acceptance among ppl who knew who I was



Okay cool. That's a good starting point for the debate to go from afresh. I'd be happy for the state to spend whatever it took in these rare and extreme cases.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 1, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Nessa, you're keen to stop everyone else from disrupting the thread so can you stop as well please?



Maybe direct that request at the other posters who keep asking  troll-bait etc type questions and comments.


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I think it's a lot of money to spend on individuals and while you can have anonymity in terms of your name being changed etc you can't have it in terms of them being recognised
> 
> I'd feel worse trying to hide tbh as you'd never know when someone might recognise you
> 
> I'd prefer trying to find acceptance among ppl who knew who I was



How does it cost money? A few faxes to the newspapers and broadcasters of the country. Hardly breaks the bank. I think the latest attempt by The Mail to stir up shit for someone who's served her time proves it's necessary.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> say something intelligent about the thread topic then



Practice what you preach.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Practice what you preach.



He has now.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

maomao said:


> How does it cost money? A few faxes to the newspapers and broadcasters of the country. Hardly breaks the bank. I think the latest attempt by The Mail to stir up shit for someone who's served her time proves it's necessary.



a new identity, location and constant policing to ensure that identity doesn't get compromised costs money; I don't know how much but it would be a fair amount

are peopel capable of posting without bringing the mail into it?

if it went out of circulation what would be your new object of hate? - you evidently need one

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6035505/The-criminals-new-lives-that-cost-us-millions.html

"Again the Ministry of Justice will not reveal how many people have been given new identities using the witness protection scheme but it is thought that some 3,000 have had new lives created for them. Estimates for how much this will cost vary, but it is believed that it will be up to £1 million per person."

"Among the most high-profile criminals who have received or applied for new identities is Maxine Carr, 31, the former girlfriend of Ian Huntley, the Soham murderer. She successfully argued that she had received ''real and immediate'' threats, based on little more than one letter in which the author said she would be shot. Tracie Andrews, 40, who was jailed for life in 1997 for stabbing partner Lee Harvey, 25, near their Alvechurch home and then tried to pin the murder on a phantom road-rage killer, is likely to be released in two years time. She has already had £5,000 worth of cosmetic surgery and told prison warders that she ''expects to go on a month-long holiday". One jailer said Andrews told her she wanted a new name, a house by the sea and a job, and wants the state to finance her re-introduction into society. Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, who murdered two-year-old James Bulger in 1993, and Mary Bell, who was just 11 when she was convicted for the manslaughter of two boys in 1968, have also been given new lives."


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> He has now.



She


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> She



Excuse me. That was rude and presumptious.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Excuse me. That was rude and presumptious.



it's ok


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> a new identity, location and constant policing to ensure that identity doesn't get compromised costs money; I don't know how much but it would b a fair amount



Nope, that's not what happens with injunctions of any kind. Faxes are sent out to newspapers and broadcasters, constant policing is not necessary either at the desks of journalists or anywhere near Ms Carr (which would rather draw attention to her identity). Her identity hasn't hit Twitter yet but it's more likely to come out there than anywhere else. Newspapers tend to obey injunctions.



> are peopel capable of posting without bringing the mail into it?
> 
> if it went out of circulation what would be your new object of hate? - you evidently need one



I normally post in defence of the Mail when people refer to them as some sort of establishment tool because I support the free press. I think this particular article, that the thread is about in the first place, is an example of The Mail's journalism at its worst.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

maomao said:


> Nope, that's not what happens with injunctions of any kind. Faxes are sent out to newspapers and broadcasters, constant policing is not necessary either at the desks of journalists or anywhere near Ms Carr (which would rather draw attention to her identity). Her identity hasn't hit Twitter yet but it's more likely to come out there than anywhere else. Newspapers tend to obey injunctions.
> 
> 
> 
> I normally post in defence of the Mail when people refer to them as some sort of establishment tool because I support the free press. I think this particular article, that the thread is about in the first place, is an example of The Mail's journalism at its worst.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6035505/The-criminals-new-lives-that-cost-us-millions.html

"Again the Ministry of Justice will not reveal how many people have been given new identities using the witness protection scheme but it is thought that some 3,000 have had new lives created for them. Estimates for how much this will cost vary, but it is believed that it will be up to £1 million per person."


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6035505/The-criminals-new-lives-that-cost-us-millions.html
> 
> "Again the Ministry of Justice will not reveal how many people have been given new identities using the witness protection scheme but it is thought that some 3,000 have had new lives created for them. Estimates for how much this will cost vary, but it is believed that it will be up to £1 million per person."


Rather vague estimate in the first place but our definitions of what constitutes a lot of money obviously varies quite a lot.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255608/Yet-250-000-new-identity-Jamie-Bulger-murderer.html

"One of the killers of James Bulger will have to be given a second new identity costing the taxpayer £250,000, it emerged today."


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

The "up to" is very revealing there nessa239 and the "it is believed" too. No source, no breakdown. We're left with no idea of the cost really.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

maomao said:


> Rather vague estimate in the first place but our definitions of what constitutes a lot of money obviously varies quite a lot.



if the MOJ won't reveal it, it's going to be vague by default I'd say

Any money spent on it is a lot imo if the person has committed a crime

many people think the person should just be left to take their chances


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> if the MOJ won't reveal it, it's going to be vague by default I'd say



That doesn't negate my point though.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> That doesn't negate my point though.



no but if the figures aren't made public knowledge no one is going to know are they - only estimates can be made


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 1, 2014)

maomao said:


> I normally post in defence of the Mail when people refer to them as some sort of establishment tool because I support the free press.



Tbf there's no inconsistency between thinking the _Mail_ is a vile, spiteful, lying, amoral rag that it'd be nice to see go bankrupt and accepting that we have to tolerate it.




nessa239 said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6035505/The-criminals-new-lives-that-cost-us-millions.html
> 
> "Again the Ministry of Justice will not reveal how many people have been given new identities using the witness protection scheme but it is thought that some 3,000 have had new lives created for them. Estimates for how much this will cost vary, but it is believed that it will be up to £1 million per person."



*Witness* protection scheme.  That should give some clue as to its main purpose, and nowhere in the _Torygraph_ article does it say that that 3,000 figure refers only to criminals.


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2014)

Also, reading down the article it's clear that the vast majority of the 3,00 people who've had new identities have been witnesses rather than criminals.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Tbf there's no inconsistency between thinking the _Mail_ is a vile, spiteful, lying, amoral rag that it'd be nice to see go bankrupt and accepting that we have to tolerate it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*"The criminals’ new lives that cost us millions"*

*that is the heading of the article *

*the Ministry of Justice will not reveal how many people have been given new identities using the witness protection scheme but it is thought that some 3,000 have had new lives created for them. Estimates for how much this will cost vary, but it is believed that it will be up to £1 million per person.*

the witness protection scheme is where they give the new identities, criminal or not


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Tbf there's no inconsistency between thinking the _Mail_ is a vile, spiteful, lying, amoral rag that it'd be nice to see go bankrupt and accepting that we have to tolerate it.



Hear hear.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> "you blame bad policing - I am talking about if there was NO policing" - I said that - you appear to have posted what i said as your own line



You presented the riots as an example of "no policing".  You were, as the saying goes, "chatting shit".



> people are kept in check by the presence of the police; without them they would revert to savagery imo



Your opinion is worthless, then, as in times when policing has been absent, people didn't devolve into a Hobbesian war of "everyone versus everyone", they co-operated for mutual aid as often as they fought for resources.  Your premise would have seen mankind eradicate itself before such institutions as police were even thought of.



> people do take stuff from others as well so you are ignoring the crime that does occur - why does this happen at all if people are as wonderfully self controlled as you maintain?



Thanks for yet again telling me that I've said something different to what I said, which was that a *majority* of people don't take stuff from others.
You're more than slightly dishonest, aren't you?


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> *"The criminals’ new lives that cost us millions"*
> 
> *that is the heading of the article *



And if you read down the article you find out that the vast majority of the cost is for witnesses in gangland murder trials and the like. You can ignore the content of the article but if you provide a link as evidence some people might just read the whole thing rather than just the headline.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

maomao said:


> Also, reading down the article it's clear that the vast majority of the 3,00 people who've had new identities have been witnesses rather than criminals.



and?

the cost still holds whoever it is

more so for a criminal I'd say - they usually get more attention than an innocent person

I think they should all come and live with the delightful people on this forum - Im sure you'd put up Baby Peter's killers wouldn't you?  they need love not anger dont they?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You presented the riots as an example of "no policing".  You were, as the saying goes, "chatting shit".
> 
> 
> 
> ...




you hated being described as you are didnt you?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

Bah. I tried. Fight all you like you wankers.


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> *"The criminals’ new lives that cost us millions"*
> 
> *that is the heading of the article *



Yet it starts by giving the example of Danielle Cable, and the bit you quoted says:



> The fact is, however, that it is not. Again the Ministry of Justice will not reveal how many people have been given new identities using the witness protection scheme but it is thought that some 3,000 have had new lives created for them. Estimates for how much this will cost vary, but it is believed that it will be up to £1 million per person.



... which doesn't only refer to criminals.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

maomao said:


> And if you read down the article you find out that the vast majority of the cost is for witnesses in gangland murder trials and the like. You can ignore the content of the article but if you provide a link as evidence some people might just read the whole thing rather than just the headline.



new identity is new identity whoever it is


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Bah. I tried. Fight all you like you wankers.



tried to do what?  prove you are right and im wrong?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Yet it starts by giving the example of Danielle Cable, and the bit you quoted says:
> 
> 
> 
> ... which doesn't only refer to criminals.



er we know!

so even more money being spent

a lot


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> do you even know what heretical means?



yes, it means "against the orthodoxy"



> this is an exercise in you blithely contradicting everything I say, whatever I say and thinking you're superior for doing it
> 
> you are an idiot basically
> 
> ...



Translation: "I can't argue with you on rational or logical grounds, so I'll call you names instead". 

I don't believe that I'm superior to you. What I do believe is that you're unable to marshall a coherent argument.



> tell me again how evil the right are - it's schoolboy stuff



I haven't said they're evil, I've said they're no different to the people they sound off about.

Try harder, eh?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> yes, it means "against the orthodoxy"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm doing fine thanks 

you arent even capable of debating the thread topic


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> new identity is new identity whoever it is


You think Danielle Cable who testified against Kenneth Noye, a horrible scumbag who needed locking up, doesn't need help avoiding a bullet in the head?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i hope you meet cthulhu before you pop *your* clogs



Already have, in the Vale of Dreams.

Yog-Sothoth, too, neophyte!


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> er we know!
> 
> so even more money being spent
> 
> a lot



"we"


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> so it's fine for you to take the thread off topic I see with your boring stories about farting


Yes. And they're not boring (for example, on one occasion I was told to go to the headmaster's office - his name was Mr. Blowers - that is not boring, it is funny).


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Bah. I tried. Fight all you like you wankers.


We're not fighting, we're arguing. There is a clear topic, we're taking positions and arguing about them. Surely that's the point?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

maomao said:


> You think Danielle Cable who testified against Kenneth Noye, a horrible scumbag who needed locking up, doesn't need help avoiding a bullet in the head?



I didn't say that

people were saying they didn't think it would cost much to give Maxine Carr a new identity - I thought it would cost a lot and seems it probably does

people just want to say you're wrong all the time on here and it's gets very tedious

I provided links to articles indicating it costs a lot

no one has yet provided links to any articles saying it doesn't cost much so so far I've provided more evidence to back up my premise than others

don't let that stop you saying Im wrong though as it doesn't seem to be related to facts


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes. And they're not boring (for example, on one occasion I was told to go to the headmaster's office - his name was Mr. Blowers - that is not boring, it is funny).



it's boring to me but I can see it being hilarious to others on here


----------



## cesare (Jun 1, 2014)

maomao said:


> You think Danielle Cable who testified against Kenneth Noye, a horrible scumbag who needed locking up, doesn't need help avoiding a bullet in the head?


Wasn't she the gf of the bloke that Kenneth Noye murdered at the Swanley Interchange? I was just thinking about that because of that road rage thread that was started earlier.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> are you an anarchist then?
> 
> how strange for a person advocating anarchy to not like the rules being broken
> 
> hilarious even



You're assuming he's an anarchist, *and* you're assuming that "anarchy" and "anarchism" are the same thing.  You have all the logical ability of a flatworm.

(with sincere apologies to all flatworms, everywhere)


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

maomao said:


> We're not fighting, we're arguing. There is a clear topic, we're taking positions and arguing about them. Surely that's the point?



I meant the name-calling. I'm not entitled to tell people what to do though so fine. I thought I'd try and get the thread back on topic as an experiment.


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I didn't say that
> 
> people were saying they didn't think it would cost much to give Maxine Carr a new identity - I thought it would cost a lot and seems it probably does
> 
> people just want to say you're wrong all the time on here and it's gets very tedious


Quarter of a mil for Venables according to The Mail. Telegraph far too vague to give a figure. Figure probably includes wages of people like police who were turning up to work that day anyway. Doesn't sound like a terrible amount of money for a state with a budget of over 700 billion.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're assuming he's an anarchist, *and* you're assuming that "anarchy" and "anarchism" are the same thing.  You have all the logical ability of a flatworm.



it's a reasonable presumption I'd say

I asked if he was but as per usual a straightforward answer wasnt forthcoming

being straightforward isnt cool is it?

my logic is better than yours

you delight in being a twat


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2014)

cesare said:


> Wasn't she the gf of the bloke that Kenneth Noye murdered at the Swanley Interchange?



Yes, Stephen Cameron.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

maomao said:


> Quarter of a mil for Venables according to The Mail. Telegraph far too vague to give a figure. Figure probably includes wages of people like police who were turning up to work that day anyway. Doesn't sound like a terrible amount of money for a state with a budget of over 700 billion.



it's a lot of money imo

it's going to depend on the individual

id rather not pay to defend criminals of the likes of Venables and Baby P's killers - they deserve all they get imo


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> I meant the name-calling. I'm not entitled to tell people what to do though so fine. I thought I'd try and get the thread back on topic as an experiment.



it is on topic imo


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Okay let's move on to something else.
> 
> I don't quite understand what the press are and aren't allowed to disclose in these cases post-release. In the case of Mary Bell, it seemed like reporters ust got wind of her address and were allowed to go to town on it.
> 
> How does it work?



legislation protective of ex-offenders (when I say "ex-offenders", obviously I mean the _hoi-polloi_, rather than yer actual "white collar" types) has only evolved very slowly over time, and has always been heavily resisted by the media.  In the case of Mary Bell, legislation had to be re-formulated (in fact pretty much rewritten) in light of her case, and even then, when Mary Bell orders have been made subsequent to that, the media (or elements of it) have always done their best to challenge the orders right up to the point of injunction and the courts.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> it's boring to me but I can see it being hilarious to others on here



That is because you are wrong about what is funny and what is not.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> That is because you are wrong about what is funny and what is not.



humour is subjective amazingly enough


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

maomao said:


> Maxine Carr is one of only four "Mary Bell Orders" in the country according to this (the others being Venable, Thompson and Bell herself):
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/02/maxine-carr-no-ghoul-we-are



Yep. So-called Mary Bell Orders have been used very sparsely, and only in cases where the authorities believe that both public safety and the safety of the individual will be compromised.
Compromised by who, though?  Yep, primarily the media.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. So-called Mary Bell Orders have been used very sparsely, and only in cases where the authorities believe that both public safety and the safety of the individual will be compromised.
> Compromised by who, though?  Yep, primarily the media.



the public too; they would be the ones to tip off the media

I doubt journalists go round searching for these criminals - they rely on the public looking for money for outing them


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Ah come on guys.



Your inner hippy is showing again, maaaan!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> humour is subjective amazingly enough



In which case you're amazingly wrong. You really should stop being wrong all the time.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> it's a reasonable presumption I'd say
> 
> I asked if he was but as per usual a straightforward answer wasnt forthcoming



Reasonable presumption = you read an avatar.

The only logical basis for implying such 'hypocrisy' is that you accept that your motive is to troll.



> my logic is better than yours


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> In which case you're amazingly wrong.



why is it so important to you for me to be wrong?  it's disturbing


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> it's a lot of money imo
> 
> it's going to depend on the individual
> 
> id rather not pay to defend criminals of the likes of Venables and Baby P's killers - they deserve all they get imo


To be fair, the Bulger killers were children themselves so a new identity entirely justified (been even better if they'd not made their identities public, then it would never been needed - that's an aside).

Baby P killers (I don't know anything about this) different case entirely.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> why is it so important to you for me to be wrong?  it's disturbing



It's not important that you're wrong. That doesn't stop you being wrong though.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Reasonable presumption = you read an avatar.
> 
> The only logical basis for implying such 'hypocrisy' is that you accept that your motive is to troll.



so are you an anarchist or not?

did you just post it on your avatar to look cool and know nothing about anarchism at all?

try answering a straightforward question or don't anarchists do that?

how is it hypocrisy to assume you're an anarchist because you have it on your avatar??

so it's all a load of nonsensical bullshit is it?  makes sense


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> the public too; they would be the ones to tip off the media
> 
> I doubt journalists go round searching for these criminals - they rely on the public looking for money for outing them



You're putting the cart before the horse.  Most people wouldn't pursue someone unless they knew there was money in it.  No-one would have known Mary Bell from Adam (or Eve) after she left prison, if it hadn't been for the media, same with Venables and Thompson.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's not important that you're wrong. That doesn't stop you being wrong though.



in your opinion


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're putting the cart before the horse.  Most people wouldn't pursue someone unless they knew there was money in it.  No-one would have known Mary Bell from Adam (or Eve) after she left prison, if it hadn't been for the media, same with Venables and Thompson.



people found out their identities

with things like facebook these days word would go round very fast

are you kidding that no one would have known Thompson or Venables??


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> in your opinion



In my opinion, which happens to be right whereas yours is wrong.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I doubt journalists go round searching for these criminals - they rely on the public looking for money for outing them


This is the media that listens to murdered children's voicemails. Of course they go looking for them. It's well documented that they do. If you genuinely believe that, it seriously damages your credibility in terms of understanding the issue.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're putting the cart before the horse.  Most people wouldn't pursue someone unless they knew there was money in it.  No-one would have known Mary Bell from Adam (or Eve) after she left prison, if it hadn't been for the media, same with Venables and Thompson.


I'm not sure you can blame the media really. They're going to do what they're going to do. I'd more blame the law that didn't grant anonymity.


----------



## Manter (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> I meant the name-calling. I'm not entitled to tell people what to do though so fine. I thought I'd try and get the thread back on topic as an experiment.


It was a valiant effort.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> so are you an anarchist or not?
> 
> did you just post it on your avatar to look cool and know nothing about anarchism at all?
> 
> try and answering a straightforward question or don't anarchists do that?



OK, so I'm an anarchist...and that makes it somehow wrong to say that you are trolling?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/27/jon-venables-tweet-suspended-jail-term

someone tweeted it - a member of the public

http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/26/two-m...ers-jon-venables-and-robert-thompson-3668324/

"Two Facebook and Twitter users have received suspended sentences for breaching an injunction which banned the new identities of toddler James Bulger’s killers from being revealed.

Dean Liddle, 28, and 35-year-old Neil Harkins were given nine-month terms suspended for 15 months at London’s High Court after posting pictures online which purported to show Jon Venables and Robert Thompson as adults."

looks like the public don't need much help from the media - the media report what the public have done


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6035505/The-criminals-new-lives-that-cost-us-millions.html
> 
> "Again the Ministry of Justice will not reveal how many people have been given new identities using the witness protection scheme but it is thought that some 3,000 have had new lives created for them. Estimates for how much this will cost vary, but it is believed that it will be up to £1 million per person."



That 3,000 includes whistleblowers and defectors etc, not just criminals.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> so are you an anarchist or not?
> 
> did you just post it on your avatar to look cool and know nothing about anarchism at all?
> 
> ...



Stop bulling him. Isn't he allowed to disagree? Why are you trying to force him into sharing your worldview?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> OK, so I'm an anarchist...and that makes it somehow wrong to say that you are trolling?



Lol finally!

so my point holds about it being funny that you don't like the idea of a person trolling/breaking forum rules

it's like wading through treacle


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Stop bulling him. Isn't he allowed to disagree? Why are you trying to force him into sharing your worldview?



funny

so when it's another person it's bullying


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

this is why I generally avoid people

most of them cause my brain cells to spontaneously combust!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Tbf there's no inconsistency between thinking the _Mail_ is a vile, spiteful, lying, amoral rag that it'd be nice to see go bankrupt and accepting that we have to tolerate it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It doesn't, and to put it into context, that assumed figure has only increased by about 20% in the past 20 years (it was about 2,500 when the _Telegraph_ ran with this back in the '90s), which shows how rarely it's used.  BTW, the figure also includes deep-cover coppers, "supergrasses" and other state assets, as well as whistleblowers etc.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> That 3,000 includes whistleblowers and defectors etc, not just criminals.



we've said this earlier


----------



## Wilf (Jun 1, 2014)

Could I just sneak Joey Barton in before we get to the 40 page mark?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I'm doing fine thanks
> 
> you arent even capable of debating the thread topic



Hmmm, on any reading of the thread, I've debated the topic, *and* I've managed to avoid turning every reply to my posts into a "poor me, I'm being victimised for being different!" claim. 
You, on the other hand...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> funny
> 
> so when it's another person it's bullying



funny

so when it's you and not another person it's not bullying


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> we've said this earlier



That's nice for you, dear.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Could I just sneak Joey Barton in before we get to the 40 page mark?



what about him?  he's a thick, ignorant footballer who surprised no one on Question Time


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hmmm, on any reading of the thread, I've debated the topic, *and* I've managed to avoid turning every reply to my posts into a "poor me, I'm being victimised for being different!" claim.
> You, on the other hand...



no you engaged in a war of words with me a lot of the time

I've been more on topic than you today, I'm just having to also fight a rearguard action against the collective hive-mind of this forum


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Lol finally!
> 
> so my point holds about it being funny that you don't like the idea of a person trolling/breaking forum rules
> 
> it's like wading through treacle



You could have saved a great deal of time (and 39 pages) if you'd said that's what you were up to at the outset.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no you engaged in a war of words with me a lot of the time
> 
> I've been more on topic than you today, I'm just having to also fight a rearguard action against the *collective hive-mind *of this forum



House!


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You could have saved a great deal of time (and 39 pages) if you'd said that's what you were up to at the outset.



what am I up to?

debating stuff on a forum is what I'm doing from my point of view

you seem to just want to have a go at me and don't have much interest in the thread topic

or do you?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> House!



thought you'd like that


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> what am I up to?



You just said you were trolling.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You just said you were trolling.



where??

you seem to be the one taking the thread off course atm

post on topic


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> it's a reasonable presumption I'd say
> 
> I asked if he was but as per usual a straightforward answer wasnt forthcoming
> 
> being straightforward isnt cool is it?



What the buggering fuck has "being cool" got to do with anything?  Only complete idiots think it's cool to be cool.



> my logic is better than yours



You have no logic.  You've not even got consistency.



> you delight in being a twat



And yet, I'm not the one doing the name-calling, am I?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> What the buggering fuck has "being cool" got to do with anything?  Only complete idiots think it's cool to be cool.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yes you are actually but it doesn't seem to count when you do it

you said I had the logic of a flatworm

I find you very annoying best you just talk to others from now on


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> people found out their identities
> 
> with things like facebook these days word would go round very fast
> 
> are you kidding that no one would have known Thompson or Venables??



How would anyone except either the people who worked at the institutions they were detained at, or their own relatives, have known what they looked like?  They were children when they went into the system, adults when they came out.  They weren't "given up" to the media by members of the public who recognised them, they were pursued by journos who used bribery and corruption to find out what they looked like, and where they were.
That someone who believes they're "logical" can't work this out, doesn't say a lot about your supposed logic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> yes you are actually but it doesn't seem to count when you do it
> 
> you said I had the logic of a flatworm
> 
> I find you very annoying best you just talk to others from now on



I'll do what I like, when I like, thanks all the same, just as you're doing, despite all your whining about being victimised.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

this thread needs dwyer IMO - what do people reckon? Should we summon him via the magic of making his name appear in blue?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> How would anyone except either the people who worked at the institutions they were detained at, or their own relatives, have known what they looked like?  They were children when they went into the system, adults when they came out.  They weren't "given up" to the media by members of the public who recognised them, they were pursued by journos who used bribery and corruption to find out what they looked like, and where they were.
> That someone who believes they're "logical" can't work this out, doesn't say a lot about your supposed logic.



where is your proof of this supposition?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> this thread needs dwyer IMO - what do people reckon? Should we summon him via the magic of making his name appear in blue?



Who is Dwyer?


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> this thread needs dwyer IMO - what do people reckon? Should we summon him via the magic of making his name appear in blue?



it's dwyer in drag


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

_angel_ said:


> I'm not sure you can blame the media really. They're going to do what they're going to do. I'd more blame the law that didn't grant anonymity.



Thing is, the media have continued to do what the media do, regardless of legislation.  That's what I blame them for - the suborning of justice in pursuit of a story, and a story they'll doubtless "spin" anyway.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Who is Dwyer?



This is a question often asked in hushed tones on the bus. In the tube station you'll often find the question 'who is dwyer?' scrawled on the walls. Some say he was raised by wolves in the mountainous regions of Milton Keynes, others say he was genetically engineered using stem cells harvested from the tomb of an ancient pharaoh. The man's a mystery wrapped up in a riddle wrapped up in an enigma.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> This is a question often asked in hushed tones on the bus. In the tube station you'll often find the question 'who is dwyer?' scrawled on the walls. Some say he was raised by wolves in the mountainous regions of Milton Keynes, others say he was genetically engineered using stem cells harvested from the tomb of an ancient pharaoh. The man's a mystery wrapped up in a riddle wrapped up in an enigma.



has he ever been called a troll?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

His first name is 'fuck-off' by the way.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> where??
> 
> you seem to be the one taking the thread off course atm
> 
> post on topic



So when you said 





> how strange for a person advocating anarchy to *not like the rules being broken*


 you meant that you'd not broken any 'rules'?

I'll post what I like, thank-you.

Whilst we're discussing forum conduct, what are views on "ninja editing"?

*DRUGS!*


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Who is Dwyer?



You.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> no you engaged in a war of words with me a lot of the time



I haven't engaged in a war of words with you.  If I'd done that, you'd have run away crying by now. Pointing out where your various claims are specious isn't "war", it's normal social intercourse.



> I've been more on topic than you today, I'm just having to also fight a rearguard action against the collective hive-mind of this forum




Ah yes, the solitary truth-speaker _schtick_ again.

Bored now!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> has he ever been called a troll?


Never. The very thought of it is impossible for me to even contemplate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> House!



Damn, only had "monothought clique" to go on my card, too!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> where is your proof of this supposition?


I was about to ask that as well. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone would grow up to look different from how they looked when they were kids.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't engaged in a war of words with you.  If I'd done that, you'd have run away crying by now. Pointing out where your various claims are specious isn't "war", it's normal social intercourse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yes and I notice you ignored my post where I asked you to provide proof of your claim that it's been the media that's outed people like venables, not the public going to the media

proof please

In this instance it was Venables himself who told his probation officer he thought his identity had been compromised:-

http://www.channel4.com/news/jon-venables-jailed-for-child-pornography


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> this thread needs dwyer IMO - what do people reckon? Should we summon him via the magic of making his name appear in blue?



Isn't summoning dwyer a bit like asking Jeebus to prove His power by giving you a really drippy case of the Clap?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> So when you said  you meant that you'd not broken any 'rules'?
> 
> I'll post what I like, thank-you.
> 
> ...



I find it hard to engage with you as you seem pretty stupid


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I was about to ask that as well. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone would grow up to look different from how they looked when they were kids.



most people bear a resemblance to how they looked as a child

I do

it's not beyond the bounds of possibility someone would recognise someone or put two and two together regarding a person being edgy about their background
if they had a Liverpool accent and were a certain age - people suss things out

relatives of the Bulgers have a lot more incentive to work out if it's them too due to feelings of anger/wanting revenge


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> where is your proof of this supposition?



Claim, not supposition.
1) Media articles about employees of the secure accommodation being bribed to take pics of them.
2) The fact that such pictures were needed because (surprise, surprise) people don't look the same at 18 as they did at age 10.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> it's dwyer in drag



Dwyer at least has logical consistency.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Claim, not supposition.
> 1) Media articles about employees of the secure accommodation being bribed to take pics of them.
> 2) The fact that such pictures were needed because (surprise, surprise) people don't look the same at 18 as they did at age 10.



link please

people often bear some similarity to how they looked when younger


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> You.



I thought that dwyer was a Welshie, and a Yank, as well as being a Turk?
Or does it depend on what species of crap he's talking as to what his nationality is?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Dwyer at least has logical consistency.



yeah I bet


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> link please
> 
> people often bear some similarity to how they looked when younger



Close enough to make an identification that would ruin the life of an innocent person if they were wrong? You're talking out of your arse.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> link please



Google it yourself.



> people often bear some similarity to how they looked when younger



"Some" similarity is hardly "identifiable similarity".


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 1, 2014)

riding the tiger


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> yeah I bet



He's logically-consistent to the point of being disturbingly-sociopathic about it.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...s-bulger-killers-jon-venables-robert-thompson

Note it was members of the public prosecuted, not the media

please provide me with evidence of the media being prosecuted to back up your claim
that they are the prime movers in outing criminals with new identities

I maintain the public outs them to the press and the press report on it or the press picks up on the public posting stuff on Facebook, Twitter etc - that is the most likely route

I'm open to you providing alternative proof though


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2014)

And now, time for vittles!


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's logically-consistent to the point of being disturbingly-sociopathic about it.



I feel for him

I know exactly how he feels


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> And now, time for vittles!



yes glad you've accepted defeat


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 1, 2014)

I remember the last bit of mail/carr related rage. it ws when it was revealed that Carr had had a boob job paid by the state- I can't remember why it was done only that it provided the mail with an almost holy combo of things they hate- women and state funding for anything


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I remember the last bit of mail/carr related rage. it ws when it was revealed that Carr had had a boob job paid by the state- I can't remember why it was done only that it provided the mail with an almost holy combo of things they hate- women and state funding for anything



not women as a whole, just women who would waste state funds on trivial things like boob jobs

All boob jobs should be paid for by the individual imo unless the person's physical health is at risk


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Man-...er-s-killers/story-18822590-detail/story.html

"Earlier, Melanie Cumberland, counsel for the attorney general, told the court Harkins' post on Facebook had come to light after a concerned member of the public alerted the police."

Not discovered by the media

Possibly the police then tipped off the media, as they're so used to doing


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I feel for him
> 
> I know exactly how he feels



I think that very unlikely


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think that very unlikely



I meant if he felt extreme frustration with the debating talents on this board


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Man-...er-s-killers/story-18822590-detail/story.html
> 
> "Earlier, Melanie Cumberland, counsel for the attorney general, told the court Harkins' post on Facebook had come to light after a concerned member of the public alerted the police."
> 
> Not the media



In the Mary Bell case, anonymity fell apart when a newspaper journalist turned up at her door. So sometimes it's the media, sometimes it's the public and many times it's both.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I meant if he felt extreme frustration with the debating talents on this board



You could always fuck off if you find us too frustrating you know


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> <snip> All boob jobs should be paid for by the individual imo unless the person's physical health is at risk


What if the person's mental health is at risk?  I mean to the extent where their unhappiness about their body is highly resistant to mental health treatment, and severe enough to border on suicidal?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> You could always fuck off if you find us too frustrating you know



you'd have nothing to talk about


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> And now, time for vittles!


Not yet, it's not.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Greebo said:


> What if the person's mental health is at risk?  I mean to the extent where their unhappiness about their body is highly resistant to mental health treatment, and severe enough to border on suicidal?



where does it end though?

boob jobs didn't exist in the past - how did women cope then?

I think criminals particularly shouldn't be given this kind of funding - it's like rewarding them

people have every right to be irate about this use of state funds

people who think she was a deserving cause should pay for it out of their own pocket ie we should get to have a say in the matter

I'd be fine for other people to fund it

if she needed bigger tits to find her partner she's in trouble is all I can say


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> where does it end though?
> 
> boob jobs didn't exist in the past - how did women cope then?
> 
> I think criminals particularly shouldn't be given this kind of funding - it's like rewarding them



1. It ends in a specific set of circumstances which are beyond the ones stated in this example.
2. Women didn't cope then.
3. You hint in this and other posts that criminals should become akin to outlaws. Is this correct? Would you offer then any kind of protection at all? Which criminals get protection and which don't? Where does it all end?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> <snip> I think criminals particularly shouldn't be given this kind of funding - it's like rewarding them


Let's start at the very beginning.  Would you agree (with Elizabeth Fry, among others) that being in prison and thereby removed from society is punishment in itself?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> 1. It ends in a specific set of circumstances which are beyond the ones stated in this example.
> 2. Women didn't cope then.
> 3. You hint in this and other posts that criminals should become akin to outlaws. Is this correct? Would you offer then any kind of protection at all? Which criminals get protection and which don't? Where does it all end?



How do you know women didn't cope?

I suspect the size of your tits wasn't such a major issue in the past and that personality came into it far more

I would let give them the chance to move abroad and if not they'd be on their own


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Let's start at the very beginning.  Would you agree (with Elizabeth Fry, among others) that being in prison and thereby removed from society is punishment in itself?



partly but drug use is rife in prisons so it's not a correctional environment is it?

it's just a containment exercise mainly and having to clear up dirty protests

I'd prevent people from doing a dirty protest twice

the moment you give prisoners the whip hand you've lost control and that's what happens

then we've got all the Islamic conversions that occur in prison 

why on earth would you put all these fundamentalist types together?? madness!

no common sense


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 1, 2014)

except they wouldn't be on their own they'd have the society of the others you've declared untermensch for having broken the law. So you get outsider/outlaw communities, gangs, networks. Before you know it, cosa nostra.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> partly but drug use is rife in prisons so it's not a correctional environment is it? <snip>


A brave yet futile attempt at stonewalling - which BTW Dwyer does far better.  

Now answer my question please - "yes" or "no".


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Greebo said:


> A brave yet futile attempt at stonewalling - which BTW Dwyer does far better.
> 
> Now answer my question please - "yes" or "no".



it's not a yes/no thing

it's partly a punishment but not a good enough one as people keep re-offending


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> How do you know women didn't cope?
> 
> I suspect the size of your tits wasn't such a major issue in the past and that personality came into it far more
> 
> I would let give them the chance to move abroad and if not they'd be on their own



Just to be clear on the last point, you would advocate allowing criminals to move to other countries or making them outlaws here?

Please can you explain how the process of deporting them to other, willing countries would work and what type of crimes would make people outlaws and which wouldn't?

This is a very radical proposal. You seem to have given the matter some thought, so if you could expand in a little detail how such a set of laws would operate I would be really interested to find out.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

"I'd prevent people from doing a dirty protest twice."

nessa239 What happens after the second time?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> it's not a yes/no thing
> 
> it's partly a punishment but not a good enough one as people keep re-offending


Yes or no?

Ignore what happens once they've done their time, because there are other factors which lead to reoffending (not just "have they learnt their lesson?").  For the sake of arguement - is it punishment enough for human beings to be removed from society (ie imprisoned)?

Don't make me have to channel Paxman over this, I implore you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> "I'd prevent people from doing a dirty protest twice."
> 
> nessa239 What happens after the second time?



sew thier arsehole shut? A big cork up the ringpiece?


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> you'd have nothing to talk about



Yes, before you there was nothing to talk about!



nessa239 said:


> the moment you give prisoners the *whip hand* you've lost control and that's what happens



...rivers of blood...


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> sew thier arsehole shut? A big cork up the ringpiece?



I ask because the only way I can think of is the death penalty.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> I ask because the only way I can think of is the death penalty.




a very final solution eh


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Just to be clear on the last point, you would advocate allowing criminals to move to other countries or making them outlaws here?
> 
> Please can you explain how the process of deporting them to other, willing countries would work and what type of crimes would make people outlaws and which wouldn't?
> 
> This is a very radical proposal. You seem to have given the matter some thought, so if you could expand in a little detail how such a set of laws would operate I would be really interested to find out.



Set the time machine to the 1790's, Botany Bay, and fill your boots


----------



## weltweit (Jun 1, 2014)

Just to go back a bit. I do think if one has served their punishment they should have a chance at a normal life and if that means relocating and a new identity that may well be necessary.

The great general public can be pretty awful if they think they have identified a wrong un, (sometimes) a harmless chap not far from me got branded as a paedo, no evidence for it, local kids smashed all his windows, people put up banners saying paedo's out and the like, eventually the police had to come and take him away for his own safety. I repeat, there was no evidence he was a wrongun.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> "I'd prevent people from doing a dirty protest twice."
> 
> nessa239 What happens after the second time?



some form of deterrent that prevented it happening again

no food perhaps


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Just to be clear on the last point, you would advocate allowing criminals to move to other countries or making them outlaws here?
> 
> Please can you explain how the process of deporting them to other, willing countries would work and what type of crimes would make people outlaws and which wouldn't?
> 
> This is a very radical proposal. You seem to have given the matter some thought, so if you could expand in a little detail how such a set of laws would operate I would be really interested to find out.



They'd be offered money to go abroad or they could stay here 

If someone attacked them they would need to report it to the police just like everyone else

it wouldn't be deportation it would be do you want to take this money and go and live abroad or not?

I haven't thought it out in detail, it's just an idea

I haven't written a manifesto on my every thought as you seem to think people do on here

I'm the one coming up with all the ideas everyone else is just disagreeing

at least I have ideas of how I'd run things - where are yours?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> some form of deterrent that prevented it happening again
> 
> no food perhaps


Inhumane, therefore not allowed.  Try again.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I find it hard to engage with you as you seem pretty stupid



OK, I'll try to make it easier for you then. 



> how strange for a person advocating anarchy to not like *the rules being broken*



Who broke what rules?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Yes, before you there was nothing to talk about!
> 
> 
> 
> ...rivers of blood...



yes and people having their heads practically hacked off in broad daylight is nothing to panic about is it?

nothing to see here move along


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Inhumane, therefore not allowed.  Try again.



I'm running the system though


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hmmm, on any reading of the thread, I've debated the topic, *and* I've managed to avoid turning every reply to my posts into a "poor me, I'm being victimised for being different!" claim.
> You, on the other hand...



I think you're the worst offender at these troll-baiting-type posts.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> OK, I'll try to make it easier for you then.
> 
> 
> 
> Who broke what rules?



you implied i was by calling me a troll

if I have to explain every last bit of what I say multiple times it becomes a waste of time


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> some form of deterrent that prevented it happening again
> 
> no food perhaps



No food would most certainly be a hindrance to faeces production, but the kind of people who do dirty protests are also often hunger strikers. I think this was true in both The Maze and Guantanamo. What other deterrents are there?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I'm running the system though


No you're not.  You run the hypothetical prison, but it's not above the law.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Yes or no?
> 
> Ignore what happens once they've done their time, because there are other factors which lead to reoffending (not just "have they learnt their lesson?").  For the sake of arguement - is it punishment enough for human beings to be removed from society (ie imprisoned)?
> 
> Don't make me have to channel Paxman over this, I implore you.



it's a form of punishment yes but not a good enough one

you aren't furthering the debate one inch


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> No food would most certainly be a hindrance to faeces production, but the kind of people who do dirty protests are also often hunger strikers. I think this was true in both The Maze and Guantanamo. What other deterrents are there?



wow you worked out that was why I said deny them food to stop them shitting - well done!  points for you!

take away their tv XBox and all other comforts and no communication from outside


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Tea now try and come up with an idea between you


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jun 1, 2014)




----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> <snip> you aren't furthering the debate one inch


And neither is your stonewalling.

If prison itself is a punishment, shouldn't anyone who's done their time (no ifs no buts) be allowed a fresh start, and supported in trying to live an honest life, at least until they reoffend?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't engaged in a war of words with you.  If I'd done that, you'd have run away crying by now.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> They'd be offered money to go abroad or they could stay here
> 
> If someone attacked them they would need to report it to the police just like everyone else
> 
> ...




This is a great disappointment. You do not have ideas of how you'd run things at all. You have vague notions. There is no onus on me to put my ideas forward here. You put your suggestions forward initially, were asked to expand on them and then it turns out this THIS is the sum total of your musings.
You have tried to characterise yourself as something of an original thinker, a maverick and someone who doesn't follow the crowd. The worst lowest common denominator herd follower actually has clearer policies than this.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> you'd have nothing to talk about



Yet somehow we managed before you graced us with your presence.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> wow you worked out that was why I said deny them food to stop them shitting - well done!  points for you!
> 
> take away their tv XBox and all other comforts and no communication from outside



X-boxes at Guantanamo?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> where does it end though?
> 
> boob jobs didn't exist in the past - how did women cope then?
> 
> ...



Modern medicine didn't exist in the past either, maybe that's a luxury we can do without. In fact fuck it, why don't we just go back to living in caves?


----------



## iona (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> They'd be offered money to go abroad or they could stay here
> 
> <snip>



I thought you were against people getting anonymity because it meant money being spent on new identites and stuff for them? But now you're saying they should be given money??

Where are they meant to go, and what if other countries want to start doing the same? Would you be happy for them to give convicted criminals who'd served their time money to come and live over here?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Modern medicine didn't exist in the past either, maybe that's a luxury we can do without. In fact fuck it, why don't we just go back to living in caves?



Guardian has more than likely already done an article on "cool caves". Probably in Cornwall or Tuscany.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> partly but drug use is rife in prisons so it's not a correctional environment is it?
> 
> it's just a containment exercise mainly and having to clear up dirty protests
> 
> ...


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> yes and people having their heads practically hacked off in broad daylight is nothing to panic about is it?



Panic? Ok, trickles of blood, bad people doing bad things. And what exactly?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

I have to say the quality of wingnut on these boards has declined recently. nessa239 is no onarchy


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> yes and people having their heads practically hacked off in broad daylight is nothing to panic about is it?
> 
> nothing to see here move along


To be fair that's only happened once - not exactly an epidemic is it? 

I think you're right that we should panic though. Not that it will do any good I just enjoy a good panic, me.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> you implied i was by calling me a troll
> 
> if I have to explain every last bit of what I say multiple times it becomes a waste of time


I didn't imply anything; I explicitly called your posting trolling. The only implication appeared to be your belief that it was somehow inappropriate for an anarchist to do so.

No doubt you'll want to waste your time explaining every last bit of what you implied......multiple times.

e2ninja:...but don't bolt your tea just to get back at me!


----------



## Manter (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Guardian has more than likely already done an article on "cool caves". Probably in Cornwall or Tuscany.


It was in the Telegraph and they were in Spain- Cuevas Almanzoras. Prices are now rocketing, predictably

E2a http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property...0773180/The-charms-of-Spains-cave-houses.html


----------



## bendeus (Jun 1, 2014)

Why are we giving this dreary troll the oxygen?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

bendeus said:


> Why are we giving this dreary troll the oxygen?


Because it's Sunday and there's bugger all else to do?


----------



## bendeus (Jun 1, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Because it's Sunday and there's bugger all else to do?


He's really going to have to up his game in the future in order to hold our attention, I guess. Possibly a one hit wonder.


----------



## tim (Jun 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> What about when you're on a bus, or standing on the pavement?



He doesn't do buses they're far too vulgar and he prefers bridleways and muddy meandering country footpaths to pavements which he considers dangerously cosmopolitan.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 1, 2014)

42 pages though. I think that does deserve respect. Some considerable effort has been put into it


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> 42 pages though. I think that does deserve respect. Some considerable effort has been put into it


Indeed.  Dwyer will be crying into his beer at having missed it.


----------



## Manter (Jun 1, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Indeed.  Dwyer will be crying into his beer at having missed it.


Where is Dwyer? Banned again?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

Manter said:


> Where is Dwyer? Banned again?


AFAIK not banned, just busy.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I didn't imply anything; I explicitly called your posting trolling. The only implication appeared to be your belief that it was somehow inappropriate for an anarchist to do so.
> 
> No doubt you'll want to waste your time explaining every last bit of what you implied......multiple times.
> 
> e2ninja:...but don't bolt your tea just to get back at me!



forget it - the point was evidently lost on you 

I should have the measure of people on here by now


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

I see the debate ground to a halt without me


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I see the debate ground to a halt without me


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

Greebo said:


>



It evidently was if debate stopped after I left and begins when I return


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 bye sweetie.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

do people talk like on Ab-Fab here then?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> It evidently was if debate stopped after I left and begins when I return


If a solipsist falls in the forrest...


----------



## Wilf (Jun 1, 2014)

Favelado said:


> X-boxes at Guantanamo...


... these are a few of my favourite things.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> They'd be offered money to go abroad or they could stay here
> 
> If someone attacked them they would need to report it to the police just like everyone else
> 
> ...


well that's a novel way of attempting to sort out our balance of trade deficit.

we'll take the white goods from china if they take our kiddie fiddlers in exchange.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 1, 2014)

Red Cat said:
			
		

> This forum is full of weirdos



It's only attraction.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> forget it - the point was evidently lost on you
> 
> I should have the measure of people on here by now



After 4 days and 550 posts, yeah.
Now fuck off.


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 2, 2014)

brogdale said:


> After 4 days and 550 posts, yeah.
> Now fuck off.


550 posts in four days what the hell as he going to talk about


----------



## Greebo (Jun 2, 2014)

shagnasty said:


> 550 posts in four days what the hell as he going to talk about


Where were we?

Do people who've done their time deserve a fresh start or not?


----------



## xenon (Jun 2, 2014)

At this point there are 220 odd more messages. I don't think I'm going to read them actually.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jun 2, 2014)

xenon, I wouldn't bother, unless you want some insight into Nessa239's state of mind, which she has said is due to Aspergers.

I have wondered whether to intervene when the thread goes quiet, and suggest that Nessa239 gives medicine and doctors another chance, mainly because it sounds as though her life is pretty awful a lot of the time and, judging by this thread, it sounds as though she tends to dig herself into a hole and reject people who perhaps she might not reject if she was not feeling defensive /ganged up on.

Getting the balance of meds is often difficult, and as many of us know it can be hellish until you get it right, and it may be that Nessa239 is, as the moment, happy to live online more than in 'the real world'. Perhaps she finds online rows with strangers exciting and life-enhancing, and, at the same time, safe?

I know little about Aspergers, and was looking forward to another Daily Mail / Maxine Carr story when I began reading this thread, but soon felt reminded of someone I once worked with who had Aspergers. Who is to say when someone's life is awful? My colleague liked his routines and systems and there was no shifting him, although he did agree to see a doctor and then a psychiatrist who quickly diagnosed Aspergers.

I lost contact with him, and hope that he found some relief from his fairly locked-in existence but, as I said earlier, he felt safe there. This was all pre-internet days.

I wish Nessa239 well. I think Urban posters (bar one or two) have, as someone pointed out, shown her an immense amount of slack.

I hope that Nessa239 will return to Urban75 when she is feeling a bit better. I think she will be genuinely welcomed back because we are all pleased to hear when a fellow-poster has got recovered or survived something, and may of us know the savagery of life, ill health, the system, and meds.

Bedtime now, night night all.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

UrbaneFox said:


> xenon, I wouldn't bother, unless you want some insight into Nessa239's state of mind, which she has said is due to Aspergers.
> 
> I have wondered whether to intervene when the thread goes quiet, and suggest that Nessa239 gives medicine and doctors another chance, mainly because it sounds as though her life is pretty awful a lot of the time and, judging by this thread, it sounds as though she tends to dig herself into a hole and reject people who perhaps she might not reject if she was not feeling defensive /ganged up on.
> 
> ...



I take tablets already and asked to see someone in mental health team but Dr said we'd manage it with the tabelts for now so if the help isn't available...

I don't think you can recover from Aspergers either

It is true that it's easier to deal with people online than irl though


----------



## snadge (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 at home.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:
			
		

> some form of deterrent that prevented it happening again
> 
> no food perhaps



Then what?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> yes and people having their heads practically hacked off in broad daylight is nothing to panic about is it?
> 
> nothing to see here move along



How often does someone in the UK have their head nearly hacked off at all, let alone in "broad daylight"?
It's not very often, and yet you think it's something we should specifically worry about.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

snadge said:


> nessa239 at home.





That's unfair.

Cartagia couldn't help being a frakking melon-frakker.  He was surrounded by sycophants, toadies and minions telling him he was a g-d, and trying to manipulate him.  Even so, I liked his approach to government.  I thought his "heads of council" was an excellent idea - arranging their rotting heads on his desk so that he could consult them about matters of state. 

nessa doesn't have the excuse of being surrounded by sycophants and toadies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I think you're the worst offender at these troll-baiting-type posts.



I think you're a cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


>



What next, song lyrics?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

Favelado said:


> X-boxes at Guantanamo?



Not even x-boxes in British prisons, contrary to popular myth.  Tellies, sure, mostly cable as routing hundreds of cables into cell leccy pipework is easy, and radios certainly.  Thing with privileges (which is what personal radio and tv are in a prison) is that they can be removed for misconduct, so they provide an incentive for those prisoners awarded the privilege, to not misbehave.
It's amazing how many mentally-stunted people there are, who're unable to understand that simple transaction.

Anyway, if nicks are as awash with drugs as nessa claims, wouldn't that make playing on an x-box problematic, coordination-wise?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Guardian has more than likely already done an article on "cool caves". Probably in Cornwall or Tuscany.



And Granada, and it was years ago, so caves have probably gone out of fashion *and* come back into fashion in the meantime.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I have to say the quality of wingnut on these boards has declined recently. nessa239 is no onarchy



Onar Am was definitely the "daddy" of demented fuckwittism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

double post


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Anyway, if nicks are as awash with drugs as nessa claims, wouldn't that make playing on an x-box problematic, coordination-wise?



And of course authoritarian measures aimed to reducing prison drug use have been unambiguously counter-productive. Mandatory drug testing has provided an incentive to switch from the relatively harmless cannabis (which can stay in your system for upwards of 6 weeks) to heroin (which is out of your system in 3-5 days). More vigorous searching has had the same effect, as the much smaller packages heroin comes in are easier to smuggle in. 

I have a very strong suspicion that this has been a big contributory factor to the current smack epidemic, as people who become hooked in prison become dealers when they get out and sell to their mates, getting them hooked as well - I know for absolute certain that this happens.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

wrt x-box etc I did hear of a Woodhill scheme whereby certain trustees (if they even call them that anymore) would be allowed the perk of an hour on a playstation once a week. In exchange for duties etc.

It's hardly some universal holiday camp perk is it.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's unfair.
> 
> Cartagia couldn't help being a frakking melon-frakker.  He was surrounded by sycophants, toadies and minions telling him he was a g-d, and trying to manipulate him.  Even so, I liked his approach to government.  I thought his "heads of council" was an excellent idea - arranging their rotting heads on his desk so that he could consult them about matters of state.
> 
> nessa doesn't have the excuse of being surrounded by sycophants and toadies.



Why do I need an excuse?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> wrt x-box etc I did hear of a Woodhill scheme whereby certain trustees (if they even call them that anymore) would be allowed the perk of an hour on a playstation once a week. In exchange for duties etc.
> 
> It's hardly some universal holiday camp perk is it.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-prisoners-supplied-221-726-PlayStations.html

the trouble is, it's only likely to be papers like the Daily Mail that report on this kind of thing and by default people on here reject anything the DM says so it's a Catch-22 situation as people want to deny what's happening

"Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Herbert said: ‘While Ministers protest that there is no money for prison places or rehabilitation schemes, they waste taxpayers’ funds on luxuries which prisoners shouldn’t have.

"Offenders should be learning and preparing for the world of work, not idly playing Grand Theft Auto and preparing to return to crime.’

It was disclosed recently that thousands of inmates have access to Sky TV and computers, and last week it was revealed that more money is spent on food for prisoners in police cells than for NHS patients.

Prisoners are allowed to play 18-rated games such as Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt, which are notorious for their extreme violence.

However, from October, 18-rated titles will be banned in prisons altogether and the use of consoles will be restricted to only the best behaved prisoners or those on suicide watch.

In his letter to Mr Evans, Mr Straw claimed he had not known of the arrangement until recently. He wrote: ‘I was unhappy when I first heard [in April] that public money was being spent on games consoles, and ordered a review of this policy.

‘I have now decided that, with immediate effect, no public money will be spent on games consoles.’"

Perhaps this is part of the reason why there's less money for actual rehabilitation schemes


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodandd...ieve-how-easy-life-is-in-British-prisons.html

"Ramsay, 45, said he was astounded when he discovered convicted criminals were given five meal choices every night and constant access to television, video games and gym facilities.

The restaurateur visited London's Brixton Prison to film _Behind Bars_, a Channel 4 show in which he teaches 12 inmates to cook and sell their Bad Boys’ Bakery produce to businesses on the outside.

However, he said he was disappointed with the prisoners’ lack of work ethic, claiming the lax regime inside gave them no incentive to toil over a stove.

“What I wasn’t prepared for was how easy it was for them in there. I was astounded at the comfort zone they carve out for themselves,” Ramsay told The Guardian’s Weekend magazine.

“Five meal choices a night – that was the one I really struggled with. I just thought it was a bit of a joke, to be honest, coupled with the 24-hour television, Xbox, DVDs, gym."


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

that article has nothing to do with who gets the usage- just the cost and the worries over 18+ games.

its used as an earned privilege


excellent accompanying photo though, a bare chested young man with a tatoo. Playing computer games. ON YOR MONEY !!11!!eleven


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

well known prison expert, Gordon 'fucking' Ramsey


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> well known prison expert, Gordon 'fucking' Ramsey



Exactly you reject the source every time
He was speaking to Guardian Weekend magazine - I thought the Guardian was lefty?

Is he not lefty enough - at what point do you believe what someone says?

when it fits in with your _own p_rejudices?

as things get worse the left just sticks it's collective head in the sand


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

When I worked in the catering industry I found out that money spent on prisoners food was roughly 8p per head per meal.  I wonder how far Ramsey could make that go.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> When I worked in the catering industry I found out that money spent on prisoners food was roughly 8p per head per meal.  I wonder how far Ramsey could make that go.



And we should believe this why?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/government-spends-30-more-on-dinner-681361

"The Government spends 30% more on prisoners’ meals than on children’s school dinners, figures show.

Lunch in jail costs taxpayers 88p per prisoner, according to newly-released government figures. But primary school children are fed for just 67p."

Looks like you're wrong

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4832552.stm

From BBC site 2006:-

"The prison's 570 inhabitants must be fed on £1.68 a day each, including a breakfast pack (cereal, bread, jam and UHT milk), lunch, an evening meal and perhaps a snack later on. Once a week they get a ration of tea or coffee."


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Exactly you reject the source every time
> He was speaking to Guardian Weekend magazine - I thought the Guardian was lefty?
> 
> Is he not lefty enough - at what point do you believe what someone says?
> ...



the guardian lol, I don't care where the squareheaded prat airs his views, they are still wrong and he's still not a prison expert.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Exactly you reject the source every time
> He was speaking to Guardian Weekend magazine - I thought the Guardian was lefty?
> 
> Is he not lefty enough - at what point do you believe what someone says?
> ...



I wish somebody would stick your head in the sand. Shortly before high tide, preferably.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> I wish somebody would stick your head in the sand. Shortly before high tide, preferably.



yep typical left response - aggression because proved wrong

try not to be so fucking predictable


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the guardian lol, I don't care where the squareheaded prat airs his views, they are still wrong and he's still not a prison expert.



neither are you but I've at least provided links to articles quoting figures - where are your sources?

(cue more invective but no facts)


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

direct experience


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> yep typical left response - aggression because proved wrong
> 
> try not to be so fucking predictable



aubergine.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

oh and reading things that aren't newspaper articles.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

National Audit Office 2006

http://www.nao.org.uk/report/serving-time-prisoner-diet-and-exercise/

"Expenditure on food is determined by each prison governor who sets a daily food allowance per prisoner. The average is £1.87 for three meals a day but there are wide variations ranging from £1.20 at an open prison to £3.41 at a young offenders’ institution. Young offenders have some of the highest daily food allowances because juveniles eat more than adults."


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> oh and reading things that aren't newspaper articles.



National Audit Office isn't a newspaper 

still no proof from you


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> And we should believe this why?
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/government-spends-30-more-on-dinner-681361
> 
> ...



Yeah possibly, that was what I was told recently by catering companies who are actually involved in it.  Its worth remembering a couple of things, firstly that data is very old, secondly your stats include all the other associated costs such as wages, energy used etc etc and the profit for the private catering companies, I was talking about the actual cost of the food.  To be fair though, you've used google whereas I only spoke with the managers of the companies that are actually involved in the delivery, so you're probably on safer ground.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

so thats about 70p per meal?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> direct experience



I knew you were going to say that lol

that's the thing with this site isn't it

you're the problem, not the solution basically


----------



## Poot (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> And we should believe this why?
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/government-spends-30-more-on-dinner-681361
> 
> ...


The government pays for a small percentage of children's school meals and parents pay the rest (and rightly so). So the argument is not that prisoners eat nicer meals than children, is it?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> so thats about 70p per meal?



it's not 8p is it?

and often more than in schools


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I knew you were going to say that lol
> 
> that's the thing with this site isn't it
> 
> you're the problem, not the solution basically



Oh yeah, you just know all about this site don't you having been here at least a week.

Have we worked out which one of our loveable returnee's this one is yet?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

70 p a head per is enough- especially when bulk buying cheap catering level supplies- to provide a nutritionally balanced meal.

its not even within sniffing distance of luxury.

I'm not sure what you are on here ness- you want to spend less than 70p a meal? bread and water diets?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

Poot said:


> The government pays for a small percentage of children's school meals and parents pay the rest (and rightly so). So the argument is not that prisoners eat nicer meals than children, is it?



more money goes into them than children's meals and it's not 8p a head as quoted off the top of someone's head


----------



## Poot (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> more money goes into them than children's meals and it's not 8p a head as quoted off the top of someone's head


The government is only paying for a small percentage per child's meal. It's paying for the whole of a prisoner's meal. There is no comparison.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> Oh yeah, you just know all about this site don't you having been here at least a week.
> 
> Have we worked out which one of our loveable returnee's this one is yet?



you're so thick you can't even accept a new person is a new person

you're so caught up in groupthink that troll and returnee are the only things a person who disagrees with you can possibly be

how pathetic

once i'm banned from this site there's no way on earth I'd want to return

I just wanted to let people know my views while still able to as many leftwing attitudes incense me


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

Poot said:


> The government is only paying for a small percentage per child's meal. It's paying for the whole of a prisoner's meal. There is no comparison.



well perhaps they shouldn't

perhaps the funding method should be changed so their families subsidise it or the removal of X-Boxes does


----------



## Favelado (Jun 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> And Granada, and it was years ago, so caves have probably gone out of fashion *and* come back into fashion in the meantime.



The retro-cave scene is hotter than ever right now. Everyone in 'Billburg says so.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> that's the thing with this site isn't it
> 
> you're the problem, not the solution basically



What problem would that be exactly?


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> more money goes into them than children's meals and it's not 8p a head as quoted off the top of someone's head



I stand by it tbh, these people hold the purse strings and knew what they were doing, whereas you're a no-nothing off the internet who is bitter with the site for some reason.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> What problem would that be exactly?



I was talking to the person who said they'd had direct experience


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> you're so thick you can't even accept a new person is a new person
> 
> you're so caught up in groupthink that troll and returnee are the only things a person who disagrees with you can possibly be
> 
> ...



What has gone wrong in your life seriously?  Surely there is time to turn it around?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> I stand by it tbh, these people hold the purse strings and knew what they were doing, whereas you're a no-nothing off the internet who is bitter with the site for some reason.



what people??

I know more than you and can evidence what I say with more than hearsay

no I disagree with the prevailing opinion on here, that's not bitterness that's thinking for yourself


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> What has gone wrong in your life seriously?  Surely there is time to turn it around?



Wow so disagreement = life problems??


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I knew you were going to say that lol
> 
> that's the thing with this site isn't it
> 
> you're the problem, not the solution basically




jahwol, I am indeed a member of the criminal untermensch.  Come the day you are in charge you said you'd pay to make me go away to another country? Book my a ticket to Canada then.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> jahwol, I am indeed a member of the criminal untermensch.  Come the day you are in charge you said you'd pay to make me go away to another country? Book my a ticket to Canada then.



See - you like the idea

what were you in prison for?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> What problem would that be exactly?




the vast feral hordes of unwashed criminals.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the vast feral hordes of unwashed criminals.



No

The not wanting to solve the problem by not pandering to the criminals

I know people who have been to prison, it's the way the prison system is run that's wrong


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> See - you like the idea
> 
> what were you in prison for?




mind yours.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> mind yours.



You could be making it up

people who lie don't like giving details as they might trip themselves up


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> what people??
> 
> I know more than you and can evidence what I say with more than hearsay
> 
> no I disagree with the prevailing opinion on here, that's not bitterness that's thinking for yourself



Private companies that are involved in the delivery of catering services, the like of Compass, Sodexho, Elior etc.  But as pointed out you've just looked at the stat for the whole cost of the food delivery, not the actual money spent on food which is what I have given you and whats more all I'm doing is relaying information that has been given to me, what are you so bitter about?   Its OK, you're not up to looking beyond the data, that's fine, its probably the bitterness blinding you.  Maybe I can help?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> You could be making it up
> 
> people who lie don't like giving details as they might trip themselves up



tbh its cos I think your a bit weird- no offense- and so I'd rather not give you any ammo to be weird in my direction.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

Why should not liking the way the system is run be bitterness??

surely accepting everything as fine is a sign of having given up?

I get pissed off that more money goes into criminal justice system than it ever does into mental health services


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> tbh its cos I think your a bit weird- no offense- and so I'd rather not give you any ammo to be weird in my direction.



Only a _bit_ weird, gosh I am flattered!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> You could be making it up
> 
> people who lie don't like giving details as they might trip themselves up


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


>



that's a photo of Columbo - meaning?

you can't articulate what you want to say very well


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

When I was selling product into the catering companies we found that prisons were a no go because our product was too expensive, however schools were a massive market for us and were work canteens, both had a similar spend per head.  The most money?  Oil rigs, unsurprisingly.


----------



## cesare (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> that's a photo of Columbo - meaning?
> 
> you can't articulate what you want to say very well


Your own communication abilities are restricted to words


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> When I was selling product into the catering companies we found that prisons were a no go because our product was too expensive, however schools were a massive market for us and were work canteens, both had a similar spend per head.  The most money?  Oil rigs, unsurprisingly.



what was the product?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

cesare said:


> Your own communication abilities are restricted to words



generally yes

posting stupid pictures and videos is daft imo

it's trying to bring face to face communication things into word based communication

thoughts are my main medium - words are often not worth the effort I find


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> what was the product?




what could a catering company have as product? Possibly food?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> what could a catering company have as product? Possibly food?



I wanted more details


----------



## Favelado (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I wanted more details



Lobster thermadore, ibérico ham and truffles. You know, oil rig food.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> what was the product?



Well, I'm also not to keen to give out personal info but it was a product that would typically be described as fast food.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> thoughts are my main medium - words are often not worth the effort I find



Shame it's not Doris Stokes.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> Well, I'm also not to keen to give out personal info but it was a product that would typically be described as fast food.



so it was too pricey for the prison system


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Shame it's not Doris Stokes.



have you been in the prison system too?

you seem very aggressive


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

interesting that you took 'direct experience' to mean ex prisoner. Could have been screw, visitor, teaching or governer.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> so it was too pricey for the prison system



Yup, way out.  A unit altogether was around 42p, schools could just about manage that and make a profit, prisons couldn't, not by a long shot.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> interesting that you took 'direct experience' to mean ex prisoner. Could have been screw, visitor, teaching or governer.



well we'll never know will we with you not wanting to give any details


----------



## cesare (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> well we'll never know will we with you not wanting to give any details


No. *You'll* not know.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

cesare said:


> No. *You'll* not know.



I can guess


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

okay, fine, I was a minor footsoldier in the Northampton Mandem. We were all done under RICO.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> have you been in the prison system too?



Have you ever had your head nailed to the floor?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> And of course authoritarian measures aimed to reducing prison drug use have been unambiguously counter-productive. Mandatory drug testing has provided an incentive to switch from the relatively harmless cannabis (which can stay in your system for upwards of 6 weeks) to heroin (which is out of your system in 3-5 days). More vigorous searching has had the same effect, as the much smaller packages heroin comes in are easier to smuggle in.
> 
> I have a very strong suspicion that this has been a big contributory factor to the current smack epidemic, as people who become hooked in prison become dealers when they get out and sell to their mates, getting them hooked as well - I know for absolute certain that this happens.



It's a suspicion supported by research. The Home Office first looked at it in higher-Cat prisons back in the early '90s, as smack was already a problem then (as you say, more portable/smuggleable) in places like Wandsworth. You've got people doing 2-3 years or more, and the choice is stay totally clean (hard), become a hooch-head (bad for your health, because the stuff is rotgut shite) or take drugs (very easy).  Hardly surprising so many people inside do it.

Of course, rational people, figuring the prevalence of drugs, and looking at the reasons for drug-use in prison (primary motivator is boredom), would see the good sense in TV and radio use as privileges - it breaks the boredom.  Only rational people, though, not gobshites.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Have you ever had your head nailed to the floor?



Lol - yes you are very aggressive!

and people have gone on about stuff I've said being worrying


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> okay, fine, I was a minor footsoldier in the Northampton Mandem. We were all done under RICO.



That is meaningless to me - was it a protest?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> wrt x-box etc I did hear of a Woodhill scheme whereby certain trustees (if they even call them that anymore) would be allowed the perk of an hour on a playstation once a week. In exchange for duties etc.
> 
> It's hardly some universal holiday camp perk is it.



Nope, and the Woodhill experiment was closed down because of the minister getting worried people would think the govt was soft on criminals.  Politicians, they haven't got a fucking clue about what goes on in the penal system!


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's a suspicion supported by research. The Home Office first looked at it in higher-Cat prisons back in the early '90s, as smack was already a problem then (as you say, more portable/smuggleable) in places like Wandsworth. You've got people doing 2-3 years or more, and the choice is stay totally clean (hard), become a hooch-head (bad for your health, because the stuff is rotgut shite) or take drugs (very easy).  Hardly surprising so many people inside do it.
> 
> Of course, rational people, figuring the prevalence of drugs, and looking at the reasons for drug-use in prison (primary motivator is boredom), would see the good sense in TV and radio use as privileges - it breaks the boredom.  Only rational people, though, not gobshites.



there shouldn't be any drugs in prison in the first place

the first thing that should happen when an addict goes to prison is they get them off the drugs and ensure no drugs are available to them

if the prison system can't effect even this, it is bound to fail


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2014)

No drugs, no food, no shitting up at having no xbox, no converting to islam - what sort of fun is that?


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> there shouldn't be any drugs in prison in the first place



And the sun should shine every day and everyone should win the lottery and England should actually play OK in Brazil............................


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> And the sun should shine every day and everyone should win the lottery and England should actually play OK in Brazil............................



So getting prisoners clean isn't a good idea?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> there shouldn't be any drugs in prison in the first place
> 
> the first thing that should happen when an addict goes to prison is they get them off the drugs and ensure no drugs are available to them
> 
> if the prison system can't effect even this, it is bound to fail



We have overwhelming proof that this is indeed impossible. What do we do now?


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> So getting prisoners clean isn't a good idea?



Its a great idea, but what you are proposing is a massive task that would require resources that are not there at the moment.  Its not like they don't try and stop the flow of drugs* its just like every other anti-drug policy its ultimately doomed to failure.

* If you've ever visited someone in prison you'll know they search kids who are visiting their mum / dad, its a bleak sight first time you see it.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2014)

Favelado said:


> We have overwhelming proof that this is indeed impossible.


 
Well, it's certainly hard to prove any institution has no drugs in it...


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

Favelado said:


> We have overwhelming proof that this is indeed impossible. What do we do now?



So far but that's not to say it isn't possible if people really wanted to sort it out

It seems to me that as with the X-Boxes etc the drugs are seen as necessary by prison officers to keep prisoners subdued ie they prefer the drugs to be present than not


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> What next, song lyrics?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> It seems to me that as with the X-Boxes etc the drugs are seen as necessary by prison officers to keep prisoners subdued ie t*hey prefer the drugs to be present than not*




and how else are they supposed to top up those meagre wages?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> So far but that's not to say it isn't possible if people really wanted to sort it out
> 
> It seems to me that as with the X-Boxes etc the drugs are seen as necessary by prison officers to keep prisoners subdued ie they prefer the drugs to be present than not



Should we put up income tax to pay for the resources needed to have a go at this?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodandd...ieve-how-easy-life-is-in-British-prisons.html
> 
> "Ramsay, 45, said he was astounded when he discovered convicted criminals were given five meal choices every night and constant access to television, video games and gym facilities.
> 
> ...



The "five meal choices" isn't a choice of five different main courses for each inmate, it's a choice of one of three standard meals (and has to be chosen in advance), a vegetarian option and a religious option (Jewish/Muslim).
As usual, Ramsay is talking out of his arse.  Unsurprising.  He's made a career out of being "controversial".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> well known prison expert, Gordon 'fucking' Ramsey



Yep.  Spends a couple of weeks all told supervising a programme in a single nick, and thinks he's got a clue.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> When I worked in the catering industry I found out that money spent on prisoners food was roughly 8p per head per meal.  I wonder how far Ramsey could make that go.



If you allow for the fact that the Prison Service uses its' farms to grow a lot of produce, back in the '90s it was more like 25p, but even then, that's fuck-all compared to most per head allowances.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Should we put up income tax to pay for the resources needed to have a go at this?



I'm sure a lot of money is wasted paying companies like Group4 or whatever they're called now, to run the system very badly 

I can't cope with how badly people run things in life

If I was running them I'd do it better 

humans are generally no good at running a good system though - they prefer to mess about and get what they can out the system


----------



## Favelado (Jun 2, 2014)

No wonder all these immigrants are coming over here and committing crime if you get free accommodation, gym membership, Sky telly, X-box, and Gordon Ramsey cooks your dinner for you. I might go and rob someone myself.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> So far but that's not to say it isn't possible if people really wanted to sort it out



Better still, why don't we just get people to stop committing crimes?

We could take the Dutch approach.....


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The "five meal choices" isn't a choice of five different main courses for each inmate, it's a choice of one of three standard meals (and has to be chosen in advance), a vegetarian option and a religious option (Jewish/Muslim).
> As usual, Ramsay is talking out of his arse.  Unsurprising.  He's made a career out of being "controversial".



I detest the man but he was quoting some actual figures so that was the relevance


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

Favelado said:


> No wonder all these immigrants are coming over here and committing crime if you get free accommodation, gym membership, Sky telly, X-box, and Gordon Ramsey cooks your dinner for you. I might go and rob someone myself.



you mean you haven't already?

I thought everyone had on here

(that was a joke but I know it will cause major outrage nevertheless)


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> So far but that's not to say it isn't possible if people really wanted to sort it out


 
It seems plausible to me that you could reduce the amount of drugs in prisons with certain steps that would be getting close to hermetic sealing of the prisoners' environment but it would be extremely expensive and very likely hamper many of the efforts (woeful as they often are) to help make prisoners ready for release, as well as possibly having other unintended consequences <the mention of more harmful drugs being used just because they evade the tests more easily has already been mentioned>, being in contravention of various human rights laws etc.

I'd guess that if it wasn't completely budget-trashing some enterprising young Tory would be trying it out right now on a selection of prisons - probably a vote-winner up until people realise how much they would be paying for it.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> It seems plausible to me that you could reduce the amount of drugs in prisons with certain steps that would be getting close to hermetic sealing of the prisoners' environment but it would be extremely expensive and very likely hamper many of the efforts (woeful as they often are) to help make prisoners ready for release, as well as possibly having other unintended consequences <the mention of more harmful drugs being used just because they evade the tests more easily has already been mentioned>, being in contravention of various human rights laws etc.
> 
> I'd guess that if it wasn't completely budget-trashing some enterprising young Tory would be trying it out right now on a selection of prisons - probably a vote-winner up until people realise how much they would be paying for it.



There is the money for it though - it's just in the wrong hands

Drugs are seen as a fact of life now in our society and I think that's very sad


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> And we should believe this why?
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/government-spends-30-more-on-dinner-681361
> 
> ...



Looks like you haven't worked out that those costs are averaged-out across the entire penal system, including the notoriously-expensive "Special Hospitals".  In case you're wondering why they're "notoriously-expensive, it because they don't use inmate labour in their kitchens.  The costs don't reflect the food-spend, either, they reflect the cost all associated costs, from food to staffing and supervision.  The Mirror has compared total cost in the case of prisons with food cost in the case of schools.



> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4832552.stm
> 
> From BBC site 2006:-
> 
> "The prison's 570 inhabitants must be fed on £1.68 a day each, including a breakfast pack (cereal, bread, jam and UHT milk), lunch, an evening meal and perhaps a snack later on. Once a week they get a ration of tea or coffee."



That's a single nick.  The budget varies, according to the number of inmates, and they're fed on a *maximum* of that sum. Money saved on the food budget gets rolled into other budgets.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Drugs are seen as a fact of life now in our society and I think that's very sad


 
http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB11334


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Drugs are seen as a fact of life now in our society and I think that's very sad



Not just now, recreational drugs have been around for ages, in fact the laws are tougher now then they've ever been - we should go back to the golden age od drug taking where you could get coke and heroin from your local pharmacy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> See - you like the idea
> 
> what were you in prison for?



The sort of impolitic question that sees a lot of noses being punched.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The sort of impolitic question that sees a lot of noses being punched.


 
You went to prison for getting your nose punched?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The sort of impolitic question that sees a lot of noses being punched.



I don't see why


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I don't see why


 
Best filed under 'not done'.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> Not just now, recreational drugs have been around for ages, in fact the laws are tougher now then they've ever been - we should go back to the golden age od drug taking where you could get coke and heroin from your local pharmacy.



I don't want to take drugs and I can't see how easier access to them would help people

if people often die of heroin overdoses how is easier access a good thing?

we'd still have Phillip Seymour Hoffman without him having been a heroin addict


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> Best filed under 'not done'.



if I'd been to prison I wouldn't have a problem telling people about it


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I don't want to take drugs and I can't see how easier access to them would help people


 
They might not be 80% brick dust and ground glass for starters.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> interesting that you took 'direct experience' to mean ex prisoner. Could have been screw, visitor, teaching or governer.



Always the same with that sort of person who spouts off about lefties, isn't it?  They assume that anyone who doesn't share their crass opinions is some kind of crim or wanna-be crim.

Then again, weren't you the leader of the Kettering Guns and Sex Posse?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> They might not be 80% brick dust and ground glass for starters.



an overdose is an overdose whatever the quality


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Always the same with that sort of person who spouts off about lefties, isn't it?  They assume that anyone who doesn't share their crass opinions is some kind of crim or wanna-be crim.
> 
> Then again, weren't you the leader of the Kettering Guns and Sex Posse?



she is though so I was right!

I've been in trouble with the police, just not been to prison

there's this weird thing of on the one hand wanting to challenge the system and if it takes breaking the law so be it, but also some kind of shame for having been in prison/being a criminal being seen as a bad thing - what's that all about??

the stance changes according to who is asking the question imo


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> if I'd been to prison I wouldn't have a problem telling people about it


 
In my limited experience when someone mentions having been inside they're usually volunteering something quite personal and if you keep your trap shut they often tell you what it was all about if they trust you.

These things may not transfer 100% faithfully to internet forums but the air of impertinence from the question remains.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> an overdose is an overdose whatever the quality



Eh?  If your chang is 90% glucose you're going to have to consume quite a lot to overdose.

Anyway, everyone takes drugs the question is why and to illicit what response.  I'm sure most people would struggle with the boredom of prison and if the chance arises to relieve that boredom people are going to take it, its just the way it is.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> an overdose is an overdose whatever the quality


 
And how do you work out the dose when you've no idea of the purity?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> In my limited experience when someone mentions having been inside they're usually volunteering something quite personal and if you keep your trap shut they often tell you what it was all about if they trust you.
> 
> These things may not transfer 100% faithfully to internet forums but the air of impertinence from the question remains.



Ok I take your point


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Lobster thermadore, ibérico ham and truffles. You know, oil rig food.



One of my cousins was a cook on the rigs (until his keen gambling brain told him that the odds got shorter that he'd cop it in a helicopter crash, the longer he worked offshore), and when I asked him what he cooked the most, it was "steak, more steak, roast pork or stews for evening meal - with chips, and tons of bacon butties and/or porridge for breakfast".
Plus he reckoned they made "fucktons" of rounds of sandwiches too.
Gave me a mental image of loads of blokes wandering round the rigs, 3/4 of the way to a massive heart attack!


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> And how do you work out the dose when you've no idea of the purity?



Why does it all suddenly become pure if it's legal?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> And how do you work out the dose when you've no idea of the purity?



You can't.  The purity issue took two of my mates back in the '80s.  Both times, the smack was so much purer than what they were used to, that their normal buy from the dealer put them into respiratory failure.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Why does it all suddenly become pure if it's legal?



Because it'd be subjected to quality control testing by the state, just like medical diamorphine (aka heroin) is.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> she is though so I was right!
> 
> I've been in trouble with the police, just not been to prison
> 
> ...



how dare you oppress me with inaccurate gender labelling


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because it'd be subjected to quality control testing by the state, just like medical diamorphine (aka heroin) is.



I can't see legalising it as the answer - people on heroin are often not able to function properly and they could still take overdoses - they aren't always accidental

life seems like loads of unsolvable problems basically - I can't blame people for wanting to block it all out


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> how dare you oppress me with inaccurate gender labelling



oh sorry if you are male

dot implied female


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Have you ever had your head nailed to the floor?



Does having your scrotum nailed to the floor count?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Does having your scrotum nailed to the floor count?



Only if it was the Dinsdale brothers what did it to ya.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I can't see legalising it as the answer - people on heroin are often not able to function properly and they could still take overdoses - they aren't always accidental



Often?  The majority of heroin users are maintenance users who manage to hold down jobs, not the small minority of chaotic users who have problems functioning, and usually subsidise their habit through crime. One of my contemporaries from school is upper management in a City firm. He's been steadily promoted up the ranks over the last 30 years.  He's also been addicted to heroin since before he started working for that company in the mid-'80s.
Loads of heroin users manage to function properly.



> life seems like loads of unsolvable problems basically - I can't blame people for wanting to block it all out



No problem is unsolvable. The problem for many people is that the solution can in the short term be more painful than the problem.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Only if it was the Dinsdale brothers what did it to ya.



They were bastards to me, but they were good to their dear old mum, were the Dinsdales.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> They were bastards to me, but they were good to their dear old mum, were the Dinsdales.



Firm, but fair.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> there shouldn't be any drugs in prison in the first place
> 
> the first thing that should happen when an addict goes to prison is they get them off the drugs and ensure no drugs are available to them



Want to take a guess why that will never happen? No?
One of the reasons politicians tolerate drugs in prison is because it keeps the inmate population pacified.  You can map most major crackdowns on drugs in prisons through time, and in most cases (the two most obvious and well-publicised being Strangeways and Holloway) aggro in prisons went up in leaps and bounds - more inmate-on-inmate assaults; more inmate-on-officer assaults, and more hooch production.
In case you're thinking "brewing hooch isn't so bad", this isn't like brewing wine, it's basically brewing any old shit, and then crudely distilling it, if possible, so you get hooch that's about as healthy to drink as meths is.




> if the prison system can't effect even this, it is bound to fail



The prison system isn't funded to do it.  Funds for detox/rehab are health service budget, not prisons budget.  The best we've got so far is drug treatment orders, and there's nowhere near enough detox places, let alone rehab places, to deal with even half of referrals through drug treatment orders (or whatever they're currently called).
Why isn't there enough funding?  Same old story - politicians aren't willing to put their names to financing services for drug-users in case the media present them as "soft on drugs", so for the short-term benefit of politicians, society gets fucked over.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> So getting prisoners clean isn't a good idea?



It's a good idea, it's just economically and structurally impossible currently, without a lot more skilled drug workers available, and cash and facilities for detox being increased (they'd need to be offsite in many cases, as few prisons have developable space that can be used for detox facilities).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> It seems plausible to me that you could reduce the amount of drugs in prisons with certain steps that would be getting close to hermetic sealing of the prisoners' environment but it would be extremely expensive and very likely hamper many of the efforts (woeful as they often are) to help make prisoners ready for release, as well as possibly having other unintended consequences <the mention of more harmful drugs being used just because they evade the tests more easily has already been mentioned>, being in contravention of various human rights laws etc.



The knock-on social effects are a fucker, too.  When Widdicunt tried instituting a harsher search regime for visitors than the standard x-ray-your-luggage-and-pat-you-down regime, some partners stopped visiting because they found being searched too humiliating (imagine being strip-searched on someone's whim).  Result: Prisoners getting antsy and violent because their already-minimal contact with their families was affected, all because Doris Karloff wanted to look tough.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I don't see why



It's poor etiquette.
You see, if someone has done their time, they've paid their debt to society, and have the right not to have some ill-mannered gobshite asking what they were in prison for.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I don't want to take drugs and I can't see how easier access to them would help people



Not everyone's the same, though. Others might want or need to take drugs, even though you choose not to.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Not everyone's the same, though. Others might want or need to take drugs, even though you choose not to.



I take anti-depressants and would prefer not to take them as they don't seem to be doing a lot of good


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's poor etiquette.
> You see, if someone has done their time, they've paid their debt to society, and have the right not to have some ill-mannered gobshite asking what they were in prison for.



it's never clear where the lines on disclosure are drawn though as there's a whole forum on here with people discussing what drugs they take

hence I assumed people wouldn't be worried about saying anything tbh


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> she is though so I was right!
> 
> I've been in trouble with the police, just not been to prison
> 
> there's this weird thing of on the one hand wanting to challenge the system and if it takes breaking the law so be it, but also some kind of shame for having been in prison/being a criminal being seen as a bad thing - what's that all about??



The shame (which came from the early penal institutions being run along strictly religious and moralistic lines, rather than on pragmatism) originally came from having sinned, and had your nose rubbed in your sin.  If we were pragmatic, and not led by the nose by the media, we'd dispense with the idea of shame, and stop wasting valuable human resources.



> the stance changes according to who is asking the question imo



Of course it does. We tend to have different perspectives depending on where we stand on certain fundamental issues.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of course it does. We tend to have different perspectives depending on where we stand on certain fundamental issues.



that's not what i was saying

I said the way a person reacts to a question varies in terms of who is asking eg I ask why were you in prison and it's offensive but on a thread about who has been in prison the person might well discuss it imo


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I take anti-depressants and would prefer not to take them as they don't seem to be doing a lot of good



I said drugs, not medications.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I said drugs, not medications.



They're still drugs and can be addictive as well


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I said drugs, not medications.



Thery're all drugs as you full well know.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No drugs, no food, no shitting up at having no xbox, converting to islam - what sort of fun is that?


at least we can still riot. small mercies. I bet in nessa's opinion prison riots are a bad thing but since we've already established that all her opinions are objectively wrong and their expression ought to be punished by gagging in the first instance and death for repeat offences we don't need to concern ourselves with what she thinks. 
not sure where she got the idea that prisons awash with too many drugs from either. unless things have changed beyond all recognition in the last 15 years there aren't anywhere near enough.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 2, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> Thery're all drugs as you full well know.


It's a way of differentiating. Medications are the things you get at a drug store, usually prescribed by a doctor, although some are available over the counter.

Drugs you get from that guy down the block.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's a way of differentiating. Medications are the things you get at a drug store, usually prescribed by a doctor, although some are available over the counter.
> 
> Drugs you get from that guy down the block.



What you are differentiating on his legal, proscribed and illegal.  At the end of the day that is subjective depending on where you happen to reside, but they are all drugs. 

Come on Johnny you've been here forever this discussion is a staple of the DF you must have seen it numerous times.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 2, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> What you are differentiating on his legal, proscribed and illegal.  At the end of the day that is subjective depending on where you happen to reside, but they are all drugs.
> 
> Come on Johnny you've been here forever this discussion is a staple of the DF you must have seen it numerous times.



No I haven't seen it. I just find making a differentiation between 'drugs' and 'medications'  when discussing it to be useful and easy for people to understand.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> What you are differentiating on his legal, proscribed and illegal.  At the end of the day that is subjective depending on where you happen to reside, but they are all drugs.
> 
> Come on Johnny you've been here forever this discussion is a staple of the DF you must have seen it numerous times.





SpineyNorman said:


> at least we can still riot. small mercies. I bet in nessa's opinion prison riots are a bad thing but since we've already established that all her opinions are objectively wrong and their expression ought to be punished by gagging in the first instance and death for repeat offences we don't need to concern ourselves with what she thinks.
> not sure where she got the idea that prisons awash with too many drugs from either. unless things have changed beyond all recognition in the last 15 years there aren't anywhere near enough.



How can an opinion be wrong??

it's not a fact, it's an opinion

you just like having a go at people imo - you're more immature than others on here

you can't hold much store by your own opinions if you need dissenters to be gagged


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> How can an opinion be wrong??
> 
> it's not a fact, it's an opinion
> 
> you just like having a go at people imo - you're more immature than others on here


How can an opinion be right?


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How can an opinion be right?



it's just an opinion so not right or wrong

some people might agree with it others not


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> No I haven't seen it. I just find making a differentiation between 'drugs' and 'medications'  when discussing it to be useful and easy for people to understand.



What about those that are both (of which there are many)?  Opiates being a good example as is Ket.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> it's just an opinion so not right or wrong
> 
> some people might agree with it others not


An opinion may not accord with the known facts, or know laws or rules - therefore it can be said to be wrong. In fact, what you are here regularly presenting as opinion is what is actually known as a false claim or at  best an untested claim. It's not opinion at all.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> An opinion may not accord with the known facts, or know laws or rules - therefore it can be said to be wrong. In fact, what you are here regularly presenting as opinion is what is actually known as a false claim or at  best an untested claim. It's not opinion at all.



In your opinion, not mine

you just like to argue imo


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> How can an opinion be wrong??
> 
> it's not a fact, it's an opinion
> 
> ...


I hold a lot of store by my opinions as I am always right, in contrast to you, who are always wrong. what's the point in letting people voice opinions which, like yours, are wrong? you're not a dissenter anyway, you're a tedious pro-establishment bore.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> In your opinion, not mine
> 
> you just like to argue imo


No - that's not what opinion is. You do not understand what constitutes opinion - which is lucky for you as it leaves you able to say that you are not going to defend your false or untested claims as they are just opinion. They're not.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> How can an opinion be wrong??
> 
> it's not a fact, it's an opinion
> 
> ...


I hold a lot of store by my opinions as I am always right, in contrast to you, who are always wrong. what's the point in letting people voice opinions which, like yours, are wrong? you're not a dissenter anyway, you're a tedious pro-establishment bore.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I hold a lot of store by my opinions as I am always right, in contrast to you, who are always wrong. what's the point in letting people voice opinions which, like yours, are wrong? you're not a dissenter anyway, you're a tedious pro-establishment bore.



More insults - what a surprise


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No - that's not what opinion is. You do not understand what constitutes opinion - which is lucky for you as it leaves you able to say that you are not going to defend your false or untested claims as they are just opinion. They're not.



say what you like - I switch off when you and he start posting as you're not pleasant people

you're like some kind of obnoxious double-act


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> An opinion may not accord with the known facts, or know laws or rules - therefore it can be said to be wrong. In fact, what you are here regularly presenting as opinion is what is actually known as a false claim or at  best an untested claim. It's not opinion at all.


 
Hmmm, yeah.  Opinions are often described as subjective judgments that may be based on interpretations of fact. 
Whether something is an opinion is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion.

IMO.
Maybe.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> In your opinion, not mine
> 
> you just like to argue imo


we've already established that all your opinions are wrong though.


----------



## cesare (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> In your opinion, not mine
> 
> you just like to argue imo


In my opinion you're always right except when you're wrong.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> National Audit Office isn't a newspaper
> 
> still no proof from you


No it isn't, but it's a more authoritative source that the Daily Mail. They do solid research. And what's wrong with that?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2014)

Someone needs to channel The Dude at this point...


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> ...it's a more authoritative source that the Daily Mail.


 
Faint praise, indeed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> More insults - what a surprise


In your opinion they're insults. In my opinion, which happens to be correct, they're statements of fact.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Always the same with that sort of person who spouts off about lefties, isn't it?  They assume that anyone who doesn't share their crass opinions is some kind of crim or wanna-be crim.
> 
> Then again, weren't you the leader of the Kettering Guns and Sex Posse?



we ran guns for the Desborough massif. It's not on me as to what they were used for.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2014)

In my opinion the earth is made of sausages and purple and there are only 47 people in China.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> In my opinion the earth is made of sausages and purple and there are only 47 people in China.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> In my opinion the earth is made of sausages and purple and there are only 47 people in China.


 
That's pretty close.  A certain proportion of the earth does indeed consist of purple things and sausages, and there are indeed 47 people in China.
Many multiples of 47 people, which makes you even more right.  We'll gloss over the 'only' bit for now...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> That's pretty close.  A certain proportion of the earth does indeed consist of purple things and sausages, and there are indeed 47 people in China.
> Many multiples of 47 people, which makes you even more right.  We'll gloss over the 'only' bit for now...



I shall clarify that opinion then - the earth is made exlusively from sausages and purple and there are now only 46 people in China (one died between my posts) who are also made of sausages and purple.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I shall clarify that opinion then - the earth is made exlusively from sausages of purple and there are now only 46 people in China (one died between my posts) who are also made of sausages and purple.


 
That would come under 'extraordinary claims' rather than opinions.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> That would come under 'extraordinary claims' rather than opinions.



In your opinion. What is it with you lefties trying to deny the opinions of others and call them 'extraordinary claims'? You can't hold much store by your opinions if you want to deny that other people's opinions are opinions.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2014)

I am also firmly of the opinion that smoking is good for you.

What percentage of people who don't smoke or stop smoking die? That's right - 100%!

In truth, a significant part of the population has tar and nicotine deficiencies, giving them a subconscious urge to smoke. Unfortunately you get a tolerance for it and need to keep smoking more and more, otherwise you will get lung complaints that doctors and the greybeards in the universities claim are smoking related - well they are smoking related but it's not enough smoking, not too much! Hence, once the doctors tell you to stop smoking because you've got serious health complaints your health tends to decline.

Another opinion - and one that's actually more coherently argued and has a better empirical grounding than those of someone I could (but won't) mention.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2014)

I'd meant to air my shitting story- it was not in the ignominy of youth where such things can be easily dismissed as 'I put away childish things'. Nor even is it a tale of shitting ones own self.


But I present it nonetheless 

I was on a working trip to bilboa on a ferry. I've developed over the years an iron gut, I can deny passage outwards for the brown soldiers for at least three days. But on the final night, on the way back, 4 days worth of food had decided that now was exit time. It was high seas. I'm sat popping out veins on the seat trying to pass this gut burster while 10 foot waves keep making me dislodged from the throne. I gritted my teeth and literally clung to the edges of the seat, my wailing caused a seasick mate to shout in 'you ok mate?'

'not really'

After what seemed like an eternity I passed what has to be the most solid turd ever seen in human history and half stood- then a fart struck. And it was a pebbledasher. Right up the bogcabin wall.

we just left it and bailed when we hit port

/shame


----------



## Wilf (Jun 3, 2014)

Has anyone heard from Maxine how the big day went?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 3, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> What about those that are both (of which there are many)?  Opiates being a good example as is Ket.



Well, no system is perfect.


----------



## Manter (Jun 3, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I can't cope with how badly people run things in life
> 
> If I was running them I'd do it better


You wouldn't. 

Mainly because running things means working with people and getting people to work together; for example clearly articulation goals and using a variety of routes (cooperation, teamwork, inspiration, explanation etc) to work towards them. 

You on the other hand have managed to irritate, offend or exasperate pretty much everyone you've interacted with on here, you regard people with undisguised contempt, accuse them if criminality and stupidity at regular intervals and can't articulate your ideas with calm precision.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2014)

Manter said:


> You wouldn't.
> 
> Mainly because running things means working with people and getting people to work together; for example clearly articulation goals and using a variety of routes (cooperation, teamwork, inspiration, explanation etc) to work towards them.
> 
> You on the other hand have managed to irritate, offend or exasperate pretty much everyone you've interacted with on here, you regard people with undisguised contempt, accuse them if criminality and stupidity at regular intervals and can't articulate your ideas with calm precision.



You're just being rude and picking on poor nessa because she's different, aren't you? 

Personally, I'm surprised you managed to write the above and resist the temptation to do what nessa has done so often, and add words such as "thick" or "idiot". Good on you!


----------



## comrade spurski (Jun 3, 2014)

when I was a kid at school we were playing a football match. The keeper came sliding out of his goal to smother the ball but unfortunately the striker had already swung his foot and he connected with the keepers mouth instead of the ball which bobbled by the keepers stomach. At this point another player swung a wild kick at the loose ball but instead of scoring into the empty net he completely missed the ball but hit the semi conscious keeper in the bollocks with a really sickening sounding thud that was heard all over the pitch.
The keeper was gushing blood teeth and puke all around the penalty box...loudly crying in the fetal position holding his rapidly swelling balls...and no matter how much you didn't want to watch the disturbing spectacle we were all unable to tear our eyes away from it...even though it made one or two others  chuck up at the sights and smells we all had to keep staring wide eyed in amazement and horror.

I'd forgotten about that feeling of morbid curiosity until I read this thread...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 4, 2014)

No posts since Monday


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 4, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> No posts since Monday


Yeah, there's a surprise


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 4, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> when I was a kid at school we were playing a football match. The keeper came sliding out of his goal to smother the ball but unfortunately the striker had already swung his foot and he connected with the keepers mouth instead of the ball which bobbled by the keepers stomach. At this point another player swung a wild kick at the loose ball but instead of scoring into the empty net he completely missed the ball but hit the semi conscious keeper in the bollocks with a really sickening sounding thud that was heard all over the pitch.
> The keeper was gushing blood teeth and puke all around the penalty box...loudly crying in the fetal position holding his rapidly swelling balls...and no matter how much you didn't want to watch the disturbing spectacle we were all unable to tear our eyes away from it...even though it made one or two others  chuck up at the sights and smells we all had to keep staring wide eyed in amazement and horror.
> 
> I'd forgotten about that feeling of morbid curiosity until I read this thread...


That's all very well but did any of them shit themselves?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 4, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> That's all very well but did any of them shit themselves?



Threadgenesis? ....could be amusing.


----------



## Rachel Whyte (May 29, 2017)

hello love reading this


----------



## Rachel Whyte (May 29, 2017)

She should be allowed to live her life in Brighton in peace x


----------



## JTG (May 29, 2017)

comrade spurski said:


> when I was a kid at school we were playing a football match. The keeper came sliding out of his goal to smother the ball but unfortunately the striker had already swung his foot and he connected with the keepers mouth instead of the ball which bobbled by the keepers stomach. At this point another player swung a wild kick at the loose ball but instead of scoring into the empty net he completely missed the ball but hit the semi conscious keeper in the bollocks with a really sickening sounding thud that was heard all over the pitch.
> The keeper was gushing blood teeth and puke all around the penalty box...loudly crying in the fetal position holding his rapidly swelling balls...and no matter how much you didn't want to watch the disturbing spectacle we were all unable to tear our eyes away from it...even though it made one or two others  chuck up at the sights and smells we all had to keep staring wide eyed in amazement and horror.
> 
> I'd forgotten about that feeling of morbid curiosity until I read this thread...


a) award an indirect free kick to the defending side
b) drop ball
c) abandon the match due to increasing unlikelihood of any of this ever happening or being covered by the Laws of the Game


----------



## keybored (May 29, 2017)

Rachel Whyte said:


> life in Brighton


Has she not been punished enough?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 29, 2017)

Rachel Whyte said:


> hello love reading this


Hello.  Unconventional thread bump/intro combo.

How did you happen upon this thread?


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Hello.  Unconventional thread bump/intro combo.
> 
> How did you happen upon this thread?


It's either just weird or it's someone trying to spread a rumour about where Ms Carr is now living.


----------



## bi0boy (May 29, 2017)

maomao said:


> It's either just weird or it's someone trying to spread a rumour about where Ms Carr is now living.



Maybe it is Maxine herself confirming she likes Brighton.


----------



## elbows (May 29, 2017)

maomao said:


> It's either just weird or it's someone trying to spread a rumour about where Ms Carr is now living.



I checked to make sure this wasnt a new rumour - quickly found a bloody daily mail article from a few years back that went on about her and other female tabloid monsters being in Brighton.


----------



## Athos (May 29, 2017)

I nearly drowned off Brighton. It was an awesome swell.


----------



## comrade spurski (May 29, 2017)

Athos said:


> I nearly drowned off Brighton. It was an awesome swell.


In the early 1970s when I was a little kid I was in the sea at southend and a dollop of shit bobbed by me...that was not fucking swell at all


----------

