# Teacher stabbed to death by pupil in Leeds



## happie chappie (Apr 28, 2014)

Oh fuck:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27193638


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Apr 28, 2014)

Oh dear.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 28, 2014)

happie chappie said:


> Oh fuck:



Was pretty much my first thought.


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2014)

Bloody hell that is really shocking.


----------



## pesh (Apr 28, 2014)

fuck


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2014)

It's a woman teacher too. 



> A female teacher has been stabbed to death at a school in Leeds.
> 
> Police said a 15-year-old male pupil at Corpus Christi Catholic College in Neville Road has been arrested.
> 
> ...


----------



## spring-peeper (Apr 28, 2014)

editor said:


> It's a woman teacher too.



Does it matter what sex the teacher was?


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2014)

spring-peeper said:


> Does it matter what sex the teacher was?


It's an important detail.


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 28, 2014)

This is terrible news.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Apr 28, 2014)

What a horrific thing to happen.


----------



## spring-peeper (Apr 28, 2014)

editor said:


> It's an important detail.




Why?


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2014)

spring-peeper said:


> Why?


Because I - along with just about every newspaper covering the event - clearly thinks it's an important detail, that's why they all mention it either in the headline or in the first paragraph. I imagine most people reading the story think so too, but I've got precisely zero interest in pursing this picky argument because I'm finding the news rather upsetting.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 28, 2014)

spring-peeper said:


> Why?



Its hardly unusual that details of the victim are relevant to the story.


----------



## machine cat (Apr 28, 2014)

Jesus!


----------



## jusali (Apr 28, 2014)

Condolences to all involved, such heartbreaking news


----------



## weepiper (Apr 28, 2014)

Deeply disturbing.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 28, 2014)

shit. I worked in Osmondthorpe a few years ago and know the school well. Although it is a rough area - stabbings are NOT a regular occurrence and the school is not particularly aggro. 
Fucking horrible.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 28, 2014)

Dreadful, ..... 
Don't know what else to say.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 28, 2014)

Brings back memories of the Philip Lawrence murder. Jesus.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 28, 2014)

Terrible news.  RIP


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 28, 2014)

What an awful incident. Poor woman.


----------



## Shirl (Apr 28, 2014)

How horrible and how sad.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 28, 2014)

Very upsetting news.


----------



## treelover (Apr 28, 2014)

awful news


made worse by the fact the govt and maybe UKIP politicise it by pushing the 'Broken Britain' angle


----------



## moomoo (Apr 28, 2014)

Terribly sad. For both the victim and the child that did it.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 28, 2014)

Completely awful.  No worse because she's a woman, IMO, but clearly very shocking and upsetting.  

Incredibly rare, though.   I don't think there are any big lessons to be learned or points to be scored - though doubtless the politicians and media will differ.  I feel tremendously sad for everyone involved.  Including the fifteen year old who did it: though I'm not sure whether that's sensible.   I just look at all my lovely students and the stress and pressure of this time of year and how shit it is being a kid generally...  And now the stupid pillock has fucked it all up in the worst imaginable way.


----------



## Kidda (Apr 28, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Completely awful.  No worse because she's a woman, IMO, but clearly very shocking and upsetting.
> 
> Incredibly rare, though.   I don't think there are any big lessons to be learned or points to be scored - though doubtless the politicians and media will differ.  I feel tremendously sad for everyone involved.  Including the fifteen year old who did it: though I'm not sure whether that's sensible.   I just look at all my lovely students and the stress and pressure of this time of year and how shit it is being a kid generally...  And now the stupid pillock has fucked it all up in the worst imaginable way.



One of my first thoughts was for the 15 year old kid too, happy and secure kids don't go round jibbing up teachers. 

Tragic


----------



## weltweit (Apr 28, 2014)

I gather she was a Spanish teacher of some years experience, much loved by most of her students, very sad.

What did piss me off a little was that David Cameron saw fit to make an immediate statement. He seems to want to make an immediate statement about just about everything these days, as if he thinks he has some kind of special insight that could not be brought by people closer to events who actually know what they are talking about! Pissed me off!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 28, 2014)

editor said:


> It's a woman teacher too.



All very well that article burbling about the school's "Christian ethos", but it looks like there wasn't as much emphasis put on "thou shalt not kill" as there should have been.  jesus fuck, it's almost as if the school is pre-emptively trying to state "it wasn't *our* fault"!


----------



## Miss Caphat (Apr 28, 2014)

we had a stabbing like that here, a 15 yr old killed his 24 yr old math teacher while he was staying after school for extra help, very disturbing  http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...leen-ritzer/5bcPieUo0n6R3fyYqRTxWN/story.html


----------



## Balbi (Apr 28, 2014)

It's weird, I reckon every teacher knows a teacher who's been threatened or has had to duck a chair or thrown object by a child/student/parent. But we stick at the damn job. The automaton view of fuckwit Gove and his crew of merry cunts based on fact and figures fails to account for the mental and emotional dynamics of education, and that no school is an island, but an increasingly pressurised reflection of the community and the family circumstances of its pupils and educators.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 28, 2014)

editor said:


> Because I - along with just about every newspaper covering the event - clearly thinks it's an important detail, that's why they all mention it either in the headline or in the first paragraph. I imagine most people reading the story think so too, but I've got precisely zero interest in pursing this picky argument because I'm finding the news rather upsetting.


Also because, notwithstanding the (right and proper) advances in the cause of feminism, we still tend to regard male-on-female violence as somehow more shocking than (say) male-on-male. I'm certainly not going to argue with that, so yes, the gender of the stab victim is relevant.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 28, 2014)

I'd been resisting the comparison with Phil Lawrence, but I can't think, Dunblane aside, of a similar incident between '95 and now.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 28, 2014)

I think making a comparison with Philip Lawrence is lazy, until any more facts are known, it really really could  be anything.


----------



## tbtommyb (Apr 28, 2014)

eurgh i felt sick seeing this headline.

my girlfriend started as a secondary school teacher this year and has already been threatened by a pupil ("I want to hurt her"). The school's response was to give her a red card so that if anything kicks off she can get another pupil to run with it to the staff office and get help. So when this 6ft dickhead has her pinned against the wall by the throat she's meant to wait for someone to run to the office? It's fucking disgusting, the position teachers are left in. They can't even do discipline any more, there are specific staff for that. But the kids quickly work out how limited their authority is.

People will hark back to some golden age of teaching when all the students sat quietly and learned politely, that probably never existed. Now so many of her pupils have some three letter acronym issue that they seem to think absolves them of all responsibility for their own behaviour. But god knows how many troubled kids back in that golden age never got any kind of support in school, their problems were invisible.

The school is known for being the worst in the area. The kids who get sent there go in thinking that therefore they're the worst, a belief reinforced by the state of the building and facilities. how can you teach anyone when they think that they're only there because they're worthless?


----------



## 8115 (Apr 28, 2014)

Sorry but I worked in a secondary school for a bit over a year, by no means a great school and I never once saw even verbal aggression from a pupil towards a teacher.  Teenagers get a bad press but I think this kind of thing is incredibly incredibly rare.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 28, 2014)

I am not convinced it is relevant the teacher was female.

It was a student on teacher fatal stabbing, surely that is enough.


----------



## Looby (Apr 28, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Also because, notwithstanding the (right and proper) advances in the cause of feminism, we still tend to regard male-on-female violence as somehow more shocking than (say) male-on-male. I'm certainly not going to argue with that, so yes, the gender of the stab victim is relevant.



I don't want to be argumentative on a sensitive thread but I genuinely don't understand why it's perceived to be worse. 

I can only echo what spangles, moomoo and others have said. Terribly sad for all involved including that lad and his poor family.


----------



## Looby (Apr 28, 2014)

8115 said:


> Sorry but I worked in a secondary school for a bit over a year, by no means a great school and I never once saw even verbal aggression from a pupil towards a teacher.  Teenagers get a bad press but I think this kind of thing is incredibly incredibly rare.



I left school 18 years ago and my form tutor had been there 20 before me. 

She said that when she started there, women teachers were escorted class to class as boys (it was a boys school then) would line the corridor shoving them and tripping them up. 

I think she was quite scared and nearly left but it did get better. 

Our school was always rough but I don't ever remember teachers being attacked or threatened.


----------



## tbtommyb (Apr 28, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I am not convinced it is relevant the teacher was female.
> 
> It was a student on teacher fatal stabbing, surely that is enough.


Of course it matters, because a man is likelier to be stronger and better able to defend themselves. That doesn't apply for everyone, but if it really came to it most men could at least hold their own against a 15-year-old for a bit longer than a 61-year-old woman.

that this is controversial is mind-boggling.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 28, 2014)

It kind of has to be seen within a general context of male-on-female violence. But that's probably a topic for another thread.


----------



## tbtommyb (Apr 28, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Also because, notwithstanding the (right and proper) advances in the cause of feminism, we still tend to regard male-on-female violence as somehow more shocking than (say) male-on-male. I'm certainly not going to argue with that, so yes, the gender of the stab victim is relevant.


Yes, because there is a power asymmetry. I don't think 'right and proper' feminists have ever argued differently. Actually it's pretty fundamental to the whole thing.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 28, 2014)

8115 said:


> Sorry but I worked in a secondary school for a bit over a year, by no means a great school and I never once saw even verbal aggression from a pupil towards a teacher.  Teenagers get a bad press but I think this kind of thing is incredibly incredibly rare.



This kind of thing is rare I agree but getting threatened is very common, when I worked with kids I've been physically assaulted, the one time the child was beside himself with anger (about something that had happened at home) and incredibly upset, it wasn't reported.

I imagine that kind of thing happens a lot.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 28, 2014)

I went to high school in the 80s and I saw two incidents in which teachers were assaulted, one quite seriously with an iron bar. But it was certainly a rare thing. As it is now.


----------



## felixthecat (Apr 28, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I am not convinced it is relevant the teacher was female.
> 
> It was a student on teacher fatal stabbing, surely that is enough.



I think it's more relevant that she was 61. Not long ago she'd be enjoying retirement.....


----------



## Looby (Apr 28, 2014)

felixthecat said:


> I think it's more relevant that she was 61. Not long ago she'd be enjoying retirement.....



Yep, 68 is too late. 

She may well still be working because she wants to but it does bring the issue of forcing people to work longer into sharp focus.


----------



## tbtommyb (Apr 28, 2014)

sparklefish said:


> Yep, 68 is too late.
> 
> She may well still be working because she wants to but it does bring the issue of forcing people to work longer into sharp focus.


No, it doesn't. If she worked to 100 she should still be able to come into work and not be threatened.


----------



## Looby (Apr 28, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> No, it doesn't. If she worked to 100 she should still be able to come into work and not be threatened.



Of course she should but there are particular jobs which can become much harder with age.

Firefighters, paramedics, medical staff at all levels and yeah teachers. Actually all bloody jobs, we'll be dying at our desks as the retirement age keeps rising. 

What will start happening to those than can't hack it to 68 is they'll start to be forced out on ill health/capability grounds. If they can't get ill health retirement they'll be dismissed.

But yes, absolutely no-one whether they are 20 or 80 should be threatened/attacked at work.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 28, 2014)




----------



## Kidda (Apr 28, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> Of course it matters, because a man is likelier to be stronger and better able to defend themselves. That doesn't apply for everyone, but if it really came to it most men could at least hold their own against a 15-year-old for a bit longer than a 61-year-old woman.
> 
> that this is controversial is mind-boggling.



So is it a gender issue or an age issue? How would a 61 year old man cope?

I can more than hold my own with all our challenging pupils.


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 28, 2014)

This is very very sad.  FWIW there have been a number of attacks on teachers in my school over the years, including this academic year - we've also excluded a student found with a knife this year.  Actually stabbing a teacher (with a knife) is rare it seems but attacks do happen.

Tragic all round.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 28, 2014)

sparklefish said:


> I don't want to be argumentative on a sensitive thread but I genuinely don't understand why it's perceived to be worse.
> 
> I can only echo what spangles, moomoo and others have said. Terribly sad for all involved including that lad and his poor family.


Not necessarily worse, but - I think, anyway - more shocking. And yes, it's one life lost and another forever ruined. Very sad


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 28, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> Of course it matters, because a man is likelier to be stronger and better able to defend themselves. That doesn't apply for everyone, but if it really came to it most men could at least hold their own against a 15-year-old for a bit longer than a 61-year-old woman.
> 
> that this is controversial is mind-boggling.


against a potentially full-height young adult attacking him with a knife?  

fwiw, i've never been attacked by a student but one of my kids did get 'managed moved' to a specialist educational provision after they told me they were "going to get someone to cut [my] face".  That, FTR was a 14 year old girl.


----------



## tbtommyb (Apr 28, 2014)

Kidda said:


> So is it a gender issue or an age issue? How would a 61 year old man cope?
> 
> I can more than hold my own with all our challenging pupils.


Both. There's always exceptions on either side. I bet if she had a black belt in karate she could have held her own better


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 28, 2014)

We've had numbers of assaults by pupils on staff in the past few years. Thankfully the staff were not seriously injured... but it is becoming more prevalent. I have to say that school management had a disturbing response to these assaults. They were not prepared to acknowledge these assaults as anything other than "isolated" incidents...These assaults were committed by 16 and 17 year old youths all of whom were from very difficult family backgrounds with many different interventions from numerous bodies ongoing...All had extreme behavioural diffuculties, and some had asbos. There are 28 teachers in the school. 18 women and 10 men. Of the 18 women 5 have been assaulted by male pupils in the past 3 years. Many of our women teachers have also been threatened. 1 male teacher has been assaulted...and 2 have been threatened.

This poor woman after 40 years educating young people is now dead because a pupil carried a knife into her classroom with the intention of stabbing her. There's no doubt that the pupil thought this through and planned it in some way. He may even have spoken about it with someone before carrying it out. 
Nobody should be able to carry a blade or weapon into a classroom. It just should not happen. 
All sorts of questions will be asked now.....why did it happen?  Had she been threatened or felt threatened in the past? What safety procedures and policies were in place..if any? Was management aware of potentially aggressive pupils? Did anyone working there have a finger on the pulse of behaviourally difficult pupils? Were there signs this particular pupil was dangerous?  If so what steps had been taken to provide assistance / support for the pupil? What assistance was being provided to the staff? What training had the teachers in dealing with assault?

My background is 15 years working with teenagers with EBDs .... assault in my experience and to my knowledge is never the first sign of a pupil's problematic behaviour. There are always many more red flags. 

I feel extremely sad for this teacher. Clearly she was at the end of her working life having given 40 years to educating thousands of young people. 

Assaults are happening in schools. They may seem rare because they are not reported on in the media. But Union Congress meetings are very much indicating that assaults on teachers are a problem. 

May she rest in peace.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 28, 2014)

Ps. Apologies for font changes. I'm posting from the phone...


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 28, 2014)

RIP Anne.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Apr 28, 2014)

> ...a pupil carried a knife into her classroom with the intention of stabbing her. There's no doubt that the pupil thought this through and planned it in some way. He may even have spoken about it with someone before carrying it out.



Did they?  

I know that some young folk carry knives for protection on the way too/from school, especially if they have to walk through an area that is considered "hostile territory".  Not with any intention of using it, just because others do and it becomes a sign of weakness not to.  I wouldnt be convinced it is premedidated.  Lots of stress at the moment, with people struggling, exam time coming up, pressures within schools.  I can see a stressed kid lashing out more than I think that a murder was actively planned.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 28, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> We've had numbers of assaults by pupils on staff in the past few years. Thankfully the staff were not seriously injured... but it is becoming more prevalent. I have to say that school management had a disturbing response to these assaults. They were not prepared to acknowledge these assaults as anything other than "isolated" incidents...These assaults were committed by 16 and 17 year old youths all of whom were from very difficult family backgrounds with many different interventions from numerous bodies ongoing...All had extreme behavioural diffuculties, and some had asbos. There are 28 teachers in the school. 18 women and 10 men. Of the 18 women 5 have been assaulted by male pupils in the past 3 years. Many of our women teachers have also been threatened. 1 male teacher has been assaulted...and 2 have been threatened.
> 
> This poor woman after 40 years educating young people is now dead because a pupil carried a knife into her classroom with the intention of stabbing her. There's no doubt that the pupil thought this through and planned it in some way. He may even have spoken about it with someone before carrying it out.
> Nobody should be able to carry a blade or weapon into a classroom. It just should not happen.
> ...


With respect, at this moment we know nothing about the pupils' intention and how much/little planning went into this. It isn't helpful to speculate that this was an intended act, and that it was discussed with others. We simply do not know that.

It is sad and it is horrible for both Mrs Maguire's family and for the family of the boy. My thoughts are with them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 28, 2014)

Balbi said:


> I'd been resisting the comparison with Phil Lawrence, but I can't think, Dunblane aside, of a similar incident between '95 and now.


except those two incidents were entirely different from this one


----------



## Balbi (Apr 28, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> except those two incidents were entirely different from this one



I was comparing Phil Lawrence being stabbed and then meandering onto how rare it is for this to happen to teachers in general and did not make that clear. Sorry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 28, 2014)

Balbi said:


> I was comparing Phil Lawrence being stabbed and then meandering onto how rare it is for this to happen to teachers in general and did not make that clear. Sorry.


stabbed by someone he didn't know while going to the aid of one of his pupils outside a school, not in class by one of his pupils. why look for comparisons when the event is, in this country, unprecedented?


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 28, 2014)

A teacher was killed in a classroom in Dundee by Robert Mone in 1964, although that was with a shotgun not a knife. That's the closest case I can think of.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 28, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> A teacher was killed in a classroom in Dundee by Robert Mone in 1964, although that was with a shotgun not a knife. That's the closest case I can think of.



Mone wasn't a pupil at the time though.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 28, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Mone wasn't a pupil at the time though.


True, although he was a former pupil.


----------



## Riklet (Apr 29, 2014)

bloody awful


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 29, 2014)

Just for info, i read this a week ago. 
One in five teachers abused online by parents and pupils.
Many teachers do not report abuse due to management failure in dealing with previous incidents, NASUWT study finds.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/apr/21/teachers-abused-online-parents-pupils


----------



## Batboy (Apr 29, 2014)

Kidda said:


> One of my first thoughts was for the 15 year old kid too, happy and secure kids don't go round jibbing up teachers.
> 
> Tragic



Yep my thoughts too. The boy concerned who by all accounts was an exceptional pupil was withdrawn and a loner,  it is suggested he was affected by both his parents divorce/separation and his father recently having another son.  The teacher taught Spanish the one subject the pupil supposedly struggled in. I know comparisons with the Head Teacher Lawrence who was stabbed and murdered by a pupil are being made, but this is different.

I work with kids this age and we recently had a lad who fitted this boys description. No matter what, I could not communicate with him, he never really spoke to any of the other lads in the group of 20 I was working with. I could sense he is incredibly angry, isolated and confused inside, but probably only ever showed it to his mother. He recently left us, this incident in Leeds has given me food for thought.

The pupil in Leeds clearly needed help, fucking tragic all round.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 29, 2014)

Batboy said:


> Yep my thoughts too. The boy concerned who by all accounts was an exceptional pupil was withdrawn and a loner,  it is suggested he was affected by both his parents divorce/separation and his father recently having another son.  The teacher taught Spanish the one subject the pupil supposedly struggled in. I know comparisons with the Head Teacher Lawrence who was stabbed and murdered by a pupil are being made, but this is different.
> 
> I work with kids this age and we recently had a lad who fitted this boys description. No matter what, I could not communicate with him, he never really spoke to any of the other lads in the group of 20 I was working with. I could sense he is incredibly angry, isolated and confused inside, but probably only ever showed it to his mother. He recently left us, this incident in Leeds has given me food for thought.
> 
> The pupil in Leeds clearly needed help, fucking tragic all round.


As a schools counsellor, the kind of pupil you describe here is my stock in trade. Their frustration with a system that, although it often tries to recognise the difficulties that individual pupils are having, cannot really prioritise supporting such pupils (thanks, Gove and your predecessors) means that an independent service like ours is ever more necessary. 

We may not know if this lad had access to counselling, or if it would have make a difference in this case, but it does take someone like a counsellor to identify and tackle these kinds of problem before it gets to the point where pupils are attacking or killing teachers, other pupils, or themselves.


----------



## Batboy (Apr 29, 2014)

existentialist said:


> As a schools counsellor, the kind of pupil you describe here is my stock in trade. Their frustration with a system that, although it often tries to recognise the difficulties that individual pupils are having, cannot really prioritise supporting such pupils (thanks, Gove and your predecessors) means that an independent service like ours is ever more necessary.
> 
> We may not know if this lad had access to counselling, or if it would have make a difference in this case, but it does take someone like a counsellor to identify and tackle these kinds of problem before it gets to the point where pupils are attacking or killing teachers, other pupils, or themselves.



I'm guessing that the root of this lies in a troubled emotional home life rather than a school system per se, although you are right in identifying the lack of support for pupils who are under duress. Schools wrongly in my view are too 'herd' minded. More mentoring is needed in some cases. I suspect the school become the frontline in his battle of demons within his family and personal life.

I also think you're right in regards to whether counselling would have made a difference in this case, It can be incredibly difficult to connect with 14/15 year olds at the best of times, let alone when they are deeply troubled. My daughter had counselling at 13/14 and was really let down and now has a really negative view of counselling. It can be treading on proverbial eggshells.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 29, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Just for info, i read this a week ago.
> One in five teachers abused online by parents and pupils.
> Many teachers do not report abuse due to management failure in dealing with previous incidents, NASUWT study finds.
> http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/apr/21/teachers-abused-online-parents-pupils




A young teacher where I'm working was recently assaulted by one of her pupils. He hit her on the head, cornered her and punched her in the stomach. It was ten minutes before a passing teacher heard her screaming and came to her aid. She is not permanently employed at the school and she didn't want to make an "issue or a fuss" because it might work against her getting more work.  very disheartening and sad that teachers can feel this way.  Worse than that....management did nothing because she didn't complain. Senior staff did complain but were told that as the young teacher had not made a formal complaint that they would not be following it up.
.. the pupil was suspended for 3 days.

I may be slated for giving a specific example but I think it illustrates the point.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 29, 2014)

Does this lad have a history of mental health problems?


----------



## Batboy (Apr 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Does this lad have a history of mental health problems?



It hasn't been reported, although the tabloids have done their usual shit and gone and spoke to neighbours and painted a picture of a withdrawn boy/family who doesn't speak to anyone and that he had no Facebook friends etc etc. It won't be that simple of course.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Does this lad have a history of mental health problems?


it's safe to we'll soon find out


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2014)

Very brave and sensible decision to open the school today.  The very best to all those working hard to overcome this tragedy.


----------



## JHE (Apr 29, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Does this lad have a history of mental health problems?



There have been reports, based I think on what other pupils have said, that he has suffered from depression.

The Daily Mail explains that the lad is "a middle-class drug-taker".


----------



## Part 2 (Apr 29, 2014)

JHE said:


> There have been reports, based I think on what other pupils have said, that he has suffered from depression.
> 
> The Daily Mail explains that the lad is "a middle-class drug-taker".



Apparently he also listens to Heavy Metal!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2014)

in an effort to find a precedent for this sorry incident i searched the times digital archive; without success. However, it did turn up the case of a pupil-teacher, one James Daniel Howard,19, who in 1874 killed one of his pupils, the luckless William Henry Dabbs, 10, with a whack on the side of the head, knocking him into a wall causing a fatal injury. Howard was acquitted of manslaughter, one of the judges saying that inexperienced teachers should not be administering corporal punishment.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 29, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> True, although he was a former pupil.



Then there was the case of Garnett Bell, who attacked pupils sitting an examination at his old school in the north of Ireland with a home-made flamethrower (this was not connected to northern Irish politics, but to his sense of grievance at what he considered inadequate career guidance from his _alma mater_).


----------



## Dan U (Apr 29, 2014)

Batboy said:


> It hasn't been reported, although the tabloids have done their usual shit and gone and spoke to neighbours and painted a picture of a withdrawn boy/family who doesn't speak to anyone and that he had no Facebook friends etc etc. It won't be that simple of course.



just read some of the Mails coverage online



> He added: ‘He came to a party a few weeks ago and he took some paracetamol beforehand. He used to take drugs all the time.’



pretty desperate stuff.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2014)

Dan U said:


> Mail...pretty desperate stuff.



nuff


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 29, 2014)

The Mail has obviously just had its little world turned upside down. 



> A neighbour said: ‘They are a professional family – they get up and go to work. You’d never expect something like this.


----------



## treelover (Apr 29, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> in an effort to find a precedent for this sorry incident i searched the times digital archive; without success. However, it did turn up the case of a pupil-teacher, one James Daniel Howard,19, who in 1874 killed one of his pupils, the luckless William Henry Dabbs, 10, with a whack on the side of the head, knocking him into a wall causing a fatal injury. Howard was acquitted of manslaughter, one of the judges saying that inexperienced teachers should not be administering corporal punishment.




There were numerous incidents in my school in the 70's were teachers tussled and basically fought with pupils, one student getting thrown against a locker with a loud thud


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> There were numerous incidents in my school in the 70's were teachers tussled and basically fought with pupils, one student getting thrown against a locker with a loud thud


how many teachers were killed at your school?


----------



## treelover (Apr 29, 2014)

None, I'm saying the above happened frequently, that's all, it would not be acceptable now rightly.


----------



## discokermit (Apr 29, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> how many teachers were killed at your school?


i saw one of ours get his nose broken, then we all pelted him with snowballs. best schoolday ever.


----------



## discokermit (Apr 29, 2014)

interesting to see sympathies shift slightly on this thread as it is discvovered that the perpetrator is middle class.


----------



## Ax^ (Apr 29, 2014)

True but then you accept a certain percentage of fatal beating at public schools...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 29, 2014)

very very few 'middle class' families in osmondthorpe.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> very very few 'middle class' families in osmondthorpe.


there'll be one fewer shortly


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> All very well that article burbling about the school's "Christian ethos", but it looks like there wasn't as much emphasis put on "thou shalt not kill" as there should have been.  jesus fuck, it's almost as if the school is pre-emptively trying to state "it wasn't *our* fault"!



What is the matter with you? There is no indication yet this has anything to do with how the school operates. 

Maybe you could cut them some slack if their PR isn't up to your standards hours after a murder.

In editors quote it's just off the website in any case, not a statement in response to.


----------



## rioted (Apr 29, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> how many teachers were killed at your school?


Since, on the whole, school kids are smaller than their teachers, it's not surprising that attacks don't often result in fatalities. HOWEVER violence against teaching/support staff is a lot higher than you (or most people outside schools) think.

All governments and (inexplicably) most teaching unions underplay the stress from fear of violence that rules many teachers lives. I was attacked many times, the last was being hit over the head with a chair by a lad who I was trying to defend against attack by half a dozen of his classmates. A few weeks previously I was stabbed in the hand with a pencil. Luckily it wasn't sharp. But nothing was done about that incident and I resigned two weeks after the chair incident, by which time I still hadn't been seen by management. Once I offered my resignation they offered counselling.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2014)

> Anne Maguire was just weeks away from retirement, her school said today...[she] was due to retire in September but would have taken her last lesson in July.



Not enough s.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 29, 2014)

So, after so many years at that school, just months from retirement, especially cruel for her and her family.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 29, 2014)

weltweit said:


> So, after so many years at that school, just months from retirement, especially cruel for her and her family.


I must confess to wondering why, particularly, the media is making so much fuss about the fact that she was so close to retirement. It almost, it seems to me, diminishes the fact of her death - what does it matter that it was now, rather than at some other time? The important thing is that someone has lost their life in such a terrible way.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I must confess to wondering why, particularly, the media is making so much fuss about the fact that she was so close to retirement. It almost, it seems to me, diminishes the fact of her death - what does it matter that it was now, rather than at some other time? The important thing is that someone has lost their life in such a terrible way.


 
I don't see it as diminishing the cruel loss, just adding to the tragedy.


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 29, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I must confess to wondering why, particularly, the media is making so much fuss about the fact that she was so close to retirement. It almost, it seems to me, diminishes the fact of her death - what does it matter that it was now, rather than at some other time? The important thing is that someone has lost their life in such a terrible way.



Because she was on the verge of a new life and that has been taken from her.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 29, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I must confess to wondering why, particularly, the media is making so much fuss about the fact that she was so close to retirement. It almost, it seems to me, diminishes the fact of her death - what does it matter that it was now, rather than at some other time? The important thing is that someone has lost their life in such a terrible way.


Oh, ok. Sure people dying, or being killed at any stage of their lives is tragic. But I don't find it so very strange to mention retirement. She had worked hard for many years and was close to being able to enjoy her retirement. That was taken from her.


----------



## catinthehat (Apr 29, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Just for info, i read this a week ago.
> One in five teachers abused online by parents and pupils.
> Many teachers do not report abuse due to management failure in dealing with previous incidents, NASUWT study finds.
> http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/apr/21/teachers-abused-online-parents-pupils


Some will not report it due to the tendency to redefine it as poor classroom management on their part - I guess that comes under management failure.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 29, 2014)

catinthehat said:


> Some will not report it due to the tendency to redefine it as poor classroom management on their part - I guess that comes under management failure.


It's what happens when you end up with a system obsessed with performance indicators and blame - all the humanity then runs out at the corners.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I must confess to wondering why, particularly, the media is making so much fuss about the fact that she was so close to retirement. It almost, it seems to me, diminishes the fact of her death - what does it matter that it was now, rather than at some other time? The important thing is that someone has lost their life in such a terrible way.


further to previous posts, because she was nearly out of that environment which makes it crueller when she had such a short time working left


----------



## xenon (Apr 29, 2014)

8115 said:


> Sorry but I worked in a secondary school for a bit over a year, by no means a great school and I never once saw even verbal aggression from a pupil towards a teacher.  Teenagers get a bad press but I think this kind of thing is incredibly incredibly rare.



A classmate threatened to stab a supply teacher in the back in my secondry school, aged 13 - 14. He wouldn't have actually done it but the supply teacher wasn't really to know that. This wasn't a rough school.

Thankfully murders in school are rare but I couldn't comment about the general level of intimidation or violence. It would take someone who's worked in a variety of schools over a period of years to comment seriously on that.


----------



## xenon (Apr 29, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> further to previous posts, because she was nearly out of that environment which makes it crueller when she had such a short time working left



It's also almost a dramatic trope too. The cop days from retirement who has to go back out on to the streets. The vilane about to go straight... Of course a grim story such as this hardly requires dramatic hightning but the media aren't going to forego making something of the so close to getting out aspect.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 29, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> further to previous posts, because she was nearly out of that environment which makes it crueller when she had such a short time working left


Yeah, I guess so. I think I'm just becoming _really_ cynical about the way in which the press tends to go into a frenzy of trying to ratchet up the drama in anything that happens, and this "oh, sooo close..." thing feels a bit like that.

I'll try and dial the jaded scepticism back a little 

ETA: xenon nails it.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 29, 2014)

Batboy said:


> I'm guessing that the root of this lies in a troubled emotional home life rather than a school system per se, although you are right in identifying the lack of support for pupils who are under duress. Schools wrongly in my view are too 'herd' minded. More mentoring is needed in some cases. I suspect the school become the frontline in his battle of demons within his family and personal life.


I am not sure how profitable trying to work out specifically where the roots of these problems lie - in my experience, the most traumatic situations arise through a complex interplay of various factors, and separating them out is well-nigh impossible.

I see kids with the most appalling lives at home for whom school functions very well as an escape and a refuge, and who perform very well in school - sure, the fact that I am seeing them is usually a sign that something's not quite right, but they're not the kids of highest concern.

Conversely, there are kids whose background and family functioning is pretty good, but who simply don't fit into the school system, who also still manage to operate within a nominally "normal range" of behaviours.

Where the problems really start to come out of the woodwork is where you've got two or more factors at play - my top 3 "issues" are almost always family/home, bullying, and academic: get a kid who's home background is unstable, who isn't functioning well academically/exam-wise in school, and who's having some kind of peer relationships issue, and you've got a problematic kid.

Of course, it's not clear-cut - I lost a (former) client last year to suicide where a lot of the risk factors were there, but who appeared to be functioning OK to all intents and purposes. If I could predict with any accuracy which ones were going to go off the rails, I'd be working for a hedge fund, not a counselling service 

Which kind of leads on to your next point... 



Batboy said:


> I also think you're right in regards to whether counselling would have made a difference in this case, It can be incredibly difficult to connect with 14/15 year olds at the best of times, let alone when they are deeply troubled. My daughter had counselling at 13/14 and was really let down and now has a really negative view of counselling. It can be treading on proverbial eggshells.


Yes, there are counsellors who, for whatever reason, don't connect. I have met counsellors who, frankly, shouldn't have been practising; I've also met counsellors who, while apparently perfectly competent therapists, just weren't cut out for working with this age group. And then there are those - and I think I'm one of them - who somehow manage to be able to connect really well with this age group. And even then, there are some kids who are either too troubled, too pissed-off with well-meaning adults, or maybe just not ready to engage with therapy or a therapist.

FWIW, it boils my piss when I hear about people - especially young people - who have been let down by counsellors: in betraying the trust of that child, the therapist has also betrayed their entire profession. I've had to pick up the pieces a few times, and it's never easy rebuilding that trust.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 29, 2014)

Nearly 1000 weapons were confiscated from school kids by police in the UK since 2011. These included swords, guns, knives and axes. These are just the weapons brought to the attention of the police. Many more potential weapons ie: screwdrivers, pen knives etc will have been confiscated by schools without the intervention of the police. And more weapons will not have been confiscated at all.
Threats and assaults against teachers are on the increase. That is a fact born out at union conferences over the past three years. People are leaving the "profession" because of stress related illness connected to fear of assault.
Where I'm working we've been saying for the past two years that it's only a matter of time before a member of staff is seriously injured as a result of an assault.

Existentialist quite rightly lists the top three issues that can lead to EBD and a potential for violence and aggressive behaviour in youths(male and female)
I've experienced, first hand, extreme aggression and physical assault at the hands of teenagets with EBD. (Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties). In every case there were issues around home environment,  drug taking, gang / peer pressure, some lesrning difficulty and a complete lack of understanding of boundaries.
There are fewer public educational psychologists than there were 15 years ago. There is token access to psychiatric help for school kids, that takes a gp referral and an 18 month wait. There are increasing demands on kids and teachers to perform better, work harder etc.
And throw social media into the mix where kids are anonymously bullying each other.
Growing up now seems to be much more difficult and pressured than say 25 years ago.

I feel that this boy will now receive every assistance from psych etc services that he should have been given before he became so unhinged as to stab his teacher 15 times in the neck.

It is so tragic...


----------



## Batboy (Apr 29, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Which kind of leads on to your next point...
> 
> 
> Yes, there are counsellors who, for whatever reason, don't connect. I have met counsellors who, frankly, shouldn't have been practising; I've also met counsellors who, while apparently perfectly competent therapists, just weren't cut out for working with this age group. And then there are those - and I think I'm one of them - who somehow manage to be able to connect really well with this age group. And even then, there are some kids who are either too troubled, too pissed-off with well-meaning adults, or maybe just not ready to engage with therapy or a therapist.
> ...



My daughter who was 13 at the time and essentially had been used as an emotional crutch by her mother, was then very troubled and indeed is still now, the counsellor listened to her woes largely involving her mother and then went back to her mother and told her everything she said. Her mother (who in my view is a bordering sociopath) then confronted her with what the counsellor had told her. It was about as shit counselling you could get and the end result now is she at 21 tries to fight her demons herself and it really has been awful to watch as I feel powerless to help her. 

As an aside I would be interested in how you get troubled kids particularly boys 13-16 to open up. I work with this age group and largely they are all untroubled apart from the lad I mentioned. It seems to me that any problems tend to stem mainly from their relationships or lack of relationship with one or both parents. I'm thinking of paying him a visit to see if I can encourage him back.


----------



## Batboy (Apr 29, 2014)

[QUOTE="JHE, post: 13101755, member: 763"

The Daily Mail explains that the lad is "a middle-class drug-taker".[/QUOTE]

Just like I would guess some of their employees and many of their readers...


----------



## existentialist (Apr 29, 2014)

Batboy said:


> My daughter who was 13 at the time and essentially had been used as an emotional crutch by her mother, was then very troubled and indeed is still now, the counsellor listened to her woes largely involving her mother and then went back to her mother and told her everything she said. Her mother (who in my view is a bordering sociopath) then confronted her with what the counsellor had told her. It was about as shit counselling you could get and the end result now is she at 21 tries to fight her demons herself and it really has been awful to watch as I feel powerless to help her.


Far too long ago to be likely to be worth doing something about now, but that would be sanctionable conduct if she had been a member of any reputable professional body. Confidentiality is the absolute motherlode of counselling.



Batboy said:


> As an aside I would be interested in how you get troubled kids particularly boys 13-16 to open up. I work with this age group and largely they are all untroubled apart from the lad I mentioned. It seems to me that any problems tend to stem mainly from their relationships or lack of relationship with one or both parents. I'm thinking of paying him a visit to see if I can encourage him back.


I'm slightly allergic to the phrase "open up", TBH. My main focus when I start working with anyone is to present as accepting, willing to listen without judging, and prepared to let them take the lead. If they "open up", they do; if they don't, I don't push it.

Quite often, I will be at pains to make them aware that there is no question of them being under any obligation, as far as I am concerned, to tell me anything they don't want to. That usually does the trick


----------



## J Ed (Apr 29, 2014)

existentialist said:


> It's what happens when you end up with a system obsessed with performance indicators and blame - all the humanity then runs out at the corners.



It is the future that the data scientists are bequeathing to us. Just follow the numbers in everything.


----------



## Batboy (Apr 30, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Far too long ago to be likely to be worth doing something about now, but that would be sanctionable conduct if she had been a member of any reputable professional body. Confidentiality is the absolute motherlode of counselling.
> 
> 
> I'm slightly allergic to the phrase "open up", TBH. My main focus when I start working with anyone is to present as accepting, willing to listen without judging, and prepared to let them take the lead. If they "open up", they do; if they don't, I don't push it.
> ...



Couldn't do anything about my daughter at the time as she was living in America . 

Sounds like you are on the right track with your approach. 

I fully understand the need to simply listen. My own childhood from 10-15 was an incredibly troubled one (Mother in and out of mental Hospital, no money, violent alcoholic stepfather, Bio Father who didn't give a shit blah blah) I was thrown from pillar to post staying anywhere I could be dumped. I somehow coped with it, probably through simply being both genetically lucky and having a chatty nature enabling me later to talk about shit (just as I'm doing now! ). I never truly spoke about my childhood in open terms until I was in my twenties largely because I found it embarrassing. I found inspiration from a mate of mine who almost casually spoke about being sexually abused when he was a boy. I guess the key is being able to talk about it and then file it. It never goes away but the ability to park it somewhere is what you need to find. Sounds simple but it's a lot harder for some, as this tragic event in Leeds has shown.

It's motivated me in some respects in later years to mentor kids that age through sport. Being based in Hackney, there are a lot of troubled and challenging situations and diverse in socio economic terms too. I've watched one lad recently from a middle class background being really stressed out from school and simply the growing complexities of being 14 (same background as the schoolboy from Leeds). Another lads teen brother ended up in prison and at one point I was concerned he was going to follow the same route, I've known him now for 7 years he is polar opposite to the other lad I mentioned, living with single disabled mum in council house and obviously not in a great economic environment. He's been steered into an ok path and is a lovely kid, so, so far so good. 

On a general note I look at the world we live in now for young people and it is (despite some of the increased wealth) a tougher world than the one I grew up in. I often stop and think where I would have ended up, had I been 15/16 in 2014 as opposed to the mid seventies. The opportunities for younger people are immensely harder and more challenging in every aspect... jobs, the dangers of drugs, gangs, violence, housing etc. 

None of our governments seem to give a shit as mostly they are too busy lining their own pockets and enhancing their 'status' in life. 

Anyway I've rambled... Keep up the good work!


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 30, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> very very few 'middle class' families in osmondthorpe.



I suspect, like most catholic schools, that they bring in pupils from across the city, as there aren't that many catholic schools. Osmondthorpe borders quite a middle class suburb further east (up towards Temple Newsham)


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 30, 2014)

The BBC was showing the pupil's Facebook page this morning, zooming in on a 'like' for Crash Bandicoot. A bit Chris Morris.

This is more of a case of a disturbed individual (like a US school shooting) that a sign of societal decline and indiscipline, which must be a disappointment for the Mail.


----------



## sojourner (Apr 30, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I must confess to wondering why, particularly, the media is making so much fuss about the fact that she was so close to retirement. It almost, it seems to me, diminishes the fact of her death - what does it matter that it was now, rather than at some other time? The important thing is that someone has lost their life in such a terrible way.


Same here.

In fact, I was quite disgusted by what seems to me to be a deliberate amping up of the sensationalist emotive aspects of it. Like you say, as if her death isn't tragic enough somehow?!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> What is the matter with you?



Mmm, because there *has* to be something the matter with me.



> There is no indication yet this has anything to do with how the school operates.



I haven't claimed that it was anything to do with how the school operates.



> Maybe you could cut them some slack if their PR isn't up to your standards hours after a murder.
> 
> In editors quote it's just off the website in any case, not a statement in response to.



It's the same quote that most of 29/04's media ran with too, including the lates - i.e. enough time for the LEA to mobilise their own PR.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2014)

weltweit said:


> So, after so many years at that school, just months from retirement, especially cruel for her and her family.



Needless death is *always* cruel.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I must confess to wondering why, particularly, the media is making so much fuss about the fact that she was so close to retirement. It almost, it seems to me, diminishes the fact of her death - what does it matter that it was now, rather than at some other time? The important thing is that someone has lost their life in such a terrible way.



Her closeness to retirement is a hook.  it allows the media to further sensationalise an already-tragic story - "a teacher was murdered, and furthermore she was months away from retirement! If only bitter fate hadn't intervened, she could have been sunning herself in Eastbourne in a few months' time!" - like the cunts they are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2014)

existentialist said:


> It's what happens when you end up with a system obsessed with performance indicators and blame - all the humanity then runs out at the corners.



Frankly, it's the *only* thing that can happen in any system obsessed with such things.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Mmm, because there *has* to be something the matter with me.
> 
> I haven't claimed that it was anything to do with how the school operates.
> 
> It's the same quote that most of 29/04's media ran with too, including the lates - i.e. enough time for the LEA to mobilise their own PR.



You absolutely have with your contention that the school had not emphasised 'thou shall not kill' and by seeking something to criticise them over. 

In the report the lines about the school ethos were not from the school in response to the event.

And again what is the speed of their PR to you? Can't wait for something to criticise?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 30, 2014)

"wonderful...inspirational..." Easy for tabloids to find such words for a teacher when it's to prop up a headline grabbing human-interest tragedy they are gawping over.

How long before the 2 faced shits are back to deriding the entire profession as lazy dinosaurs hellbent on brainwashing kids in to leftie nonsense like equality?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

Odd coincidence here - the murdered womans sister was a teacher at my old school, which was also called corpus christi - the same name as the school she was murdered at.


----------



## Quartz (Jul 11, 2014)

Breaking news on the BBC:



> *Pupil 'responsible on teacher death'*
> 
> UK teenager accused of killing teacher Ann Maguire "has accepted responsibility for unlawful killing", defence says


----------



## JHE (Jul 11, 2014)

It seems he's not going to claim to have been so mad that he cannot be held at all culpable, but the defence statement leaves open the question of whether it was murder or manslaughter.  I suppose the defence is going to be that he was sufficiently mentally unwell to be found guilty of manslaughter instead of murder.  We'll see.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 3, 2014)

He's got 20 years. The reports are horrific and tragic.



> The court heard that Maguire was the pupil’s Spanish teacher. The boy, whose parents had sat with him in the dock at Leeds crown court as he admitted the killing, was a model pupil in year 7, was “amicable, enthusiastic and conscientious” but changed after being diagnosed with diabetes. The diabetes had a major impact on his mood and personality. His mother noticed evidence of self-harming.
> 
> He was upset that his diabetes would prevent him from joining the army. He started to harbour a hatred for Ann Maguire, the court heard.
> 
> ...



http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/03/ann-maguire-teacher-murder-boy-sentenced


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 3, 2014)

Heartbreaking stuff.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 3, 2014)

Jebus but that's chilling. Given what he said, I'm not sure that 20 years is a long-enough sentence; he'll be out in 10. Will the sentence be appealed?


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 3, 2014)

Truly horrific for all involved.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Jebus but that's chilling. Given what he said, I'm not sure that 20 years is a long-enough sentence; he'll be out in 10. Will the sentence be appealed?




the judge has said je may never be released and AFAIK the half time served thing does not include murder


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 3, 2014)

Lots of young people get told they have diabetes - but needless to say they dont end up killing people. You do wonder how on earth he ended up finding himself in that position. I mean, how dies that happen? Was the diagnosis just a trigger to something already in his personality? Anyone?


----------



## JHE (Nov 3, 2014)

I don't believe he was sentenced to 20 years.  If he was convicted of murder the mandatory sentence is life imprisonment.  The 20 years is the 'tariff' set by the judge - ie, the minimum period of time he must serve in prison before he can even be considered for parole.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 3, 2014)

JHE said:


> I don't believe he was sentenced to 20 years.  If he was convicted of murder the mandatory sentence is life imprisonment.  The 20 years is the 'tariff' set by the judge - ie, the minimum period of time he must serve in prison before he can even be considered for parole.



Good point, but does that apply to children?


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 3, 2014)

I note that they've not named him in the press - is this usual practice?  I thought they normally did with juvenilles once they'd been convicted.  I know sometimes it's so as not to harm the family (which might be the case here, as they've pointed out that they are blameless).


----------



## JHE (Nov 3, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Good point, but does that apply to children?



Ah, yes, good question.  According to Wikipedia, it is different if the murderer was under 18 at the time of the murder.  If the murderer was under 18, he/she is "detained during her majesty's pleasure".  The tariff, however, means what I thought it meant:  the min period before he can be considered for parole.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2014)

He has life with a 20 year tariff the same as an adult - the only difference is how they arrive at that total. For those under 18 you start with 12 years then add on years for other aggravating factors. For adultsit starts at 15+ then goes up by various starts points depending on the judges interpretation of how serious the crime was. In this case, to add on 8 years indicates they thought it was pretty much as serious as possible.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> I note that they've not named him in the press - is this usual practice?  I thought they normally did with juvenilles once they'd been convicted.  I know sometimes it's so as not to harm the family (which might be the case here, as they've pointed out that they are blameless).


He can now be named.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2014)

From the reports coming out looks like he'll be off to Broadmoor shortly, never to come out.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 3, 2014)

Wakefield, surely?

Broadmoor is for mentally ill people and he was judged to be fit.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He can now be named.



Cheers, just needed the formality of lifting reporting restrictions then.  

Judge said (according to that article)


> _Coulson said he was not satisfied that identifying the boy would contravene article two of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to life. He said that as the boy was already deemed a suicide risk, being identified could not change that.
> 
> Naming the boy could act as a “potential deterrent” to others, he added, but more important was the “general interest in open justice”, he said._



Given the lad's stated satisfaction in committing the crime, it's kind of sad that this'll just fulfil his desire for infamy.  Expect that mugshot on the front of all the tabloids tomorrow, like with the Bulger killers.  The papers will make a few bob out of it.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 3, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Given the lad's stated satisfaction in committing the crime, it's kind of sad that this'll just fulfil his desire for infamy.  Expect that mugshot on the front of all the tabloids tomorrow, like with the Bulger killers.  The papers will make a few bob out of it.



Not sure there was a desire for infamy, not sure about anything to do with this and no one else seems sure either. No talk of violent video games stuff, social media whatever or previous behaviour and none of indicative decline in anything. It just seems blank. No remorse, the affects on his victim's family or his own family. Nothing. Smart lad it seems, got himself into a life is shit, fuck it nihilistic mentality, got a grudge and acted on it. Sad. Real sad. Ann Maguire RIP.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 3, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Given the lad's stated satisfaction in committing the crime, it's kind of sad that this'll just fulfil his desire for infamy.  Expect that mugshot on the front of all the tabloids tomorrow, like with the Bulger killers.  The papers will make a few bob out of it.



They, like him, are bloodlust oddballs.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 3, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> They, like him, are bloodlust oddballs.



Not really, they didn't stab someone to death.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 3, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Not really, they didn't stab someone to death.



If they had i would say"they, like him, stabbed someone to death". But they love death and feed off it like vultures.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 3, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> If they had i would say"they, like him, stabbed someone to death". But they love death and feed off it like vultures.



Maybe they do but they're not like him are they? They are a group of individuals working together and he is/was a child who did something terrible. That's the difference.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 3, 2014)

They are like him in that they are bloodlust oddballs. Thats what i said and meant, I wasnt making it out as some deep riddle, or saying they are like him in other ways. "If it bleeds it leads" doesnt emerge from a vacuum.  

I can understand why the restriction was lifted , but for a 24hr news cycle this will now be about morbid fascination with him. There will probably be a microscopic examination of music tastes, how much his parents house is worth and blah. Its a soap opera to them. They love it.


----------



## 8115 (Nov 3, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> They, like him, are bloodlust oddballs.


How do you know?

It's very sad, it's a very sad thing for everyone concerned.

I don't think children can ever really properly understand about death and murder, teenagers to a degree yes but not fully.

I don't know why people like to be so harsh about children in particular. I don't see anyone lining up to have a pop at the guy who killed two women in Hong Kong.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 3, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> They are like him in that they are bloodlust oddballs. Thats what i said and meant, I wasnt making it out as some deep riddle, or saying they are like him in other ways. "If it bleeds it leads" doesnt emerge from a vacuum.
> 
> I can understand why the restriction was lifted , but for a 24hr news cycle this will now be about morbid fascination with him. There will probably be a microscopic examination of music tastes, how much his parents house is worth and blah. Its a soap opera to them. They love it.



But it's not the same thing is it? What they may do and what he did, not the same kind of thing at all. I know what you mean but that's a different thing.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 3, 2014)

8115 said:


> How do you know?
> 
> It's very sad, it's a very sad thing for everyone concerned.
> 
> ...



I think we would if a thread was started on it. Sadly adult male on female violence is so common it doesn't disturb our sense of the 'norm' at least not enough for a thread for every woman killed.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 3, 2014)

The people i really feel for in light of this, are the kids he told - on fb or chatting or even just before.  They must have spent so much time wondering whether if they'd told the right people at the right time, that they maybe could've stopped it all... heart breaking.

As for the lad - there's surely more to it?  surely.  Angry kids are not unusual - an all-consuming rage built up out of all proportion to the offence felt, but to cross that line... and not from the distance of the range of a gun, as in american school killings, but to push that knife into another human being, and moreover a teacher.  Whether they like it or not, kids do see teachers at a remove of some deference: it isn't like a young man killing another in the heat of gang violence...  It's such an unusual, extreme crime. Thankfully.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Wakefield, surely?
> 
> Broadmoor is for mentally ill people and he was judged to be fit.



So was Sutcliffe and Daniel Gonzalez.

If these fuckers are judged as ill then they can be cured and by law must be released. If you want to keep these people banged up for good you sentence them to life as sane, then determine their mental state has deteriorated and ship them off to the bin, never to be seen again.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 3, 2014)

Sentencing remarks

http://t.co/bzHef0hQ2H


----------



## weltweit (Nov 3, 2014)

I understand the authorities judged him sane and even though I have no evidence I am not sure I agree, the act seems to me not to be the act of someone who was sane, rather the act of someone seriously disturbed.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 3, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I understand the authorities judged him sane and even though I have no evidence I am not sure I agree, the act seems to me not to be the act of someone who was sane, rather the act of someone seriously disturbed.


have you read the judge's sentencing report?   It's very clear.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 3, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> have you read the judge's sentencing report?   It's very clear.


No I haven't read it, did I miss a link? aha, I see it.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 3, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Sentencing remarks
> 
> http://t.co/bzHef0hQ2H



I read that and shuddered.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 3, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> have you read the judge's sentencing report?   It's very clear.


Interesting, yes, he was more than a bit strange .. you say very clear, do you agree that it said he was more than a bit strange or do you mean something else?


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 3, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Interesting, yes, he was more than a bit strange .. you say very clear, do you agree that it said he was more than a bit strange or do you mean something else?


As I understand it, 'sane' isn't really a helpful word in this kind of context - psychiatrically, the three reporting doctors all agreed that he knew what he was doing, he knew right from wrong, he wasn't delusional etc.  As i understand it, for that reason he goes to prison, and not Broadmoor.  It doesn't mean he's not mentally ill, just that despite his illness, he still should have been able to stop himself.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 3, 2014)

I have a problem with that. How can a sane person murder someone so cold-bloodedly? It's not a rational decision. Is an irrational decision insane?


----------



## weltweit (Nov 3, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I have a problem with that. How can a sane person murder someone so cold-bloodedly? It's not a rational decision. Is an irrational decision insane?


I don't know that it is insane, but it is certainly irrational.

This guy certainly carried out an act which normal sane people would not do which has to beg the question, is he sane? My feeling is he was not at the time of the crime sane and therefore will remain a danger.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

So is he being punished or just secluded from society so he can't hurt anyone else? He won't go to Broadmoor or Wakefield BTW as he is too young


----------



## weltweit (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> So is he being punished or just secluded from society so he can't hurt anyone else?


I think he is both being punished and being excluded, and rightly so.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 4, 2014)

Obviously its very perplexing and seems odd that such behaviour, planning etc be judged as"sane ". Someone explained it that, in this context at least, " of sound mind " means "not under influence of delusion". A" social adjustment disorder " on the part of the murderer was accounted for in mitigation in this case.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> It's not a rational decision. Is an irrational decision insane?



You're not insane if you're aware of what you're doing, that seems to be how these things work.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 4, 2014)

Whatever's wrong with him, we can all rest assured that prison will definitely fix it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> You're not insane if you're aware of what you're doing, that seems to be how these things work.


I'm not sure that could ever be true


----------



## Wilf (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm not sure that could ever be true


Tend to agree with you but, without checking the wording, terms like 'aware of the consequences of your actions' are the things the courts look at - not whether the thing done was by any real measure 'insane'


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> You're not insane if you're aware of what you're doing, that seems to be how these things work.



to be sane ou need to be aware of what you're doing and aware that it is wrong or that you live in a society that holds a general belief ti's wrong.

just having a delusion that you're acting to prevent a great evil cause the voices told you to isn't enough to be insane, if you remained aware that society generally frowns on killing people. if you thought they were lizards and killing lizards was ok, then you are insane enough to be legally insane

just lack of awareness is usually things like actions caused by a medical condition, hypoglaecemia for example. or sleepwalking, or an action during a fit.


----------



## JHE (Nov 4, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Whatever's wrong with him, we can all rest assured that prison will definitely fix it.



There is no known way of 'fixing' it (and no way of ever knowing that he's no longer dangerous), which is way he has to be locked up, probably until he dies.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 4, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I understand the authorities judged him sane and even though I have no evidence I am not sure I agree,


Do you ever read what you post?


----------



## Athos (Nov 4, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I understand the authorities judged him sane and even though I have no evidence I am not sure I agree...



Makes you wonder why they bothered with a psychologist and two psychiatrists, eh?


----------



## Cribynkle (Nov 4, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I read that and shuddered.


Horrible reading. The poor woman, and I can't imagine the impact on the other pupils


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I understand the authorities judged him sane and even though I have no evidence I am not sure I agree


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

I'm not sure that being aware of what you are doing makes you sane. Stabbing a teacher in the neck because you don't like her is not a sane act.


----------



## Glitter (Nov 4, 2014)

Cribynkle said:


> Horrible reading. The poor woman, and I can't imagine the impact on the other pupils


 
And his family too. Imagine the feelings you would have. One thing that terrifies me since becoming a parent is what if my son did something dreadful. I know that isn't necessarily likely but _someone's_ children  does them.


----------



## starfish2000 (Nov 4, 2014)

This has been a horrible case & Gove's rather distant response at the time of this poor womans murder. His failure  to even acknowledge  the dangers many teachers face sums him up for the cunt he is methinks.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm not sure that being aware of what you are doing makes you sane. Stabbing a teacher in the neck because you don't like her is not a sane act.



That was pretty much my point:


weltweit said:


> I understand the authorities judged him sane and even though I have no evidence I am not sure I agree, the act seems to me not to be the act of someone who was sane, rather the act of someone seriously disturbed.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm not sure that being aware of what you are doing makes you sane. Stabbing a teacher in the neck because you don't like her is not a sane act.



I think spanglechick is right, the term 'sane' isn't particulary useful here at all although I think I know what you mean and agree with you.

_'Sane people somethings do insane things'_ is an expression that springs to mind and for me highlights how problematic and polarising the idea of sane/insane can be.


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 4, 2014)

It is just tragic, this pointless slaying of a much loved innocent teacher has destroyed the lives of dozens of people.
Awful event in this violence worshiping society we inhabit.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Maybe some people should go away and read the legal definition of "sane/insane" or perhaps just re-read the thread where it has already been explicitly spelled out.

"I don't think someone doing such-and-such an action can be counted as sane" is not a legally significant statement, thank fuck, and your failures to understand this is now in danger of derailing the thread on this tragic issue.


----------



## chandlerp (Nov 4, 2014)

Reading the husband's statement in those sentencing remarks brought a real lump to my throat.


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 4, 2014)

chandlerp said:


> Reading the husband's statement in those sentencing remarks brought a real lump to my throat.



Same here.


----------



## Thora (Nov 4, 2014)

There is obviously something very wrong with that boy's brain.  Like Glitter I can't help thinking that how does a normal boy from a normal family go so wrong - it doesn't sound like there is anything that explains why (brain damage or horrendous abuse in his past).

But he did something horrific fully understanding what he was doing, why it was wrong and the devastation he would cause.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> Maybe some people should go away and read the legal definition of "sane/insane" or perhaps just re-read the thread where it has already been explicitly spelled out.
> 
> "I don't think someone doing such-and-such an action can be counted as sane" is not a legally significant statement, thank fuck, and your failures to understand this is now in danger of derailing the thread on this tragic issue.



It may not be legally significant but in what way is it derailing it? What are the important issues for this thread?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 4, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> It may not be legally significant but in what way is it derailing it? What are the important issues for this thread?



I agree and I don't think being patronising towards someone trying to get their head around this is helpful either. In fact, being arsey and accusing someone of derailing the thread is in itself an unnecessary, overly personal derail from the discussion taking place.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> I agree and I don't think being patronising towards someone trying to get their head around this is helpful either. In fact, being arsey and accusing someone of derailing the thread is in itself an unnecessary, overly personal derail from the discussion taking place.



I'm (deliberately) not accusing anyone personally of derailing the thread, but for various people to line up and trot out their opinion that this young man is insane, based on limited knowledge of the case and limited experience of the law and the relevant issues, as opposed to the psychologists and pyschiatrists who have decided that he isn't, doesn't seem *to me* to add anything to the discussion of this case, or to the wider issues of criminal responsibility as it might or might not relate to mental illness.

But if people still want to continue to come out with ill-informed and irrelevant stuff, who am I to stand in their way?


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> I'm (deliberately) not accusing anyone personally of derailing the thread, but for various people to line up and trot out their opinion that this young man is insane, based on limited knowledge of the case and limited experience of the law and the relevant issues, as opposed to the psychologists and pyschiatrists who have decided that he isn't, doesn't seem *to me* to add anything to the discussion of this case, or to the wider issues of criminal responsibility as it might or might not relate to mental illness.
> 
> But if people still want to continue to come out with ill-informed and irrelevant stuff, who am I to stand in their way?



Some of the people who are lining up and trotting out their opinion have significant personal experience of mental illness even if they have little experience of legal definitions. And you have a bizarrely deferrent view of psychiatry too, as though its categories aren't contested from within and without.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 4, 2014)

I think it's a perfectly legitimate and relevant part of the discussion to examine how our perceptions of what is sane/insane are challenged by cases like this. Legal definitions often provoke people's reflections about their own understanding of terminology and such, same for opinions held by mental health professionals and why.

These reflections can't and won't happen if people are told off for simply grappling to get their heads around such unusual and challenging cases like this.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Some of the people who are lining up and trotting out their opinion have significant personal experience of mental illness even if they have little experience of legal definitions. And you have a bizarrely deferrent view of psychiatry too, as though its categories aren't contested from within and without.





Rutita1 said:


> I think it's a perfectly legitimate and relevant part of the discussion to examine how our perceptions of what is sane/insane are challenged by cases like this. Legal definitions often provoke people's reflections about their own understanding of terminology and such, same for opinions held by mental health professionals and why.
> 
> These reflections can't and won't happen if people are told off for simply grappling to get their heads around such unusual and challenging cases like this.



Fair enough - there is room for broadening out the discussion, but if that's what you two (and I am now directing my comment to you specifically) think should happen, then you could perhaps demonstrate your active willingness to do that by challenging/correcting some of the more bizarre statements which have been made.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> Fair enough - there is room for broadening out the discussion, but if that's what you two (and I am now directing my comment to you specifically) think should happen, then you could perhaps demonstrate your active willingness to do that by challenging/correcting some of the more bizarre statements which have been made.



Which statements are those?


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Which statements are those?



Just to pick the most recent, and not to point the finger at the person who made this statement, because various others have said similarly nonsensical things


> There is obviously something very wrong with that boy's brain



Although I acknowledge that that comment also included the fact that 


> he did something horrific fully understanding what he was doing, why it was wrong and the devastation he would cause



To repeat - I'm not seeking to have a go at any individual posters, and I apologise if it came across that way, but in my opinion some of these latent beliefs about mental illness and the way those with them behave need to be challenged.


----------



## Thora (Nov 4, 2014)

Does he have a mental illness?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 4, 2014)

Looks like he could be held at Keppel High Dependency Unit at Wetherby, just outside Leeds.

This Guardian article is worth a read


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> Just to pick the most recent, and not to point the finger at the person who made this statement, because various others have said similarly nonsensical things
> 
> 
> Although I acknowledge that that comment also included the fact that
> ...



What do you mean by latent belief? The people who do most to promote a biological concept of mental illness are psychiatrists, the people you consider experts.


----------



## JHE (Nov 4, 2014)

Thora said:


> Does he have a mental illness?



He has a personality disorder.  Sometimes distinction is made between (treatable) mental illnesses and such disorders.  The latter are (untreatable, unfortunate) facets of personality.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> What do you mean by latent belief? The people who do most to promote a biological concept of mental illness are psychiatrists, the people you consider experts.



I don't consider psychiatrists experts who are above criticism or that they never make mistakes, and I haven't said anywhere that I consider them such.

I do consider that the particular psychiatrists who made the assessment of this individual are better positioned to make that judgement than anyone posting here, even if some of those posters have the same or similar professional (or non-professional, though I'm not sure how they would gain that) experience.

But what really pisses me off is the tendency for people (here and elsewhere) to label anyone who does something they don't understand, or an opinion they don't agree with as "insane" or to suggest that they are doing this because they are suffering from a mental illness*.

That's what I mean by latent belief, though maybe I could have expressed that a bit better.

ETA * without explaining what they mean by that, ie by lumping all mental illness in together. Other people have not done that, they have mentioned the specific mental illness this person has been judged to have, and what that means legally and more broadly


----------



## Thora (Nov 4, 2014)

I haven't stated that he is mentally ill or insane.  But to stab a woman to death without any remorse or empathy seems pretty clear to me that there is something very wrong with him.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 4, 2014)

JHE said:


> He has a personality disorder.  Sometimes distinction is made between (treatable) mental illnesses and such disorders.  The latter are (untreatable, unfortunate) facets of personality.



This kind of over-simplification isn't accurate.

I think what you mean is those symptoms that are usually categorised as mental illnesses can sometimes be treated by medication, although a lot of the time medication isn't successful and can come at a hell of a cost in the way of side-effects. People with diagnoses of personality disorder are also given medication to manage symptoms such as anxiety or depression or psychosis and psychotherapy of various kinds has been shown to make a difference. Your view is out of date.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> I don't consider psychiatrists experts who are above criticism or that they never make mistakes, and I haven't said anywhere that I consider them such.
> 
> I do consider that the particular psychiatrists who made the assessment of this individual are better positioned to make that judgement than anyone posting here, even if some of those posters have the same or similar professional (or non-professional, though I'm not sure how they would gain that) experience.
> 
> ...



I have to go to work now but I'll reply later.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

It's a perfectly reasonable thing to think that the premeditated stabbing of a teacher to death, boasting about it and not expressing remorse is not a sane thing to do.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Nov 4, 2014)

Reading the sentencing remarks, it's very disturbing that so many of the pupils knew what he was planning but no-one raised the alarm.


----------



## JHE (Nov 4, 2014)

PursuedByBears said:


> Reading the sentencing remarks, it's very disturbing that so many of the pupils knew what he was planning but no-one raised the alarm.



I guess they thought he was bullshitting.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 4, 2014)

There has been a lot written about what a good person the victim was, and I would not for a moment dispute that, but I do hope such a crime would result in a similar sentence if the victim was a merely normal person.


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2014)

weltweit said:


> There has been a lot written about what a good person the victim was, and I would not for a moment dispute that, but I do hope such a crime would result in a similar sentence if the victim was a merely normal person.


The sentencing is quite formulaic and set out in the remarks. Which part of it do you think wouldn't apply to the killing of "a merely normal person"?


----------



## weltweit (Nov 4, 2014)

cesare said:


> The sentencing is quite formulaic and set out in the remarks. Which part of it do you think wouldn't apply to the killing of "a merely normal person"?


I will have to go back and read them again.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 4, 2014)

He's quite clearly a psychopath. And if that isn't having something wrong with your brain then fuck knows what is. I don't think it's treatable though so no need for broadmoor.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> He's quite clearly a psychopath. And if that isn't having something wrong with your brain then fuck knows what is. I don't think it's treatable though so no need for broadmoor.


Isn't Broadmoor for those who are untreatable? It's where they put the psychopaths anyway.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 4, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> He's quite clearly a psychopath. And if that isn't having something wrong with your brain then fuck knows what is. I don't think it's treatable though so no need for broadmoor.



I wonder at what point in his development he will start to get an inkling of what he has actually done and the pain and suffering he has caused. If ever.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> Maybe some people should go away and read the legal definition of "sane/insane" or perhaps just re-read the thread where it has already been explicitly spelled out.
> 
> "I don't think someone doing such-and-such an action can be counted as sane" is not a legally significant statement, thank fuck, and your failures to understand this is now in danger of derailing the thread on this tragic issue.


You're a corkarsed prannet. There's no legal definition of that either but you remain one all the same.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 4, 2014)

Thora said:


> There is obviously something very wrong with that boy's brain.  Like Glitter I can't help thinking that how does a normal boy from a normal family go so wrong - it doesn't sound like there is anything that explains why (brain damage or horrendous abuse in his past).
> 
> But he did something horrific fully understanding what he was doing, why it was wrong and the devastation he would cause.



I think most people have been wondering exactly this.

You can only speculate - mine goes along these lines. He was capable/is capable of rational thought. The crime, which he must have fantasised about, made sense to him - was necessary to him. It's an extraordinary measure to take because it meant self destruction too (at least of his liberty), which he would have been aware of. But he still needed this revenge on the teacher and others to make up for his situation - his low state/isolation unhappiness. Couldn't give up the idea.

Lot's of teenagers get into a dark place when they feel that everything/everyone is against them. 99.99% don't murder though. So the bit still missing for me is what is the mechanism that got him stuck in that place unable to see the very ordinary life situation he was in? Needing such a desperate solution. Perhaps there is simply a critical mass of aggravations (real or imagined) at different levels for different personalities, that can push someone beyond the threshold of restraining violent fantasy.


----------



## Cribynkle (Nov 4, 2014)

PursuedByBears said:


> Reading the sentencing remarks, it's very disturbing that so many of the pupils knew what he was planning but no-one raised the alarm.


It says he threatened to kill anyone who raised the alarm. I don't understand whether they were too frightened or thought he was bullshitting, I'm guessing it's the latter


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So was Sutcliffe and Daniel Gonzalez.
> 
> If these fuckers are judged as ill then they can be cured and by law must be released. If you want to keep these people banged up for good you sentence them to life as sane, then determine their mental state has deteriorated and ship them off to the bin, never to be seen again.



A lot of detainees in special hospitals like Broadmoor and Rampton have untreatable personality disorders, and by the very nature of their disorder, are detained indefinitely, so being judged to be cured isn't an option.


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm not sure that being aware of what you are doing makes you sane. Stabbing a teacher in the neck because you don't like her is not a sane act.



you can be running about covered in strawberry jam, thinking you are napoleon and joan of arc is telling you to kill all the weevils and legally sane if you killed someone while trying to get to the weevils and knew society didn't approve of that.it dosen't matter how much of you is listening to the crazy if you remain aware, if any part of you knows that there is wrongness in your actions. there are a lot of people who medically are in box of frogs territory, but were legally sane at the time of their crime.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

So you can be legally sane but totally insane simultaneously. Baffling!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I have a problem with that. How can a sane person murder someone so cold-bloodedly? It's not a rational decision. Is an irrational decision insane?



Part of the answer to that may be pointed up in the sentencing remarks. Cormick had spent a couple of years thinking about doing this. As the adolescent mind is seen as still being somewhat malleable by psychiatrists and psychologists, what may have started out as an adolescent fantasy could have become an _idee fixe_, causing him to quite literally indoctrinate himself into carrying out the crime. It's rare, but not unheard of for a form of self-hypnosis to cause aberrant logic and action in "sane" individuals, and we're all of us aware of how even subtle indoctrination (as in schooling) can be effective for shaping young minds.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Obviously its very perplexing and seems odd that such behaviour, planning etc be judged as"sane ". Someone explained it that, in this context at least, " of sound mind " means "not under influence of delusion". A" social adjustment disorder " on the part of the murderer was accounted for in mitigation in this case.



A "social adjustment disorder", though, can mean anything from "he's a natural loner" to "he deliberately alienates anyone who tries to get close to him" to "he doesn't want to conform to social norms".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> You're not insane if you're aware of what you're doing, that seems to be how these things work.



Nope. You can be aware of what you're doing, and be insane. A psychopath* who murders is well aware of what they're doing, but will still be, in clinical terms, insane.

*Yes, we still have "psychopathy" in the lexicon, even though we try to more closely define issues using labels around "personality disorders".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

Athos said:


> Makes you wonder why they bothered with a psychologist and two psychiatrists, eh?



It's a racket to give psychs an extra lump in their wallet, innit?
Sack 'em all, and get weltweit to do the job!


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> So you can be legally sane but totally insane simultaneously. Baffling!



yes. legal insanity has some crossover with definitions of medically mentally ill, but it is different. 

and you can be legally insane at the time of an axct, but medically sane. eg. the person who does crazy stuff while hypoglaecemic or sleepwalking. 

if you want more than i'm saying, google NcNaughten. killed someone else while trying to kill peel. first time the courts really tried to get a grip on whether it was right to hang someone if they didn't know what they were doing and didn't know it was wrong at th time they did it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Part of the answer to that may be pointed up in the sentencing remarks. Cormick had spent a couple of years thinking about doing this. As the adolescent mind is seen as still being somewhat malleable by psychiatrists and psychologists, what may have started out as an adolescent fantasy could have become an _idee fixe_, causing him to quite literally indoctrinate himself into carrying out the crime. It's rare, but not unheard of for a form of self-hypnosis to cause aberrant logic and action in "sane" individuals, and we're all of us aware of how even subtle indoctrination (as in schooling) can be effective for shaping young minds.



It's this notion that is important when considering the effects of violent pornography, or other violent material for example. The material may not in itself be 'causal', but can be deleterious to those prone to obsession. 

Equally anything else might though - so it's not a clear area and not something even the grubby papers are claiming in this instance. But obsession  of some sort must be.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

Thora said:


> *There is obviously something very wrong with that boy's brain*.



Or with his mind.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Isn't Broadmoor for those who are untreatable? It's where they put the psychopaths anyway.


Do they? I can think of a few offenders that ring psycopathy bells for me that aren't in a secure hospital. Rose West and Robert Black being two examples.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> I think it's a perfectly legitimate and relevant part of the discussion to examine how our perceptions of what is sane/insane are challenged by cases like this. Legal definitions often provoke people's reflections about their own understanding of terminology and such, same for opinions held by mental health professionals and why.
> 
> These reflections can't and won't happen if people are told off for simply grappling to get their heads around such unusual and challenging cases like this.



And "perceptions" are indeed what most of us have, even those who are "informed" regarding the legal definitions. We all bring our own experiences and values to the table when talking about such issues, and it's perfectly natural to do so. Only by "grappling to get our heads around" such situations, can we separate our own preconceptions and perceptions from the law and science *and/or* assess whether the current state of play reflects, in our view, a "fair" summary of how crimes such as the one in the OP should be addressed*.

*Unless you're Spymaster , in which case the solution is "hang 'em high".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

PursuedByBears said:


> Reading the sentencing remarks, it's very disturbing that so many of the pupils knew what he was planning but no-one raised the alarm.



From the sentencing remarks, it appears that his fellow pupils just regarded him as "acting out", and frankly a couple of years of hearing someone say "I'm going to kill XXXX" would lead them to think he was a bullshitter and a blowhard.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

weltweit said:


> There has been a lot written about what a good person the victim was, and I would not for a moment dispute that, but I do hope such a crime would result in a similar sentence if the victim was a merely normal person.



Victim statements are nowadays required to be incorporated into sentencing considerations, and (unsurprisingly, in my opinion), victim statements invariably represent the victim as being a "good person". It's the nature of subjective assessment of a person by their "nearest and dearest", and the judge is well-aware of that.


----------



## Glitter (Nov 4, 2014)

weltweit said:


> There has been a lot written about what a good person the victim was, and I would not for a moment dispute that, but I do hope such a crime would result in a similar sentence if the victim was a merely normal person.



Really? One of the things I find so shocking about this case is how staggeringly normal both of them were. Sure she was a good teacher, well liked by colleagues and students and loved by her family and friends but is that so unusual really?



PursuedByBears said:


> Reading the sentencing remarks, it's very disturbing that so many of the pupils knew what he was planning but no-one raised the alarm.



Likewise here, he wasn't a weirdo or someone who blowtorched animals at breaks and dinner. He was an ordinary boy. I thought the same as you at first but then tried to remember my schooldays. If someone had said that no way would we have believed it. It's too shocking to be comprehensible when we know its happened, just imagine what you'd have thought if he'd said it before.​


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Part of the answer to that may be pointed up in the sentencing remarks. Cormick had spent a couple of years thinking about doing this. As the adolescent mind is seen as still being somewhat malleable by psychiatrists and psychologists, what may have started out as an adolescent fantasy could have become an _idee fixe_, causing him to quite literally indoctrinate himself into carrying out the crime. It's rare, but not unheard of for a form of self-hypnosis to cause aberrant logic and action in "sane" individuals, and we're all of us aware of how even subtle indoctrination (as in schooling) can be effective for shaping young minds.



The idee fixe concept occured to me, perhaps similar to the horrifying murder of Rebecca Aylward in South Wales a couple of years ago (sadly most likely to be remembered as what the tabloids describedas"murdered for a free breakfast ", which was a categorically flase and gross trivialisation). In that case too, the murderer (her ex, they were in 6th form IIRC) cultivated and projected a pointless hatred on to an innocent and convinced himself that he HAD to do it. Cornick talked of either killing ann maguire or having to kill himself, not the most difficult of ideas to challenge, one would hope.

There should probably be more pastoral counselling in schools, cornicks hatred and violent fantasies were certainly knownabout. This isnt to blame that school specifically, it seems a cultural lacking across the board.

Of course, calling for more pastoral counselling is probably "left wing" or something, and the same tabloids bewailing ann maguires death will soon be back to denouncing teachers, with those "trendy methods" (tm), pensions they pay into, the fact that they ban christmas and brainwash OUR kids into being GAY! etc.

One more thing, cornick is known to have wanted to kill 2 more teachers. At least one was female (pregnant). If all 3 planned victims turn out to have been female, would it be appropriate mto consider the role of latent mysoginy?


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Do they? I can think of a few offenders that ring psycopathy bells for me that aren't in a secure hospital. Rose West and Robert Black being two examples.



a lot of that depends on whether you think rose west was the submissive party to fred, the equal or the dominant. because where there are 2 people who act together to commit serial murders, the usual pattern is that the dominant is the really dangerously crazy one. and the submissive is in some ways an ongoing victim. who will join the others under the patio if they cease to have value in helping the dominant and validating their actions. the submissive takes on some of the characteristics of the dominant, but that can change when they are no longer under control. 

looking at rose's history would tend to suggest that she was the submissive party, not just because she's the woman, although in male/female couples the woman is usually the submissive, but stuff like the battle between her father and west for contrtol over her and her sexually abusive father visiting her to pay for sex. so it may be that she was caught the crazy while living with him, but isn't actually crazy. so rings the crazy bells, but once seperated from him is 'sane'. although if you believe the above that she was an ongoing victim of abuse from childhood and was forced to take part in murders and the traumas that would entail, it does highlight that sanity, as used legally bears little relation to how most people think of the term.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 4, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> One more thing, cornick is known to have wanted to kill 2 more teachers. At least one was female (pregnant). If all 3 planned victims turn out to have been female, would it be appropriate mto consider the role of latent mysoginy?



What proportion of Cornick's teachers were female? Or, would it be 'simple' misogyny or a revolt against authority where the authority is female?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

A lot of boys with behavioural problems respond especially badly to female authority and it is clearly learned behaviour from their parents/family.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> A lot of boys with behavioural problems respond especially badly to female authority and it is clearly learned behaviour from their parents/family.



In this case the judge was quite explicit in absolving the family of any responsibility or blame.

I'm just looking at the staff list of the primary school which my nephew attended and my niece still attends and all the senior teachers are female. There are 5 male teachers (out of 20), and no male PSAs. That can't be good for troubled young boys. Is the fear of being accused of being a paedo still strong? Aberdeen Grammar school seems much more gender-balanced (I notice with amusement that the IT department is entirely female).


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2014)

Quartz said:


> What proportion of Cornick's teachers were female? Or, would it be 'simple' misogyny or a revolt against authority where the authority is female?


tell you what, why don't you try to do some background research - the case has been mentioned in detail one or two of the papers - and then come back. or continue posting half-baked nonsense which makes you look daft.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> So you can be legally sane but totally insane simultaneously. Baffling!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M'Naghten_rules


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> You're a corkarsed prannet. There's no legal definition of that either but you remain one all the same.



Apparently, *your* definition of a corkarsed prannet includes anyone suffering with a mental health issue who is angry and frustrated at ill-informed labelling and stigmatising of everyone with mental health issues, and attempts (however incoherently as I now recognise) to speak up about how they see that happening on this thread and others like it.

Thanks for your dismissal


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> Clearly, your definition of a corkarsed prannet includes anyone suffering with a mental health issue who is angry and frustrated at ill-informed labelling and stigmatising of everyone with mental health issues, and attempts (however incoherently as I now recognise) to speak up about how they see that happening on this thread and others like it.
> 
> Thanks for your dismissal


Arsecandle! Valiant arsecandle, bravely standing up for others!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> You're a corkarsed prannet. There's no legal definition of that either but you remain one all the same.


there will be when the case andysays is preparing against you reaches court.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Arsecandle!


i hope you didn't use these perverse neologisms when handing out books to children.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i hope you didn't use these perverse neologisms when handing out books to children.


Of course not. I like children.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Arsecandle! Valiant arsecandle, bravely standing up for others!



No, I'm attempting to stand up for myself and the many others like me who are pissed off by the casual stigmatisating of everyone with mental health issues, *including me, in case I need to spell it out for you*.

Got any more insults you'd like to fling in my direction?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Of course not. I like children.


the implication being you don't like other people who post here.


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Arsecandle! Valiant arsecandle, bravely standing up for others!



he's far from the only person who has expressed a frustration with the stigmatisation of mental illness


----------



## Thora (Nov 4, 2014)

What did you object to in the post of mine you highlighted andysays?


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> A "social adjustment disorder", though, can mean anything from "he's a natural loner" to "he deliberately alienates anyone who tries to get close to him" to "he doesn't want to conform to social norms".



And I don't think the term used was social adjustment disorder anyway. Just adjustment disorder, as in failure to appropriately adjust to the diabetes diagnosis and loss of chosen career path.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Of course not. I like children.



You just don't like nutters, at least those of us to object being referred to as such, or by other imaginative names which basically mean the same thing.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Thora said:


> What did you object to in the post of mine you highlighted andysays?



The bit I objected to was the first bit I quoted, where you said something along the lines of "he must have had something wrong with his brain to do that", which I find rather reductionist and therefore unhelpful.

But I'll repeat that I wasn't seeking to make a personal attack on you or your comment, and that the reason I used that one was simply that it was the most recent.

The second part which I also quoted was spot on.


----------



## Thora (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> The bit I objected to was the first bit I quoted, where you said something along the lines of "he must have had something wrong with his brain to do that", which I find rather reductionist and therefore unhelpful.
> 
> But I'll repeat that I wasn't seeking to make a personal attack on you or your comment, and that the reason I used that one was simply that it was the most recent.
> 
> The second part which I also quoted was spot on.


Would something wrong with his mind be better?  Or soul?


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Nov 4, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> I think we would if a thread was started on it. Sadly adult male on female violence is so common it doesn't disturb our sense of the 'norm' at least not enough for a thread for every woman killed.



Someone said to me - 'somewhere out there is a girl who doesn't know she's lucky, because he would have killed his girlfriend one day' - which who knows - but if he had done that in 5 or 10 years time, I bet we wouldn't have heard half so much about it  even if it still warranted a full life term.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2014)

Ms Ordinary said:


> Someone said to me - 'somewhere out there is a girl who doesn't know she's lucky, because he would have killed his girlfriend one day' - which who knows - but if he had done that in 5 or 10 years time, I bet we wouldn't have heard half so much about it  even if it still warranted a full life term.


let's hope she stays that lucky, eh.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 4, 2014)

toggle said:


> a lot of that depends on whether you think rose west was the submissive party to fred, the equal or the dominant. because where there are 2 people who act together to commit serial murders, the usual pattern is that the dominant is the really dangerously crazy one. and the submissive is in some ways an ongoing victim. who will join the others under the patio if they cease to have value in helping the dominant and validating their actions. the submissive takes on some of the characteristics of the dominant, but that can change when they are no longer under control.
> 
> looking at rose's history would tend to suggest that she was the submissive party, not just because she's the woman, although in male/female couples the woman is usually the submissive, but stuff like the battle between her father and west for contrtol over her and her sexually abusive father visiting her to pay for sex. so it may be that she was caught the crazy while living with him, but isn't actually crazy. so rings the crazy bells, but once seperated from him is 'sane'. although if you believe the above that she was an ongoing victim of abuse from childhood and was forced to take part in murders and the traumas that would entail, it does highlight that sanity, as used legally bears little relation to how most people think of the term.



Sounds fair enough. I'm by no means an expert on this and West was probably a poor example. It's just when I think of. Broadmoor or Ashworth I think of the mentally disturbed rather than psychopaths who I see as being of sound mind (not insane) but with some vital components missing such as empathy. I guess it's also possible to be afflicted with several conditions. I'd be interested to know who has ended up in hospital on account of being a psychopath exclusively though. Brady? I'm fairly certain some (if not all) end up in chokey but that could be my ignorance on the matter.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Thora said:


> Would something wrong with his mind be better?  Or soul?



I don't believe in souls, personally (though you're welcome to talk about it in those terms if you wish).

I think what I am attempting to point out (and after I've been out for a couple of hours away from the computer I recognise I did a bad job of it the first time round) is that there is frequently a dominant narrative that mental health issues equate to being a danger to others, whereas the reality is that we (there, I said it) are far more often a danger to ourselves. 

This narrative comes out in the media when a tragedy like this occurs, and it's easy for people to unintentionally re-enforce that message by over-simplifying by saying that someone must have something wrong with their brain or their mind, instead of acknowledging that what causes someone to do something like this is actually a very complex issue, and oversimplifying in the way many are tempted to do can contribute to some people's personal frustration and to overall stigmatisation, even if that's the last thing you actually want to do.

But thank you for addressing this question sensitively once I brought it up, even if it did take me a couple of goes to find a good way of expressing it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

toggle said:


> he's far from the only person who has expressed a frustration with the stigmatisation of mental illness


I agree that mental illness should not be stigmatised but I don't think it's wrong to believe there is something very wrong with a mind that thinks it OK to murder


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> You just don't like nutters, at least those of us to object being referred to as such, or by other imaginative names which basically mean the same thing.


You are putting words and thoughts into my mouth/brain.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> No, I'm attempting to stand up for myself and the many others like me who are pissed off by the casual stigmatisating of everyone with mental health issues, *including me, in case I need to spell it out for you*.
> 
> Got any more insults you'd like to fling in my direction?


I think I'm done. I should probably go back to ignoring you.


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Sounds fair enough. I'm by no means an expert on this and West was probably a poor example. It's just when I think of. Broadmoor or Ashworth I think of the mentally disturbed rather than psychopaths who I see as being of sound mind (not insane) but with some vital components missing such as empathy. I guess it's also possible to be afflicted with several conditions. I'd be interested to know who has ended up in hospital on account of being a psychopath exclusively though. I'm fairly certain some (if not all) end up in chokey but that could be my ignorance on the matter.



i'm not expert either, but i do live with someone who has read a very great deal about it. and i have an interest in the demonisation of women to transgress to that degree. there are times when the hounding of the mob is worse, because they are further away from where society expects them to be.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> You are putting words and thoughts into my mouth/brain.



Maybe you'd like to elaborate on what you meant by those two terms then, because although I'm not familiar with them, I'm fairly sure from the context that they weren't intended to be complimentary.

Or you could perhaps stop and think, recognise that you might have been rather too quick with your sneering dismissals, and reconsider if you really want to take this any further.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I think I'm done. I should probably go back to ignoring you.



By all means, if you find people objecting to what they see as stigmatisating difficult to cope with because it punctures your image of yourself as being above contributing to that stigmatising yourself, go back to ignoring me.


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I agree that mental illness should not be stigmatised but I don't think it's wrong to believe there is something very wrong with a mind that thinks it OK to murder



which dosen't necessarily translate to any legal or medical definition of insanity/mental illness. you seemed to be trying to define wrong'un as mentally ill. which unfortunately often ends up as proof of the reverse, that mentally ill = wrong'un. someone dangerous to be avioded. which dosen't help anyone. and some of us have very good reason to loathe on a personal level having dealt with the impact of those fears of the crazy. 

it's often not the mental illness that is the problem, so much as the fears of that mental illness that isolate people. make them more likely to be a crime victim, make it harder for them to cope with their illness and remain stable.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

toggle said:


> ... mentally ill = wrong'un. someone dangerous to be avoided...



or to be dismissed or (the ultimate rejection on here) to be put on ignore


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

Quartz said:


> What proportion of Cornick's teachers were female? Or, would it be 'simple' misogyny or a revolt against authority where the authority is female?



Which presumes that the sex of the teacher is/was immaterial, which isn't an assumption we can safely make.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which presumes that the sex of the teacher is/was immaterial, which isn't an assumption we can safely make.


Although he'd apparently planned it to be a multiple killing including a pregnant teacher that we can safely assume was female and another unidentified one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> A lot of boys with behavioural problems respond especially badly to female authority and it is clearly learned behaviour from their parents/family.



In the case of young males, this isn't helped by normative adolescent attitudes with regard to interaction between sexes, which is fraught, to say the least. A case could probably be made by a psychoanalyst for him having focused his feelings about females in general onto one specific person.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Although he'd apparently planned it to be a multiple killing including a pregnant teacher that we can safely assume was female and another unidentified one.



Sure, I'm merely saying that we (and Quartz especially) shouldn't assume either misogyny or lack of misogyny in this case, without further information. We can make guesses (educated or not), but I doubt we'll ever know the "truth" of matters.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

Thora said:


> Would something wrong with his mind be better?  Or soul?



"Brain" tends to imply organic damage or defect, whereas mind implies cognitive or developmental damage. The latter may be remediable by therapy, the former may only be remediable by (wince) surgery.
BTW, soul doesn't exist, except as a form of music.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> Maybe you'd like to elaborate on what you meant by those two terms then, because although I'm not familiar with them, I'm fairly sure from the context that they weren't intended to be complimentary.
> 
> Or you could perhaps stop and think, recognise that you might have been rather too quick with your sneering dismissals, and reconsider if you really want to take this any further.


What two terms are you referring to?

BTW I do not take kindly to your sanctimonious and patronising manner. It rubs people up the wrong way


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> or to be dismissed or (the ultimate rejection on here) to be put on ignore


I'm not putting you on ignore. You aren't that bad.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

toggle said:


> which dosen't necessarily translate to any legal or medical definition of insanity/mental illness. you seemed to be trying to define wrong'un as mentally ill. which unfortunately often ends up as proof of the reverse, that mentally ill = wrong'un. someone dangerous to be avioded. which dosen't help anyone. and some of us have very good reason to loathe on a personal level having dealt with the impact of those fears of the crazy.
> 
> it's often not the mental illness that is the problem, so much as the fears of that mental illness that isolate people. make them more likely to be a crime victim, make it harder for them to cope with their illness and remain stable.


Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that I think that anyone who commits a cold-blooded premeditated murder must have something wrong with them and it would be dishonest not to express this opinion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I agree that mental illness should not be stigmatised but I don't think it's wrong to believe there is something very wrong with a mind that thinks it OK to murder



Depends on why the person thinks it is okay, and how they reached that conclusion. *Some* of it boils down to socialisation - in "the modern world" we're expected to live alongside others (sometimes cheek-by-jowl) without manifesting any effect from such a situation. If we existed outside of so-called civilised society we might be in much more of a Hobbesian situation, and would consider murder as part of the natural order of things, and of looking after number one. 
Our morals and ethics, however attached we are to them, are also somewhat plastic. In an adolescent, where morality and ethics may be only partially formed, if at all, and socialisation will more likely have been only with family and friends, rather than the amount of socialisation one has with strangers as an adult, there is a very real possibility of the veneer of civilisation not taking - most people with violently anti-social traits will start manifesting them between the ages of 10 and 18 (not everyone being the cat-strangler or bird torturer of novelistic myth).


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that I think that anyone who commits a cold-blooded premeditated murder must have something wrong with them and it would be dishonest not to express this opinion.



none of which requires you to be equating dangerous or murder with mental illness.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

toggle said:


> none of which requires you to be equating dangerous or murder with mental illness.


Why not? I am struggling to understand this


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> What two terms are you referring to?
> 
> BTW I do not take kindly to your sanctimonious and patronising manner. It rubs people up the wrong way



The terms I'm referring to are "corkarsed prannet" and "arse candle". You're welcome to explain what you meant by them, and how they are not meant to be in anyway offensive or stigmatising to those you fling them at if you think you can do so.

And you're welcome to not take kindly to what you percieve as my "sanctimonious and patronising manner", but to therefore simply dismiss what I'm saying about how you might be contributing to the stigmatising of people with mental health issues, is pretty much guaranteed to rub *me* up the wrong way.


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Why not? I am struggling to understand this



because most people who commit violent crime are not mentally ill

because mentally ill people are more likely to be a victim of violent crime than a perpetrator

because th perception that mentally ill people are dangerous criminals is what makes their lives more dangerous.

just as legally insane does not equal mentally ill, mentally ill does not equal  legally insane. it does not equal dangerous criminal and dangerous criminal does not equal mentally ill.

because i have been told that i've put myself and my kids in danger by shacking up with bipolar dude because of this bullshit. that woiuld be the bloke that i've had one actual stand up and shout row with in 3 years, compared to my supposedly sane and not mentally ill ex partner who beat the shit out of me. my ex is a dangerous and violent arsehole and while there may be something wrong with him. he isn't crazy. he isn't mentally ill. he isn't insane.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

OK, but I am still struggling with the idea that someone can be a violent criminal and not be mentally ill. Perhaps another word is required here as the terms mentally ill and sane/insane are clearly inadequate.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> The terms I'm referring to are "corkarsed prannet" and "arse candle". You're welcome to explain what you meant by them, and how they are not meant to be in anyway offensive or stigmatising to those you fling them at if you think you can do so.


They are cheap insults. Offensive, of course, but I would resist labelling them stigmatising.


----------



## Thora (Nov 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Brain" tends to imply organic damage or defect, whereas mind implies cognitive or developmental damage. The latter may be remediable by therapy, the former may only be remediable by (wince) surgery.
> BTW, soul doesn't exist, except as a form of music.


Has there not been some research to suggest that the brains of psychopaths are physically different to the brains of non-psychopaths?


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> They are cheap insults. Offensive, of course, but I would resist labelling them stigmatising.



I'm sure you would resist that labelling, though not apparently labelling those who commit violent crimes as mentally ill. You may not recognise it, but slinging insults around as a way of dismissing someone with mental health issues who is complaining about the tendency to stigmatise those with mental health issues is contributing to that stigmatising.

It all looks very much like you are not prepared to accept the word of someone who is affected by this that your actions might be unintentionally stigmatising, simply because the idea has never occured to you before.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

Thora said:


> Has there not been some research to suggest that the brains of psychopaths are physically different to the brains of non-psychopaths?



IIRC the difference is mostly in neuronal connections (which points up developmental and cognitive problems), with a slight difference in the size of the (again, IIRC) amygdalae. Unfortunately the variance is within the scale of standard variation with a population (i.e. some members of the population who aren't psychopaths also have smaller amygdalae), so while it's significant, we don't know how or why it's significant, IYSWIM, beyond that the amygdalae help process emotion and memory.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> I'm sure you would resist that labelling, though not apparently labelling those who commit violent crimes as mentally ill. You may not recognise it, but slinging insults around as a way of dismissing someone with mental health issues who is complaining about the tendency to stigmatise those with mental health issues is contributing to that stigmatising.
> 
> It all looks very much like you are not prepared to accept the word of someone who is affected by this that your actions might be unintentionally stigmatising, simply because the idea has never occured to you before.


I was dismissing a poster and their posts (yours) because they were delivered in an irritating and sanctimonious manner. This has nothing to do with stigmatising MH issues, as I was unaware of your MH issues.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Why not? I am struggling to understand this



A relative handful of mentally-ill people are dangerous. An even smaller proportion of mentally-ill people are murderous, so the two states aren't synonymous, they only intersect in a very minor way.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> A relative handful of mentally-ill people are dangerous. An even smaller proportion of mentally-ill people are murderous, so the two states aren't synonymous, they only intersect in a very minor way.


Yes, but this still doesn't mean that a violent criminal doesn't have mental health issues. This discussion is getting very circular though it has enlightened me to the fact that our language is so far inadequate for describing 'mental health issues'.

ETA: I think we're getting it arse about tit here. 
You seem to be making the assumption that I am saying all mentally ill people are violent but I'm not saying that. It's the other way round. I'm saying that violent people must be mentally ill. And that notion appears to be offensive to some people,  so there is clearly a fault here in the way we describe the thinking of murderers/fighters/wifebeaters etc


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I was dismissing a poster and their posts (yours) because they were delivered in an irritating and sanctimonious manner. This has nothing to do with stigmatising MH issues, as I was unaware of your MH issues.



You don't actually have to be aware of my mental health issues to recognise that when someone (anyone) is talking about how behaviour might be stigmatising (and I accept that I didn't make it properly clear to begin with) simply dismissing them with insults which appear to refer to their "idiocy" or something close to it, might not be the best way to respond.

But maybe you'd like me to add a little symbol to my avatar so you can be aware of my MH issues in future.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes, but this still doesn't mean that a violent criminal doesn't have mental health issues. This discussion is getting very circular though it has enlightened me to the fact that our language is so far inadequate for describing 'mental health issues'.



It's really quite simple - there is no correlation between commiting violent acts and having mental health issues.

Your insistance in making that correlation after you've repeatedly had this pointed out (and by people who you can't simply dismiss as being patronising or sanctimonious) suggests that you really don't care if you continue to contribute to stigmatising.

If you wish to stop giving this impression, then try taking some time to think about what has already been said, rather than simply questioning what you don't have any real understanding of.

ETA: and it's not our language, but your use of language which is at fault, I'm afraid


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> OK, but I am still struggling with the idea that someone can be a violent criminal and not be mentally ill.



According to some criminologists (who I don't happen to agree with), you can be a violent criminal purely on the basis of rational choice - *all* criminal acts are the result of rational choice, unless the criminal manifests traits consonant with mental ill-health. Rational choice theory states that a criminal may commit a crime because the utility and benefits *for them* attached to doing so outweigh other considerations such as morality or altruism.
Personally, I think that rational choice theory misses out the *personal* factors motivating the choice to take criminal action. As I said earlier to C66, I don't think we'll ever know the truth about Cornick's motivation, but it doesn't *have* to be a function of psychopathy, and he certainly manifested none of the traits that would be expected of someone suffering a personality disorder that predisposed them to violence.



> Perhaps another word is required here as the terms mentally ill and sane/insane are clearly inadequate.


They're adequate for normal use - people have a reasonable grasp of what each phrase indicates. The problem comes when you use general terms when referring to individual issues, IMO.


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes, but this still doesn't mean that a violent criminal doesn't have mental health issues. T




it means that very few people who commit violent crimes are mentally ill. that is something you need to understand. that it is completely unacceptable for you to continue, against evidence and reason, to characterise people who do stuff you find morally reprehensible as mentally ill.


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> What two terms are you referring to?
> 
> BTW I do not take kindly to your sanctimonious and patronising manner. It rubs people up the wrong way



quoting that, so i can remind you of this, the next time you start throwing sanctimonious accusations of bullying at anyone


----------



## weltweit (Nov 4, 2014)

I think it is complicated. The term "mentally ill" usually refers to a range of mental conditions, (for example: depression, bipolar, or schizophrenia, OCD, personality disorders and the like). Most people with these conditions live without any issues of illegal behaviour or violence. But it is also true that in extreme situations some can become a danger to themselves and or others.

Then there are otherwise normal people like this perpetrator who seemingly just up and kill someone. I think it is ok to assume that there is something wrong with them because people who are well don't just up and kill someone. But while I do think there is something wrong with him, that wrongness probably differs from the people above who are suffering from a normal mentally illness.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes, but this still doesn't mean that a violent criminal doesn't have mental health issues. This discussion is getting very circular though it has enlightened me to the fact that our language is so far inadequate for describing 'mental health issues'.
> 
> ETA: I think we're getting it arse about tit here.
> You seem to be making the assumption that I am saying all mentally ill people are violent but I'm not saying that. It's the other way round. I'm saying that violent people must be mentally ill. And that notion appears to be offensive to some people,  so there is clearly a fault here in the way we describe the thinking of murderers/fighters/wifebeaters etc



I know what you're saying. I'm merely saying that the overlap between mental ill-health and violent crime is small, and that we shouldn't assume that violent crime is a function of mental ill-health *at all*. Why not? Because if we do so, even at an individual level, we provide a chain of reasoning that violent people who are not suffering from mental ill-health will use to excuse their actions - it's the very reason why psychiatric assessment is a standard court procedure nowadays.
It seems to me that you're confusing what we might call "moral dereliction" - someone not conforming to societal and moral norms - for mental ill-health, but that'd miss the unfortunate fact that some people aren't properly socialised or develop aberrant beliefs totally outside of mental ill-health. Most wifebeaters aren't mentally-ill (G-d knows there's been enough research from both sides of the gender divide on this), they're "merely" anti-social, insofar as their actions don't conform to accepted and acceptable "societal and moral norms".
In other words, some people are perfectly sane, at the same time as being absolute cuntbuckets as human beings.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

toggle said:


> it means that very few people who commit violent crimes are mentally ill. that is something you need to understand. that it is completely unacceptable for you to continue, against evidence and reason, to characterise people who do stuff you find morally reprehensible as mentally ill.


OK, I think my mistake here is thinking that people with a broken moral compass (shit term i know but i don't know what else to call it) must have mental health issues. Their thoughts and actions are abhorrent and I can see why people with mental health issues wouldn't want to be placed in the same set as violent criminals. I am only coming from the perspective that all behaviour has a rational explanation and my reluctance to ever use words like evil or bad to describe people who carry out morally reprehensible acts.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

toggle said:


> quoting that, so i can remind you of this, the next time you start throwing sanctimonious accusations of bullying at anyone


Fair point.  Sorry.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> It's really quite simple - there is no correlation between commiting violent acts and having mental health issues.



I would never say "there is no correlation". I would, however, say that the correlation is minor, and indicative only of the fact that *very few* acts of violence are excusable or explainable through reference to mental health issues on the part of the perpetrator.


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I think it is complicated. The term "mentally ill" usually refers to a range of mental conditions, (for example: depression, bipolar, or schizophrenia, OCD, personality disorders and the like). Most people with these conditions live without any issues of illegal behaviour or violence. But it is also true that in extreme situations some can become a danger to themselves and or others.
> 
> Then there are otherwise normal people like this perpetrator who seemingly just up and kill someone. I think it is ok to assume that there is something wrong with them because people who are well don't just up and kill someone. But while I do think there is something wrong with him, that wrongness probably differs from the people above who are suffering from a normal mentally illness.



my point is that the stigma that continued to be perpetuated with the assumptions of a massive overlap between mentall illness and violent criminal is more likely to lead to someone with MH problems being abused, isolated, unable to access help and support and having a greater chance of becoming unstable and potentially more dangerous. while again, not trying to say there's an absolute correlation here, fear of mental illness can be a big factor in causing dangerous behavior in the mentailly ill. 

this is why it is incredibly important to challenge attempts to correlate mental illness with violent and dangerous.


----------



## no-no (Nov 4, 2014)

the borderline for mental illness is mobile isn't it. homosexuality was considered a mental illness, still is in some places. I can't see murder ever being considered an ok thing to do as it's intrinsically wrong, (maybe in war which is just weird). 

Maybe for a murderer the ethical and logical calulations that take place in their mind are fine and make sense on their terms. I'd call that insane, cos I don't like murder, i can only justify it terms of self defence. The thought processes of a murderer are ethically and logically wrong...aren't they? If we're to find out why some people turn out like this don't we have to acknowledge their insanity/mental illness?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2014)

toggle said:


> it means that very few people who commit violent crimes are mentally ill. that is something you need to understand. that it is completely unacceptable for you to continue, against evidence and reason, to characterise people who do stuff you find morally reprehensible as mentally ill.



It would in fact be far more accurate to state "a significant minority of people who commit *non-violent* crimes also suffer mental ill-health", if we factor in self-esteem issues caused by poor education, poor socialisation etc.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> ...I am only coming from the perspective that all behaviour has a rational explanation...



Can I suggest (in as unpatronising a way as possible) that although all behaviour may have a rational explanation (if only we can find that explanation), not all behaviour is the result of rational thought, much of it is the result of non-rational thought and subconcious processes, and that you appear to be confusing the two.

This is the case for everyone, so behaviour which may not appear rational to you is not in any way indicative of mental illness. I'm sure even you have behaved in ways which have been more inspired by impulse than rational thought.


----------



## twentythreedom (Nov 4, 2014)

PursuedByBears said:


> Reading the sentencing remarks...


I try to read the judge's remarks in high-profile cases like this one, usually they make for very interesting, informative (and often shocking) reading. Always worth a look, now that they're so easily accessible online.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes, but this still doesn't mean that a violent criminal doesn't have mental health issues. This discussion is getting very circular though it has enlightened me to the fact that our language is so far inadequate for describing 'mental health issues'.
> 
> ETA: I think we're getting it arse about tit here.
> You seem to be making the assumption that I am saying all mentally ill people are violent but I'm not saying that. It's the other way round. I'm saying that violent people must be mentally ill. And that notion appears to be offensive to some people,  so there is clearly a fault here in the way we describe the thinking of murderers/fighters/wifebeaters etc



And it's irking people because that conflates violence with mental illness, even if it isn't your intent to do that.


----------



## Cribynkle (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> Can I suggest (in as unpatronising a way as possible) that although all behaviour may have a rational explanation (if only we can find that explanation), not all behaviour is the result of rational thought, much of it is the result of non-rational thought and subconcious processes, and that you appear to be confusing the two.
> 
> This is the case for everyone, so *behaviour which may not appear rational to you is not in any way indicative of mental illness. I'm sure even you have behaved in ways which have been more inspired by impulse than rational thought.*



andysays  I've been struggling to get the distinction and this post has really helped me understand


----------



## 8115 (Nov 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Brain" tends to imply organic damage or defect, whereas mind implies cognitive or developmental damage. The latter may be remediable by therapy, the former may only be remediable by (wince) surgery.
> BTW, soul doesn't exist, except as a form of music.


I think this is incorrect, brains can change other than by surgery.

See for instance the hippocampuses (spatial part of the brain) of taxi drivers getting bigger when they do the knowledge.

I would think there are changes, at least in brain activity and wiring even if not often in structure seen after successful therapies not involving surgery. I would be interested to know.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Cribynkle said:


> andysays  I've been struggling to get the distinction and this post has really helped me understand



Happy to help


----------



## 8115 (Nov 4, 2014)

Saying, everyone who commits an extreme act of violence is mentally ill does not mean saying all mentally ill people commit extreme acts of violence.

All milk is white, that doesn't mean that all white things are milk.

It's an interesting question and probably says a lot about why people stray outside of societies norms, how we construct mental illness etc etc.

I'm mentally ill because I have different thoughts sometimes, someone who sells weapons to Israel gets a clean bill of health.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 4, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Sentencing remarks
> 
> http://t.co/bzHef0hQ2H




Dreadfully sad for Ann McGuire and her family. The judge gives her great tribute and importantly also focuses on safety...


"Teachers play a critical role in our society and are in an important
position of authority. They are entitled to proper protection,
and to expect that those who injure or kill their colleagues
are dealt with severely by the courts."


..... It is shocking to read that this youth was given an "internal expulsion" for comments made about Mrs McGuire and arguments he had with her months before he killed her. He clearly showed his personality and red flags must have been flying. It is frightening to read that he had described how he was going to kill her months before he did so. That his pre meditation was known and even announced on Facebook is frightening too.




Orang Utan said:


> I'm not sure that being aware of what you are doing makes you sane. Stabbing a teacher in the neck because you don't like her is not a sane act.



He thought it was ok. He rationalised his action and still believes what he did was right...for him. He clearly had problems but has been assessed as sane. The psychiatrists mentioned in the judges summation are clear that he knew what he was doing..he knew it was wrong,  (although he had rationalised in his own mind that it was right) he is not remorseful and he planned every bit of it so it wasn't a reactionary spur of the moment loss of control. 
They stated he had a personality disorder.....no doubt more will come to the surface eventually. 

He had a stated interest in joining the army.......and lost the plot and started self harming when his diabetes diagnosis made this goal impossible. Not a normal reaction I would have thought?


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

8115 said:


> Saying, everyone who commits an extreme act of violence is mentally ill does not mean saying all mentally ill people commit extreme acts of violence...



No, it doesn't. But it is factually incorrect and stretches the meaning of the term "mentally ill" way beyond breaking point.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

I still think we need new words for these things. Bad/evil is wrong. Mentally ill is incorrect and stigmatising innocent harmless people. Abhorrent doesn't quite cut it. And morally reprehensible doesn't really help either.


----------



## 8115 (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> No, it doesn't. But it is factually incorrect and stretches the meaning of the term "mentally ill" way beyond breaking point.


Hence my last two paragraphs.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 4, 2014)

It sort of suggests that calmness and placidity is the normal state for human beings and extreme acts of aggression can only come from some form of anomaly. But that rather of ignores the thousands of years of human violence before us which persists to this day for various reasons.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I still think we need new words for these things. Bad/evil is wrong. Mentally ill is incorrect and stigmatising innocent harmless people. Abhorrent doesn't quite cut it. And morally reprehensible doesn't really help either.



I'm glad you've accepted that blanket referral to people who commit horrific murders as mentally ill is incorrect and stigmatising.

I'm not sure though why you think we need new words. We already have the words murder and murderer, and the judge's report in this case contains summarys of the finding of various psychatric and psychological professionals, using words which have specific meanings when used in the context of mental illness. 

The problem, as I see it, is the tendency of some people to use words which have specific meanings in ways which suggest they don't really appreciate what those meanings are.


----------



## Shirl (Nov 4, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> It sort of suggests that calmness and placidity is the normal state for human beings and extreme acts of aggression can only come from some form of anomaly. But that rather of ignores the thousands of years of human violence before us which persists to this day for various reasons.


I've been thinking this reading this thread. There have always been cruel, nasty bastards, there always will be. Nothing to do with mental health, just plain nasty.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2014)

I think there is also a fair chance that people will get away with using the term psychopath in as negative a manner as they like, without causing much in the way of offence.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 4, 2014)

elbows said:


> I think there is also a fair chance that people will get away with using the term psychopath in as negative a manner as they like, without causing much in the way of offence.



Yes, there's varying degrees of psychopathy therefore we should refrain from labelling the murderous ones as such in case we offend the ones that fuck people in other less fatal ways. : facepalm:


----------



## 8115 (Nov 4, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Yes, there's varying degrees of psychopathy therefore we should refrain from labelling the murderous ones as such in case we offend the ones that fuck people in other less fatal ways. : facepalm:


People do use the term psychopath very carelessly.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 4, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> One more thing, cornick is known to have wanted to kill 2 more teachers. At least one was female (pregnant). If all 3 planned victims turn out to have been female, would it be appropriate mto consider the role of latent mysoginy?





Quartz said:


> What proportion of Cornick's teachers were female? Or, would it be 'simple' misogyny or a revolt against authority where the authority is female?





Orang Utan said:


> A lot of boys with behavioural problems respond especially badly to female authority and it is clearly learned behaviour from their parents/family.



A lot of boys generally, actually (and a much smaller number of girls, too).  It's one of the positives about school in that young men can learn to treat women with respect, which they may not be seeing at home.



Quartz said:


> In this case the judge was quite explicit in absolving the family of any responsibility or blame.
> 
> I'm just looking at the staff list of the primary school which my nephew attended and my niece still attends and all the senior teachers are female. There are 5 male teachers (out of 20), and no male PSAs. That can't be good for troubled young boys. Is the fear of being accused of being a paedo still strong? Aberdeen Grammar school seems much more gender-balanced (I notice with amusement that the IT department is entirely female).



I suspect many men don't choose primary education for the same reason I didn't: it's a very, very different job.  More holistic and pastoral and about nurture.  Secondary teachers most often teach, ime, because they have a genuine passion for their subject, and/or because teaching teaanagers have a very specific set of rewards that you don't get with younger kids.	Why men don't seem to choose the more nurturing role is undoubtedly as a result of a patriarchal upbringing in a patriarchal society.  One where they were not encouraged to play with babydolls and pushchairs and nurses' uniforms...	The patriarchy fucks us all.

However, what is true statistically, of primary teachers and gender - is that while men are a small minority of primary teachers, they are a much bigger proportion of senior leadership in primary schools.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I still think we need new words for these things. Bad/evil is wrong. Mentally ill is incorrect and stigmatising innocent harmless people. Abhorrent doesn't quite cut it. And morally reprehensible doesn't really help either.



He was not described by the judge as bad/evil, mentally ill or abhorrent.
However, the result of his actions left one innocent woman dead and will ruin the lives of many people. He did this knowing full well the consequences of his planned action and has stated that he did not care then and does not care now about anything he has done or any of the subsequent consequences. However that to me is not the descriptor of a typical psychopath.....*
He did not try to charm his way out of his actions.....he did not lie ..... he admitted everything....not a characteristic of psychopathic behaviour.

Its important to remember that as he is under 18 he wont be labelled...so they have referred to him as having an adjustment disorder. He will no doubt be monitored and may well be formally diagnosed at a future date with more than an "adjustment disorder".

*not to say that he might show other characteristics similar to psychopathy...and at a later date he could well be assessed as psychopathic.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> He did not try to charm his way out of his actions.....he did not lie ..... he admitted everything....not a characteristic of psychopathic behaviour.



But since he vocalised in a positive manner the idea of spending life in prison and not having to worry about money etc, a failure to cover up or excuse the crime is not indicative of a failure to seek the outcome he desired.



> Its important to remember that as he is under 18 he wont be labelled...so they have referred to him as having an adjustment disorder. He will no doubt be monitored and may well be formally diagnosed at a future date with more than an "adjustment disorder".
> 
> *not to say that he might show other characteristics similar to psychopathy...and at a later date he could well be assessed as psychopathic.



As I understand it, certain traits will be described as psychopathic by professionals, but there isn't actually a formal diagnosis of psychopath available. Rather, antisocial personality disorder is used.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 4, 2014)

elbows said:


> But since he vocalised in a positive manner the idea of spending life in prison and not having to worry about money etc, a failure to cover up or excuse the crime is not indicative of a failure to seek the outcome he desired.
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, certain traits will be described as psychopathic by professionals, but there isn't actually a formal diagnosis of psychopath available. Rather, antisocial personality disorder is used.



APD covers psychopathology and sociopathology.
Terminology may vary but the descriptors for diagnoses wont.


----------



## xenon (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm not sure that being aware of what you are doing makes you sane. Stabbing a teacher in the neck because you don't like her is not a sane act.


You don't have to be mad to do irrational disproportionate horrific things. It rather renders the meaning of insanity useless to think otherwise. 

As an aside there's a thing about Broadmoor on TV tomorrow. ITV I think.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2014)

JHE said:


> He has a personality disorder.  Sometimes distinction is made between (treatable) mental illnesses and such disorders.  The latter are (untreatable, unfortunate) facets of personality.



No, most personality disorders are considered treatable these days.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2014)

toggle said:


> you can be running about covered in strawberry jam, thinking you are napoleon and joan of arc is telling you to kill all the weevils and legally sane if you killed someone while trying to get to the weevils and knew society didn't approve of that.it dosen't matter how much of you is listening to the crazy if you remain aware, if any part of you knows that there is wrongness in your actions. there are a lot of people who medically are in box of frogs territory, but were legally sane at the time of their crime.



What's the case law on this?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 4, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> No, most personality disorders are considered treatable these days.



How are they mainly treated? Drugs or therapy?


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> What's the case law on this?




on strawberry jam?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> How are they mainly treated? Drugs or therapy?



Depends on the personality disorder.  The one I know most about is emotionally unstable (sometimes called bordeline) personality disorder.  Drugs can be used to treat symptoms such as antidepressants for mood, sometimes a low dose of anti-psychotic for paranoia/anxiety.  The main therapies would be dialectical behavioural therapy or mentalisation therapy.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2014)

toggle said:


> on strawberry jam?



Yes, that's right toggle.  On strawberry jam.  I clearly meant "what is the case law on strawberry jam".


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 4, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Depends on the personality disorder.  The one I know most about is emotionally unstable (sometimes called bordeline) personality disorder.  Drugs can be used to treat symptoms such as antidepressants for mood, sometimes a low dose of anti-psychotic for paranoia/anxiety.  The main therapies would be dialectical behavioural therapy or mentalisation therapy.



Any ideas what will happen to this kid inside? I guess a lot of talking will be involved to get him to realise the enormity of what he has done. No drugs though, I wouldn't imagine.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 4, 2014)

8115 said:


> People do use the term psychopath very carelessly.


Not regarding the offender in this case though. imo obvs.


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, that's right toggle.  On strawberry jam.  I clearly meant "what is the case law on strawberry jam".



well, that's as valid an interpretation to your question as any other. if you want to make a specific point, then get on with it.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Any ideas what will happen to this kid inside? I guess a lot of talking will be involved to get him to realise the enormity of what he has done. No drugs though, I wouldn't imagine.



No idea.  I'm know little about the legal side of this sort of thing.  It would seem to me though, that the law lacks something when convicting people with personality disorder diagnoses.  Someone can be not psychotic but still not in full control of their actions due to having personality disorder features and being emotionally aroused, or in this case, seemingly lacking in empathy/ability to truly emotionally experience what their actions are.  Human beings require an emotional component to their experience to be able to make rational decisions - see the work of Antonio Damasio.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2014)

toggle said:


> well, that's as valid an interpretation to your question as any other. if you want to make a specific point, then get on with it.



I asked you a question - you don't want to answer it.  OK.  Can we move on now?


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> No, most personality disorders are considered treatable these days.



I was just reading an interesting article from a couple of years ago about attempts to see if children with profound 'callous-unemotional' traits can be better understood and helped in some way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/m...ear-old-a-psychopath.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2014)

elbows said:


> I was just reading an interesting article from a couple of years ago about attempts to see if children with profound 'callous-unemotional' traits can be better understood and helped in some way.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/m...ear-old-a-psychopath.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



As I understand it, the current thinking on psychopathy (which in itself is a controversial term, not existing in either the DSMV or ICD10), is that there is a genetic component, but this is not in itself sufficient to lead to classic psychopathic presentation - also needed is environment such as a neglectful or abusive childhood, or even just growing up in an emotionally invalidating family (in itself a form of emotional abuse).


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> You just don't like nutters, at least those of us to object being referred to as such, or by other imaginative names which basically mean the same thing.



Where has anyone said that?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 4, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> No idea.  I'm know little about the legal side of this sort of thing.  It would seem to me though, that the law lacks something when convicting people with personality disorder diagnoses.  Someone can be not psychotic but still not in full control of their actions due to having personality disorder features and being emotionally aroused, or in this case, seemingly lacking in empathy/ability to truly emotionally experience what their actions are.  Human beings require an emotional component to their experience to be able to make rational decisions - see the work of Antonio Damasio.



It's not beyond the realms of possibility that as he matures he will develop empathy and become remorseful for his actions. If that happens then there may well be an appeal against the sentence he has been given now. But that's at least a decade away.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> OK, but I am still struggling with the idea that someone can be a violent criminal and not be mentally ill. Perhaps another word is required here as the terms mentally ill and sane/insane are clearly inadequate.



I think one of the problems here is how we think about "mental illness".  Even the term itself implies a medical explanation, a biological cause.  Rather than what is more accurate, often a reaction to social circumstances or a combination of temperament (whether that be genetic or otherwise) and experience.  People who are violent tend to have had violent upbringings and may lack empathy or be more impulsive and volatile emotionally - sometimes we say people like this have a personality disorder.  Does this mean they are ill?  I don't think so, but I think it can mean that they "choose" to be violent, sometimes people literally can't control impulses, sometimes because of formative experiences, they have internalised violence as socially OK response to problems.  I've no idea if this is the case with this lad who stabbed the teacher btw, I'm just speaking broadly.  Is someone who has internalised violence as an appropriate response ill?  Mad?  Bad?   I dunno.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Any ideas what will happen to this kid inside? I guess a lot of talking will be involved to get him to realise the enormity of what he has done. No drugs though, I wouldn't imagine.



One of the reasons that people with psychopathic traits were traditionally written off as untreatable is probably down to very low success rates at eliciting anything resembling genuine empathy from them. You may well be able to get them to recognise the enormity of their actions on some level, but I'm not sure that would be considered much compensation for the absence of empathy. Combined with high levels of vigilance regarding the potential for manipulative behaviour to fill this gap, its easy to see how they were written off as hopeless cases.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> It's not beyond the realms of possibility that as he matures he will develop empathy and become remorseful for his actions. If that happens then there may well be an appeal against the sentence he has been given now. But that's at least a decade away.



I believe thats the basis for not diagnosing personality disorders until a certain age - until the personality has ripened, conclusions should not be reached.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> It's really quite simple - there is no correlation between commiting violent acts and having mental health issues.
> 
> Your insistance in making that correlation after you've repeatedly had this pointed out (and by people who you can't simply dismiss as being patronising or sanctimonious) suggests that you really don't care if you continue to contribute to stigmatising.
> 
> ...



Although research does find that psychotic illness is associated with a higher risk of violence, although there are usually other factors involved such as substance misuse.  In fact substance misuse by itself is a predictor for increased risk of violence.  Is substance misuse a "mental illness"? It certainly exists as a diagnosis in the DSMV and ICD10, but is diagnostic category the definer for mental illness?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> No, it doesn't. But it is factually incorrect and stretches the meaning of the term "mentally ill" way beyond breaking point.



So how do we define "mentally ill"?  Seems to be the nub here.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> It sort of suggests that calmness and placidity is the normal state for human beings and extreme acts of aggression can only come from some form of anomaly. But that rather of ignores the thousands of years of human violence before us which persists to this day for various reasons.



Yes, good point. How we construct what is normal behaviour and what isn't is a product of social and historical circumstance.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> As I understand it, the current thinking on psychopathy (which in itself is a controversial term, not existing in either the DSMV or ICD10), is that there is a genetic component, but this is not in itself sufficient to lead to classic psychopathic presentation - also needed is environment such as a neglectful or abusive childhood, or even just growing up in an emotionally invalidating family (in itself a form of emotional abuse).



One of the many interesting things in that article I mentioned was that about half the kids who got picked up as having the callous-unemotional traits didn't show up in the radar as adults, e.g. didn't get on trouble with the law. I'm sure there are a number of different reasons for that, but I would like to go beyond the idea that environmental and emotional factors during childhood should get the lions share of the attention. I think there is a lot of luck and chance involved, for example in terms of who we meet as young adults. And coping mechanisms we may stumble upon.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> I'm glad you've accepted that blanket referral to people who commit horrific murders as mentally ill is incorrect and stigmatising.
> 
> I'm not sure though why you think we need new words. We already have the words murder and murderer, and the judge's report in this case contains summarys of the finding of various psychatric and psychological professionals, using words which have specific meanings when used in the context of mental illness.
> 
> The problem, as I see it, is the tendency of some people to use words which have specific meanings in ways which suggest they don't really appreciate what those meanings are.



Cornick was found to have personality disorder and psychopathic traits.  Does this make him mentally ill?  or not?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2014)

elbows said:


> One of the many interesting things in that article I mentioned was that about half the kids who got picked up as having the callous-unemotional traits didn't show up in the radar as adults, e.g. didn't get on trouble with the law. I'm sure there are a number of different reasons for that, but I would like to go beyond the idea that environmental and emotional factors during childhood should get the lions share of the attention. I think there is a lot of luck and chance involved, for example in terms of who we meet as young adults. And coping mechanisms we may stumble upon.



Oh yes, I think relationships and our experience of them are incredibly important.  Feeling loved and worthwhile and internalising that can make all the difference.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 4, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, good point. How we construct what is normal behaviour and what isn't is a product of social and historical circumstance.



Yep. What is the definition of sanity?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Yep. What is the definition of sanity?



Its interesting (to me at least) that the psychiatric definition of delusional beliefs specifically takes into account the social nature of what is considered normal - a fixed false belief, out of character with the person's cultural background.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, good point. How we construct what is normal behaviour and what isn't is a product of social and historical circumstance.



Easy to get stuck in a loop on that one because the diagnostics manuals etc do not try to hide the fact that what is 'normal behaviour' is defined along several crucial fronts by the accepted social & cultural norms of the day. One of the reasons they use that language is so that irrational beliefs that may be widely held in a mainstream, accepted way by a particular society don't get picked up as a delusional belief that can be used to meet one of the diagnostics criteria. But there are probably other reasons of interest, that I may yet waffle more about shortly.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 4, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Its interesting (to me at least) that the psychiatric definition of delusional beliefs specifically takes into account the social nature of what is considered normal - a fixed false belief, out of character with the person's cultural background.



What would be an example of that? The fixed false belief out of character with the person's cultural background? I suppose it might be considered less delusional if somebody raised in Africa considered somebody had put a curse on them. Is that what you mean?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> What would be an example of that?



A couple of my Nigerian colleagues on my nurse training swore blind that magic and witchcraft etc was true, they had seen it etc.  Normal for their culture apparently (I'm not an expert on Nigerian culture btw!).  Delusional in our culture.  Although of course merely believing that is not enough to get anyone diagnosed with anything - beliefs would also have to accompany mental/emotional distress and behaviour that gets you noticed, e.g. believing your neighbours are hexing you and confronting them about it.


----------



## 8115 (Nov 4, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> A couple of my Nigerian colleagues on my nurse training swore blind that magic and witchcraft etc was true, they had seen it etc.  Normal for their culture apparently (I'm not an expert on Nigerian culture btw!).  Delusional in our culture.  Although of course merely believing that is not enough to get anyone diagnosed with anything - beliefs would also have to accompany mental/emotional distress and behaviour that gets you noticed, e.g. believing your neighbours are hexing you and confronting them about it.


By the thing you quoted, believing that definitely isn't enough if it's appropriate for that person. Ditto any other religion.

Not sure I can think of anything that's not a religious belief.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 4, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> A couple of my Nigerian colleagues on my nurse training swore blind that magic and witchcraft etc was true, they had seen it etc.  Normal for their culture apparently (I'm not an expert on Nigerian culture btw!).  Delusional in our culture.  Although of course merely believing that is not enough to get anyone diagnosed with anything - beliefs would also have to accompany mental/emotional distress and behaviour that gets you noticed, e.g. believing your neighbours are hexing you and confronting them about it.



So to work in mental health in the UK that's quite a lot of cultures worldwide you've got to be familiar with. Although the NHS probably has such a diverse workforce as to be pretty good at this I'd imagine.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2014)

8115 said:


> By the thing you quoted, believing that definitely isn't enough if it's appropriate for that person. Ditto any other religion.
> 
> Not sure I can think of anything that's not a religious belief.



No, of course.  Hearing voices by itself isn't enough to require mental health treatment either, its the effect it has on your life.  Romme and Escher did some pioneering work about 20 years ago now that showed its the person's beliefs, explanations and relationship with their voices that was the predictor of entering the mental health system.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> What would be an example of that? The fixed false belief out of character with the person's cultural background? I suppose it might be considered less delusional if somebody raised in Africa considered somebody had put a curse on them. Is that what you mean?



Yep, that would be an example. Lots of other religious ones too. But can really start to pick apart the accepted norms of societies and cultures along these lines if we want to, not that such diagnostics are supposed to be pointed at larger groups of people.

And the relatively rapid unshackling of belief constraints in many cultures, e.g. the emergence of counter-cultures etc, further complicates things. But I'm sure that most of the time they have no trouble using those clauses in the criteria to serve their intended purpose.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> So to work in mental health in the UK that's quite a lot of cultures worldwide you've got to be familiar with. Although the NHS probably has such a diverse workforce as to be pretty good at this I'd imagine.



Although the main thing really is - is this person distressed?  Does their behaviour cause distress to anyone else?  if not, then why intervene?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

8115 said:


> By the thing you quoted, believing that definitely isn't enough if it's appropriate for that person. Ditto any other religion.
> 
> Not sure I can think of anything that's not a religious belief.


People who believe we didn't land on the moon or that the Twin Towers' destruction was a holographic projection or that MMR causes autism aren't necessarily mentally ill.


----------



## 8115 (Nov 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> People who believe we didn't land on the moon or that the Twin Towers' destruction was a holographic projection or that MMR causes autism aren't necessarily mentally ill.


Aha! Thanks.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2014)

Just to grab a couple of sentences out of the ICD reference, in order to demonstrate how they word that stuff and what examples they give:



> Persistent delusions of other kinds that are culturally inappropriate and completely impossible (e.g. being able to control the weather, or being in communication with aliens from another world).





> In evaluating the presence of the these abnormal subjective experiences and behaviour, special care should be taken to avoid false-positive assessments, especially where culturally or sub-culturally influenced modes of expression and behaviour, or a subnormal level of intelligence, are involved.



edited to add another one...



> Persistent delusions of other kinds that are culturally inappropriate and completely impossible, but not merely grandiose or persecutory (F20 G1.1d), e.g. has visited other worlds; can control the clouds by breathing in and out; can communicate with plants or animals without speaking, etc.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2014)

Induced delusional disorder also interests me. Note that its scope is narrowed down, well away from the sorts of beliefs that more 'normally' spread between many people, by virtue of only including certain forms of delusion, and only between two people with an 'unusually close' relationship.



> F24 INDUCED DELUSIONAL DISORDER
> 
> 
> The subject must develop a delusion or delusional system originally held by someone else with a disorder classified in F20-F23.
> ...


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2014)

One more set of culture-related diagnostics thingies for now....



> F44.3 Trance and possession disorders
> A. The general criteria for dissociative disorder (F44) must be met.
> B. Either (1) or (2):
> (1) Trance: Temporary alteration of the state of consciousness, shown by any two of:
> ...


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2014)

Oh I cannot resist one more.



> F48.8 Other specified neurotic disorders
> 
> This category includes mixed disorders of behaviour, beliefs, and emotions which are of uncertain etiology and nosological status and which occur with particular frequency in certain cultures; examples include Dhat syndrome (undue concern about the debilitating effects of the passage of semen), koro (anxiety and fear that the penis will retract into the abdomen and cause death), and latah (imitative and automatic response behaviour). The strong association of these syndromes with locally accepted cultural beliefs and patterns of behaviour indicates that they are probably best regarded as not delusional.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 4, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Cornick was found to have personality disorder and psychopathic traits.  Does this make him mentally ill?  or not?



Illness is treatable. Personality disorders along the lines of psychopathic personality disorders very  difficult to treat. Mainly because they are part and parcel of the person's personality. They can be managed to a degree and monitored..
Psychopathic criminals are another step up again and there are those who maintain that these individuals cannot ever be "cured"...

http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201408/psychopathic-criminals-cannot-be-cured

"Key traits of the psychopath include:


A disregard for laws and social mores 
A disregard for the rights of others
A failure to feel remorse or guilt 
A tendency to display violent behavior "
And...

*"Can psychopathy be cured?* According to mental health experts, the short answer to this question is no. Dr. Nigel Blackwood, a leading Forensic Psychiatrist at King’s College London, has stated that adult psychopaths can be treated or managed but not cured (4). Blackwood explains that psychopaths do not fear the pain of punishment and they are not bothered by social stigmatization. Psychopaths are indifferent to the expectations of society and reject its condemnation of their criminal behavior. According to Blackwood and others, callous and unemotional psychopaths simply do not respond to punishment the way that normal people do. Consequently, adult psychopaths in prison are much harder to reform or rehabilitate than other criminals with milder or no antisocial personality disorders (5). "


----------



## 8115 (Nov 4, 2014)

Something I have always wondered. Why don't so-called psychopaths avoid committing crime out of self interest? To avoid punishment?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2014)

8115 said:


> Something I have always wondered. Why don't so-called psychopaths avoid committing crime out of self interest? To avoid punishment?


Surely many don't?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 4, 2014)

8115 said:


> Something I have always wondered. Why don't so-called psychopaths avoid committing crime out of self interest? To avoid punishment?



Punishment means nothing to them. 
One of the only things they respond to is reward. See the link in my previous post.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2014)

8115 said:


> Something I have always wondered. Why don't so-called psychopaths avoid committing crime out of self interest? To avoid punishment?



That may be one of the reasons many who display childhood lack of empathy etc don't show up in the system as psychopaths later. By its very nature the term is far more likely to end up being applied to someone who doesn't learn anything from punishment, and its not like we are really talking about a specific disease. Granted these days things appear to have become sophisticated enough to consider this stuff to be a spectrum, but most of the attention is directed very much at the severe end of the spectrum in adulthood.


----------



## albionism (Nov 5, 2014)

8115 said:


> Something I have always wondered. Why don't so-called psychopaths avoid committing crime out of self interest? To avoid punishment?


They become bankers and commit their crimes in that environment and get away with them.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Illness is treatable. Personality disorders along the lines of psychopathic personality disorders very  difficult to treat. Mainly because they are part and parcel of the person's personality. They can be managed to a degree and monitored..
> Psychopathic criminals are another step up again and there are those who maintain that these individuals cannot ever be "cured"...
> 
> http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201408/psychopathic-criminals-cannot-be-cured
> ...



Psychopathic personality disorder is not a diagnosis.

Personality disorders are mental illnesses and some are treatable. Not all other types of mental illness are treatable, many people don't respond to anti psychotic medication for example.

If it's part and parcel of someone's personality then how much choice did Cornick have in how he behaved? Did he make a choice to have limited or no empathy and remorse? Can we make fully rational choices as human beings without empathy?


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Illness is treatable. Personality disorders along the lines of psychopathic personality disorders very  difficult to treat. Mainly because they are part and parcel of the person's personality. They can be managed to a degree and monitored..
> Psychopathic criminals are another step up again and there are those who maintain that these individuals cannot ever be "cured"...
> 
> http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201408/psychopathic-criminals-cannot-be-cured
> ...



Blagsta was responding to the idea that so called personality disorders aren't treatable, as did I previously. I also responded to the idea that what defines 'mental illness' as opposed to personality disorder is that its treatable. 

These definitions being thrown about...you do know that adults get all sorts of diagnoses, that their diagnoses change, that they frequently have more than one diagnosis? That even within the world of psychiatric classification of symptoms that it's all quite messy, multiple diagnoses, multiple medications....?


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Cornick was found to have personality disorder and psychopathic traits.  Does this make him mentally ill?  or not?



It makes him someone who was found to have personality disorder and psychopathic traits.

Referring to him in this context simply as "mentally ill" is reductive and simplistic, does absolutely nothing to aid anyone's understanding of why he might have done what he did. It is also, in my opinion, contributing to the general stigmatising of those with a broad range of mental illness who have absolutely no inclination to violence, ie the vast majority, as potentially violent nutters.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> It makes him someone who was found to have personality disorder and psychopathic traits.
> 
> Referring to him in this context simply as "mentally ill" is reductive and simplistic, does absolutely nothing to aid anyone's understanding of why he might have done what he did. It is also, in my opinion, contributing to the general stigmatising of those with a broad range of mental illness who have absolutely no inclination to violence, ie the vast majority, as potentially violent nutters.



So the fact he was found to fit diagnostic categories of mental and behavioural disorders from the DSM V and the ICD 10 does not mean he was found to be mentally ill? So how do we define "mentally ill"?


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays but what we're questioning is the concept of mental illness! A concept itself that contributes to stigma IMO.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

Iirc, it was John Read who did some research that suggested that biological models of mental illness actually increased stigma as opposed to a more social understanding.


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> So the fact he was found to fit diagnostic categories of mental and behavioural disorders from the DSM V and the ICD 10 does not mean he was found to be mentally ill? So how do we define "mentally ill"?



I didn't say he was or wasn't found to be mentally ill. 

To the extent that having personality disorder and psychopathic traits counts as being mentally ill, then you could say that he was found to be mentally ill, but that really tells us very little. It's like lumping together people with a broken leg, lung cancer and measles together in the catagory of "physically ill" - it tells us nothing about those particular individuals, how they might be helped etc. And in addition it contributes to stigmatising people with a broad range of other conditions/diagnoses, who are generally referred to under the catch-all mentally ill.

Now, unless you acknowledge that you have misrepresented me by suggesting I said he wasn't mentally ill, I think our discussion is at an end.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Blagsta was responding to the idea that so called personality disorders aren't treatable, as did I previously. I also responded to the idea that what defines 'mental illness' as opposed to personality disorder is that its treatable.
> 
> These definitions being thrown about...you do know that adults get all sorts of diagnoses, that their diagnoses change, that they frequently have more than one diagnosis? That even within the world of psychiatric classification of symptoms that it's all quite messy, multiple diagnoses, multiple medications....?



You misread my post....or misinterpreted it. An adult person assessed as being psychotic can receive treatment. .but it is not something that's curable.  However there are many problems which are described as mental illnesses wich are curable.


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> andysays but what we're questioning is the concept of mental illness! A concept itself that contributes to stigma IMO.



Is that what you think you're doing - you don't seem to be doing that very coherently. Are the two of you a double act now, or are you simply using the royal we?

And you're the one who misrepresented me as saying that psychologists were experts who could never be wrong, aren't you? Why should I continue to engage with someone who distorts what I'm saying and does bother to respond when I point this out to them?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Psychopathic personality disorder is not a diagnosis.
> 
> Personality disorders are mental illnesses and some are treatable. Not all other types of mental illness are treatable, many people don't respond to anti psychotic medication for example.
> 
> If it's part and parcel of someone's personality then how much choice did Cornick have in how he behaved? Did he make a choice to have limited or no empathy and remorse? Can we make fully rational choices as human beings without empathy?




Exactly my fucking point!!
This is why psychopathy and sociopathy are not described as mental illness....because of the fact that it is widely recognised that they are not curable. As already posted a few times they may be monitored but there is no cure.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> I didn't say he was or wasn't found to be mentally ill.
> 
> To the extent that having personality disorder and psychopathic traits counts as being mentally ill, then you could say that he was found to be mentally ill, but that really tells us very little. It's like lumping together people with a broken leg, lung cancer and measles together in the catagory of "physically ill" - it tells us nothing about those particular individuals, how they might be helped etc. And in addition it contributes to stigmatising people with a broad range of other conditions/diagnoses, who are generally referred to under the catch-all mentally ill.
> 
> Now, unless you acknowledge that you have misrepresented me by suggesting I said he wasn't mentally ill, I think our discussion is at an end.



So it's the concept of mental illness you object to?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> Is that what you think you're doing - you don't seem to be doing that very coherently. Are the two of you a double act now, or are you simply using the royal we?
> 
> And you're the one who misrepresented me as saying that psychologists were experts who could never be wrong, aren't you? Why should I continue to engage with someone who distorts what I'm saying and does bother to respond when I point this out to them?




You're very defensive.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> andysays but what we're questioning is the concept of mental illness! A concept itself that contributes to stigma IMO.



No..We are not.  But you seem to be.
It's pretty clear what psychopathy and sociopathy are. They are not and never have been aligned with or described as or assessed as mental illness...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> You're very defensive.





Blagsta said:


> So it's the concept of mental illness you object to?



No...I'd imagine he's as frustrated as I am that sociopathy and psychopathy are being labelled by some as mental illness


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> So it's the concept of mental illness you object to?



Again, you're seeking to put words into my mouth, apparently to further your particular campaign to overcome the concept of mental illness. I'm not really interested in playing your game.

If you have a point to make, I think you'd be better to make it clearly and simply, without attempting to twist what other people are saying to make your point for you.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Exactly my fucking point!!
> This is why psychopathy and sociopathy are not described as mental illness....because of the fact that it is widely recognised that they are not curable. As already posted a few times they may be monitored but there is no cure.



Psychopathy and sociopathy are not actual diagnoses. 

Why was Cornick found legally culpable if he could not help being how he was?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> No...I'd imagine he's as frustrated as I am that sociopathy and psychopathy are being labelled by some as mental illness



So how do you define "mental illness"?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> Again, you're seeking to put words into my mouth, apparently to further your particular campaign to overcome the concept of mental illness. I'm not really interested in playing your game.
> 
> If you have a point to make, I think you'd be better to make it clearly and simply, without attempting to twist what other people are saying to make your point for you.



No, I'm asking you a question to attempt to gain an understanding of what you think.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> No..We are not.  But you seem to be.
> It's pretty clear what psychopathy and sociopathy are. They are not and never have been aligned with or described as or assessed as mental illness...



Neither of those labels exists in any diagnostic schema. They are not actual diagnoses. Of anything. The Hare psychopathy checklist exists outside of all diagnostic schemas and is quite controversial.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Psychopathy and sociopathy are not actual diagnoses.
> 
> Why was Cornick found legally culpable if he could not help being how he was?



Because he planned and carrier out the murder of a woman and had the intention of murdering another two persons. Because he was perfectly in control of his actions. Because he showed no remorse. Because he's a dangerous criminal.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Neither of those labels exists in any diagnostic schema. They are not actual diagnoses. Of anything. The Hare psychopathy checklist exists outside of all diagnostic schemas and is quite controversial.



They are assessments ... and valid ones despite you not thinking they are.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> So how do you define "mental illness"?



Look it up yourself. It's not a willy nilly definition.


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> You're very defensive.



Is that your diagnosis, doctor?

So someone with mental health issues thinks that the way this thread was progressing is becoming stigmatising to those with a wide range of mental illnesses (or whatever term you'd like me to use - mental illness/mentally ill was the term used, so that's what I'm responding to and re-using).

When he attempts to counter this, he has a whole load of dismissive insults thrown at him (patronising, sanctimonious, engaging in personal attacks, and whatever OU's apparently made up ones were - I can't be arsed to go back and check). And just when I think that's over and my point has been made and accepted at least by some, a couple of campaigners to abolish the category of mental illness pop up and distort what I'm saying to try to co-opt me into their campaign.

And when I react by saying I'm not interested in participating on your dishonest terms, I'm accused/dismissed by you as being defensive? Seriously, think about how you're behaving. here.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Because he planned and carrier out the murder of a woman and had the intention of murdering another two persons. Because he was perfectly in control of his actions. Because he showed no remorse. Because he's a dangerous criminal.



You've just agreed with me that he had no choice in  how he was and that human beings can't make informed rational decisions without the faculties of empathy and remorse.

What's the point of diagnosing this young man in the first place?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> They are assessments ... and valid ones despite you not thinking they are.



The validity is questioned. They do not exist in either the DSM V or the ICD10.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> Is that your diagnosis, doctor?
> 
> So someone with mental health issues thinks that the way this thread was progressing is becoming stigmatising to those with a wide range of mental illnesses (or whatever term you'd like me to use - mental illness/mentally ill was the term used, so that's what I'm responding to and re-using).
> 
> ...



Maybe the people you disagree with also have mental health issues? You're basically claiming that no one can disagree with you because you identify as someone with mental health issues. Think about that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> No..We are not.



Are you two now a double act or is this the royal 'we'?


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> Is that what you think you're doing - you don't seem to be doing that very coherently. Are the two of you a double act now, or are you simply using the royal we?
> 
> And you're the one who misrepresented me as saying that psychologists were experts who could never be wrong, aren't you? Why should I continue to engage with someone who distorts what I'm saying and does bother to respond when I point this out to them?



Don't bother then.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> Is that your diagnosis, doctor?
> 
> So someone with mental health issues thinks that the way this thread was progressing is becoming stigmatising to those with a wide range of mental illnesses (or whatever term you'd like me to use - mental illness/mentally ill was the term used, so that's what I'm responding to and re-using).
> 
> ...



Wow. Seriously. Fucking hell.


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Maybe the people you disagree with also have mental health issues? You're basically claiming that no one can disagree with you because you identify as someone with mental health issues. Think about that.



Again, you're distorting what I'm saying.

Anyone is welcome to disagree with me, assuming they can respond to the points I'm making with counter-points of their own.

But simply dismissing me with insults, distorting what I'm saying or coming out with your faux diagnosis of how you think I'm behaving is not, in my opinion, legitimate diagreement.

You have now demonstrated conclusively that you are not someone I wish to engage with on this subject, so please fuck right off.


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Wow. Seriously. Fucking hell.



Yes, seriously, fucking hell.

I'm not normally happy with suggestions of bullying being thrown around but that is how it's starting to feel to me now from the two of you.

Congratulations - you've "won"


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 5, 2014)

Excellent. Next patient please.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)




----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Excellent. Next patient please.





Citizen66 said:


>



Yeah, because mental illness and the distress it and people's reactions to it causes is really such a laugh, isn't it...


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

Well given I've had bouts of it myself surely I'm allowed a bit of gallows humour?


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Well given I've had bouts of it myself surely I'm allowed a bit of gallows humour?



Clearly your freedom to endulge in gallows humour wherever and whenever you like overrides my or anyone else's right not to be offended or caused distress.

It was you who was banging on about this from the other side of the argument on the Naked Rambler thread recently, wasn't it, and calling those who disagreed with you all sorts of Thatcherite cunts...


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> Clearly your freedom to endulge in gallows humour wherever and whenever you like overrides my or anyone else's right not to be offended or caused distress.
> 
> It was you who was banging on about this from the other side of the argument on the Naked Rambler thread recently, wasn't it, and calling those who disagreed with you all sorts of Thatcherite cunts...


I was laughing at the witty interjection. Saying that I'm laughing at the mentally ill is a fabrication designed specifically so you can be all outraged about it so I'm pointing out that you're not the only person on the thread to have had MH issues. Bringing the rambler thread into it is a bit wtf also. If you want to discuss that then do so on that thread.


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 5, 2014)

tbf it would be harder for the nakid rambler to creep up and stab someone to death...

he does not have anywhere comfortable to conceal  the weapon


----------



## chandlerp (Nov 5, 2014)

If he concealed his weapon he wouldn't be the naked rambler anymore


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2014)

He'd be the semi-dressed strangler.


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 5, 2014)

not going to be able to do much damage with a semi


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> It sort of suggests that calmness and placidity is the normal state for human beings and extreme acts of aggression can only come from some form of anomaly. But that rather of ignores the thousands of years of human violence before us which persists to this day for various reasons.



You'd also have to ignore the fact that the capacity for aggression and violence is still a necessary part of human functioning, even when the aggression and violence is sublimated through social structures such as "manners".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2014)

elbows said:


> I think there is also a fair chance that people will get away with using the term psychopath in as negative a manner as they like, without causing much in the way of offence.



Of course.
Then again, people who do so probably don't realise that the term alone, shorn of any supporting data, is a fairly useless label for a person. It doesn't mean "spree killer" or "serial killer" or "dangerous livestock-stabbing muthafucka", it just means "individual with a degree of psychopathology", with no indication as to the *extent* of the psychopathology.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Look it up yourself. It's not a willy nilly definition.



The concept of mental distress being an illness or not is entirely contested.  Has been for years and still is. Only last year, the British Psychological Association released a statement questioning the validity of medical models of mental distress and whether schizophrenia exists as a disease.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Yes, there's varying degrees of psychopathy therefore we should refrain from labelling the murderous ones as such in case we offend the ones that fuck people in other less fatal ways. : facepalm:



Not all psychopaths are dangerous, so "fuck people in less than fatal ways" is a bit of a moveable feast.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> Again, you're distorting what I'm saying.
> 
> Anyone is welcome to disagree with me, assuming they can respond to the points I'm making with counter-points of their own.
> 
> ...



Where did I dismiss you with insults?

It appears to me that you're trying to close down debate by stating that certain discussions are out of bounds because you say so.

Sorry, that's a cop out.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> Yes, seriously, fucking hell.
> 
> I'm not normally happy with suggestions of bullying being thrown around but that is how it's starting to feel to me now from the two of you.
> 
> Congratulations - you've "won"




So asking you to clarify what you think is "bullying"? Remarking on your defensive posting style is "bullying"? I'm sorry you feel that way, its certainly no one's intention.

From my pov, its you who is attempting to shut down debate by making false allegations about personal insults.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> No, most personality disorders are considered treatable these days.



As you say, "most".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Any ideas what will happen to this kid inside? I guess a lot of talking will be involved to get him to realise the enormity of what he has done. No drugs though, I wouldn't imagine.



He's probably already on some form of anti-depressant therapy. It's common among "new fish".
Because of his age he'll probably be sent to a secure unit _a la_ Thompson and Venables, rather than directly to a YOI, and then on to a standard Cat A or B prison once he turns 18. That will be when reality *really* kicks in, though, because therapy etc is in the gift of the Prison Service and, more crucially, of the POA members who take you to and from your therapy sessions. Basically, once he reaches his majority, his chances of consistent therapy shrink.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2014)

8115 said:


> Something I have always wondered. Why don't so-called psychopaths avoid committing crime out of self interest? To avoid punishment?



Many people diagnosed with psychopathic traits do.
People assume that a "psychopath" will display the entire range of psychopathic behaviours, and that each of those behaviours will be "full on". The reality is that most "psychopaths" exhibit a subset of behaviours, and the degree to which they manifest each behaviour will vary. Some psychopaths are aware enough of their issues that they can stay on top of them and fit in with the rest of society. If that weren't the case, we'd have a lot more Special Hospitals than we do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Punishment means nothing to them.
> One of the only things they respond to is reward. See the link in my previous post.



"Them"? "They"?
You're talking about people with psychopathic traits as if they're some kind of homogeneous block of humanity who are all amenable to the same things. They're not. Making a statement like "one of the only things they respond to is reward" as if it applies to most or all people with psychopathic tendencies, when it applies at best to a *section* of such people, is at best naive.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Blagsta was responding to the idea that so called personality disorders aren't treatable, as did I previously. I also responded to the idea that what defines 'mental illness' as opposed to personality disorder is that its treatable.
> 
> These definitions being thrown about...you do know that adults get all sorts of diagnoses, that their diagnoses change, that they frequently have more than one diagnosis? That even within the world of psychiatric classification of symptoms that it's all quite messy, multiple diagnoses, multiple medications....?



...multiple psychiatrists all fervently convinced that *their* diagnosis is the correct one...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Because he planned and carrier out the murder of a woman and had the intention of murdering another two persons. Because he was perfectly in control of his actions. Because he showed no remorse. Because he's a dangerous criminal.



Your last three sentences are all assumptions made on the basis of what has been reported. They're not facts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> Is that your diagnosis, doctor?



Nurse.


----------



## agricola (Nov 5, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Your last three sentences are all assumptions made on the basis of what has been reported. They're not facts.



True, but him pleading guilty did remove from the public eye the evidence that would have supported those statements.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

Personality disorders have been stigmatised for years and still are. They have for years been considered not mental illness and not treatable. This has led to many people who have a personality disorder diagnosis getting a raw deal from mental health services. They have traditionally been seen as manipulative, in full control of their behaviour, not really in serious distress etc. This view is starting to change, thankfully but there are still some people within mental health services who are prejudiced against people with these diagnoses. So the rhetoric from some people on this thread coming out with stuff like personality disorder is not treatable and should not be considered as "mental illness" (leaving aside debates about mental distress being an illness or not for the moment) serves to further that stigma imo. I do have a personal interest in this as a family member has a personality disorder diagnosis.

In terms of stigmatising mental ill people as violent - of course this is an issue and the vast majority of people with mental illness aren't likely to be any more violent than anyone else. The vast majority of violence is not committed by people who are mentally ill. However, for some diagnoses, the risk of violence is increased. Discussing this should not be out of bounds. It should be possible to discuss these issues whilst also being aware of potential stigma. Trying to shut down debate on this by attacking people who want to discuss it is not on.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> Yes, seriously, fucking hell.
> 
> I'm not normally happy with suggestions of bullying being thrown around but that is how it's starting to feel to me now from the two of you.
> 
> Congratulations - you've "won"


 You came in on this thread implying people who didn't apply theterm 'mental health' in the way you wanted were idiots, telling people how it had to be.  You've had nothing more than standard urban rebuttals, but straight away you retreat into suggesting these are mental health digs against you - _and now bullying_.  It's nothing of the sort, it's just that not everyone agrees with you telling us how the discsussion has to run.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> Yes, seriously, fucking hell.
> 
> I'm not normally happy with suggestions of bullying being thrown around but that is how it's starting to feel to me now from the two of you.
> 
> Congratulations - you've "won"



I'm not interested in winning, in fact the whole notion of winning an argument on here pisses me off, I don't care about that, which you'd see if you looked at my posting history. I was trying to open the discussion up not score points.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You misread my post....or misinterpreted it. An adult person assessed as being psychotic can receive treatment. .but it is not something that's curable.  However there are many problems which are described as mental illnesses wich are curable.



Are saying people who have suffered psychosis never recover? Because that's not true.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Exactly my fucking point!!
> This is why psychopathy and sociopathy are not described as mental illness....because of the fact that it is widely recognised that they are not curable. As already posted a few times they may be monitored but there is no cure.



If something is not curable then it can't be described as an illness? That makes no sense to me.

Anyway I suggest that the problem with terms like psychopathy has nothing to do with how curable they are, its because many of these concepts come to us by way of criminology. Some of which is very old, or comes with vast amount of value/moral related baggage and the language of punishment, dehumanisation etc.


----------



## 8115 (Nov 5, 2014)

elbows said:


> If something is not curable then it can't be described as an illness? That makes no sense to me.
> 
> Anyway I suggest that the problem with terms like psychopathy has nothing to do with how curable they are, its because many of these concepts come to us by way of criminology. Some of which is very old, or comes with vast amount of value/moral related baggage and the language of punishment, dehumanisation etc.


Terminal cancer isn't curable. Cerebral palsy isn't curable. Etc.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 5, 2014)

hmm.

if this boys personality disorder makes him realise right from wrong, that the murders would cause massive distress, and just not care because his anger and his prioritising of his own needs were more important to him...  is that the same as saying he was *unable* to resist the urge to act on them?

i may be making an unhelpful analogy (sorry) but it reminds me of the questions around paedophiles whose sexuality is/has become set to not only find children attractive, but in many cases be driven by the need to abuse, damage and hurt.  But they still have a choice.  We don't - judicially - say that they can't help these sexual urges and should therefore not be culpable.  We expect paedophiles to suppress those urges because of their intellectual understanding that it is wrong.


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Where did I dismiss you with insults?
> 
> It appears to me that you're trying to close down debate by stating that certain discussions are out of bounds because you say so.
> 
> Sorry, that's a cop out.



This is all getting rather pointless by now, but here goes nothing.

I haven't said that you, personally, have dismissed me with insults, I have said that has been part of what has happened to me when I attempted to bring this issue up, as part of the background to what you have taken on yourself to characterise as me being defensive.

And you certainly have distorted what I've been saying (you seem to be doing it again here) and made an apparant diagnosis of how you think I'm behaving. None of that is what I consider legitimate way of debating, although it's regretably common here at times. I don't know if you're doing the distoring deliberately, or if you simply can't be bothered to read my posts carefully enough to be clear what I'm saying. After a while, the difference becomes less important than the fact that you're repeatedly doing it.

Do you have anything to say about the examples I've pointed out where you have distorted what I've said, or would you rather just ignore that?



Blagsta said:


> So asking you to clarify what you think is "bullying"? Remarking on your defensive posting style is "bullying"? I'm sorry you feel that way, its certainly no one's intention.
> 
> From my pov, its you who is attempting to shut down debate by making false allegations about personal insults.



I have already answered your questions about use of the term mental illness to the extent I'm interested in doing. I'm sorry if I haven't given you the answer you want, or answered in the way you wanted. If you wish to pursue your examination of whether mental illness, mental ill health or mental distress is the most appropriate term, you're welcome to do so, but you can do it without my input. Similarly, I'm not interested in giving you my definition of mental illness just to make you happy. I'm not trying to shut debate down, it'ds just there are some areas I'm not interested in pursuing. 

You are not trying to shut debate down by repeatedly asking this question when it should be obvious I'm not interested in answering it, but you are attempting to shift it on to your apparent hobby-horse with little regard for if anyone else actually wants to ride it along with you.

And I haven't claimed that you or anyone else is bullying or that it's anyone's intention, I've said that's how it has started to make me feel. You do understand the difference, I hope?

Again, more about "false allegations" of personal insults. I've already given examples of these, and haven't suggested that you personally are responsible. Other people clearly have though, so I'm not sure how you think these are false allegations.



ViolentPanda said:


> Nurse.



Yeah, I had an idea Blagsta was a mental health nurse or something similar, thank you for jogging my memory. I hope he doesn't deal with people in his professional life in the distorting and dismissive way he's done here.


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I'm not interested in winning, in fact the whole notion of winning an argument on here pisses me off, I don't care about that, which you'd see if you looked at my posting history. I was trying to open the discussion up not score points.



TBH, I can't see anything on this thread which suggests you are actually interested in opening up the discussion, more that you're trying to force other people down particular avenues which you want to go down.

I do note however that you said yesterday that you would return and deal with my suggestion that you had misrepresented me with regard to psychiatrists and that you have so far failed to do so.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2014)

This is not serving the cause of destigmatisation.

Let the perceived slights go, no good will come from poking them with a stick.

And if theres one thing I'm sure people who work in mental health services have dealt with plenty, its having peoples accusations pointed at them. But the nature of internet forums makes it extremely unlikely that the same sort of safe atmosphere that can be created within controlled environments, adhering to a range of professionals standards and best practices, is going to happen here.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Your last three sentences are all assumptions made on the basis of what has been reported. They're not facts.


Did you not read the judge's summation and the direct quotes from interviews with the boy/youth?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> hmm.
> 
> if this boys personality disorder makes him realise right from wrong, that the murders would cause massive distress, and just not care because his anger and his prioritising of his own needs were more important to him...  is that the same as saying he was *unable* to resist the urge to act on them?
> 
> i may be making an unhelpful analogy (sorry) but it reminds me of the questions around paedophiles whose sexuality is/has become set to not only find children attractive, but in many cases be driven by the need to abuse, damage and hurt.  But they still have a choice.  We don't - judicially - say that they can't help these sexual urges and should therefore not be culpable.  We expect paedophiles to suppress those urges because of their intellectual understanding that it is wrong.




However, if someone literally can't empathise, it's a meaningless concept to them, how can they know something is wrong? We require emotions to make fully rational decisions. See Damasio's book Descartes' Error and his telling of the story of Phineas Gage.


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2014)

elbows said:


> This is not serving the cause of destigmatisation.
> 
> Let the perceived slights go, no good will come from poking them with a stick.
> 
> And if theres one thing I'm sure people who work in mental health services have dealt with plenty, its having peoples accusations pointed at them. But the nature of internet forums makes it extremely unlikely that the same sort of safe atmosphere that can be created within controlled environments, adhering to a range of professionals standards and best practices, is going to happen here.



I'm going to assume that was a response to me, and I'm going to assume it was meant constructively. I don't know anymore if this is serving the cause of destigmatisation anymore or not, TBH. It appears that a number of people are still not interested in any suggestion that they might be contributing to stigmatisation, and that they're reacting with varying amounts of distortion, dismissal and derision.

I'm not expecting this to be a safe space, but I am disappointed that I can't bring this up without being treated this way.

And as far as your references to poking with sticks and having people's accusations pointed at them, well that's pretty much exactly how I feel about what's happened here.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Them"? "They"?
> You're talking about people with psychopathic traits as if they're some kind of homogeneous block of humanity who are all amenable to the same things. They're not. Making a statement like "one of the only things they respond to is reward" as if it applies to most or all people with psychopathic tendencies, when it applies at best to a *section* of such people, is at best naive.



I was actually referencing a quote already posted. ..and reitterating it.
It was a reference from a medical psychiatric journal study. ....
Back about three pages ....


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Them"? "They"?
> You're talking about people with psychopathic traits as if they're some kind of homogeneous block of humanity who are all amenable to the same things. They're not. Making a statement like "one of the only things they respond to is reward" as if it applies to most or all people with psychopathic tendencies, when it applies at best to a *section* of such people, is at best naive.




As for you criticising my use of "them" "they"....I'm hardly going to say "us" am I??
And I don't know every psychopath or sociopath by name do you?
So the use of "them" and "they" is perfectly acceptable despite your sense of affront.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> However, if someone literally can't empathise, it's a meaningless concept to them, how can they know something is wrong? We require emotions to make fully rational decisions. See Damasio's book Descartes' Error and his telling of the story of Phineas Gage.



Nobody said he could empathise. All documentation indicates that he had a hatred (expressed numerous times..verbally and in writing) of this teacher. The judge called it a "completely irrational hatred" of her. ..
The fact he wasn't sorry and doesn't care about the victim's family does not mean he can't empathise. What it means is that he does not care...and he has said this over and over.
People need to read the entire 17 page summation. It quotes what this youth said prior to murdering his teacher. .during the murder and afterwards.

Edited.....I'm on the phone and the predictive text ran amock.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> I'm going to assume that was a response to me, and I'm going to assume it was meant constructively. I don't know anymore if this is serving the cause of destigmatisation anymore or not, TBH. It appears that a number of people are still not interested in any suggestion that they might be contributing to stigmatisation, and that they're reacting with varying amounts of distortion, dismissal and derision.
> 
> I'm not expecting this to be a safe space, but I am disappointed that I can't bring this up without being treated this way.
> 
> And as far as your references to poking with sticks and having people's accusations pointed at them, well that's pretty much exactly how I feel about what's happened here.



Thank you for making those assumptions, I hope you can continue to make them even if some things I say run the risk of upset.

You came into this thread in an aggressive and demanding way.  And most of your subsequent arguments with people did not seem to actually match the original subject for which you were most enraged about when you first entered the thread. Or rather, you blended together the broad topic of mental health stigmatisation, with how various peoples words on this thread were making you feel personally. In reality of course there is a genuine connection between these things, but when trying to debate them it can be messy and ugly when the personal and the principal are so intimately linked in this way.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> However, if someone literally can't empathise, it's a meaningless concept to them, how can they know something is wrong? We require emotions to make fully rational decisions. See Damasio's book Descartes' Error and his telling of the story of Phineas Gage.



Also...this youth stated he knew what he had done was wrong. He also stated he knew he'd end up in prison.  He then stated that he didn't care


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> However, if someone literally can't empathise, it's a meaningless concept to them, how can they know something is wrong? We require emotions to make fully rational decisions. See Damasio's book Descartes' Error and his telling of the story of Phineas Gage.



Please read the 17 pages 



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Sentencing remarks
> 
> http://t.co/bzHef0hQ2H


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> Yeah, I had an idea Blagsta was a mental health nurse or something similar, thank you for jogging my memory. I hope he doesn't deal with people in his professional life in the distorting and dismissive way he's done here.



Why would he deal with people in his professional life the way he chats to people on the internet? I wouldn't get much teaching done if I just made daft jokes all the time. And how many books do you think BA would sell ranting and raving at all his customers all the time. Not fucking many, that's how many.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> TBH, I can't see anything on this thread which suggests you are actually interested in opening up the discussion, more that you're trying to force other people down particular avenues which you want to go down.
> 
> I do note however that you said yesterday that you would return and deal with my suggestion that you had misrepresented me with regard to psychiatrists and that you have so far failed to do so.



I work and have 2 children to care for and am doing a training for which I have to work in the evening. I'm not going to respond further because I don't feel that I have to defend or explain myself to you and I don't think it's a productive use of my time. The posters on these boards who know me and value my posts will continue to do so, those who don't, well, life's too short.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> hmm.
> 
> if this boys personality disorder makes him realise right from wrong, that the murders would cause massive distress, and just not care because his anger and his prioritising of his own needs were more important to him...  is that the same as saying he was *unable* to resist the urge to act on them?
> 
> i may be making an unhelpful analogy (sorry) but it reminds me of the questions around paedophiles whose sexuality is/has become set to not only find children attractive, but in many cases be driven by the need to abuse, damage and hurt.  But they still have a choice.  We don't - judicially - say that they can't help these sexual urges and should therefore not be culpable.  We expect paedophiles to suppress those urges because of their intellectual understanding that it is wrong.



Absolutely. 
I'd add that in the case of this boy he cannot be assessed or diagnosed as having certain "conditions" until he is 18. So the judge made a decision on this youth's sanity (legal sense) in consultation with and on the advice of two psychiatrists and one clinical psychologist ...their assessment was that this boy / youth was suffering from a personality disorder .....in a few years time when he is 18 he may well be reassessed and a more detailed conclusion may be arrived at regarding his personality disorder and how it may or may not relate to psychopathy or sociopathy.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> This is all getting rather pointless by now, but here goes nothing.



Yes, I agree.  We both appear to be reading different things.



andysays said:


> I haven't said that you, personally, have dismissed me with insults,



It looked like you were to me.  But I understand that things can be read in ways which they weren't intended.  I'm not sure then who has dismissed you with insults?



andysays said:


> I have said that has been part of what has happened to me when I attempted to bring this issue up, as part of the background to what you have taken on yourself to characterise as me being defensive.



Well, I haven't seen any evidence of that happening on this thread, but tbf, I didn't read the first few pages.



andysays said:


> And you certainly have distorted what I've been saying (you seem to be doing it again here)



Sorry, I'm not sure what I have been "distorting"?  I have certainly asked you questions in an attempt to gain clarity on what you think, which you have taken as putting words in your mouth - which was certainly not my intention and I'm unclear as to how asking a question does this.



andysays said:


> and made an apparant diagnosis of how you think I'm behaving.



I made an observation on how you appear to me to be responding.  Not sure how that then becomes a "diagnosis".



andysays said:


> None of that is what I consider legitimate way of debating,



Asking questions for clarity and commenting on how someone comes across is not legitimate debating?



andysays said:


> although it's regretably common here at times. I don't know if you're doing the distoring deliberately, or if you simply can't be bothered to read my posts carefully enough to be clear what I'm saying. After a while, the difference becomes less important than the fact that you're repeatedly doing it.



I'm still unclear as to what I have distorted - in fact from my pov, it is you distorting things, e.g. making out that questioning to clarify a position is putting words in your mouth.



andysays said:


> Do you have anything to say about the examples I've pointed out where you have distorted what I've said, or would you rather just ignore that?



I'm confused as to what I'm being accused of tbh.



andysays said:


> I have already answered your questions about use of the term mental illness to the extent I'm interested in doing. I'm sorry if I haven't given you the answer you want, or answered in the way you wanted. If you wish to pursue your examination of whether mental illness, mental ill health or mental distress is the most appropriate term, you're welcome to do so, but you can do it without my input. Similarly, I'm not interested in giving you my definition of mental illness just to make you happy. I'm not trying to shut debate down, it'ds just there are some areas I'm not interested in pursuing.



and that's fine, no one can force you to debate - although I'm not happy about being accused of putting words in your mouth when I ask you a question.  If you're not interested in pursuing a particular avenue of debate, then just don't respond.



andysays said:


> You are not trying to shut debate down by repeatedly asking this question when it should be obvious I'm not interested in answering it, but you are attempting to shift it on to your apparent hobby-horse with little regard for if anyone else actually wants to ride it along with you.



I'm interested in what you think.  Sorry for taking an interest in that.



andysays said:


> And I haven't claimed that you or anyone else is bullying or that it's anyone's intention, I've said that's how it has started to make me feel. You do understand the difference, I hope?



Again, I'm sorry if you feel that way.  That isn't however, my responsibility, given that you admit that no one is actually bullying you.



andysays said:


> Again, more about "false allegations" of personal insults. I've already given examples of these, and haven't suggested that you personally are responsible. Other people clearly have though, so I'm not sure how you think these are false allegations.



I'm still not clear who has insulted you and how.



andysays said:


> Yeah, I had an idea Blagsta was a mental health nurse or something similar, thank you for jogging my memory. I hope he doesn't deal with people in his professional life in the distorting and dismissive way he's done here.



Ahhhh, personal insults.  Thanks for that.  Especially when you have admitted that I have not insulted you.  Not sure what I've done for you to call my professional integrity into question.  Especially given the damage that could do to my career.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2014)

classic urban


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> I'm going to assume that was a response to me, and I'm going to assume it was meant constructively. I don't know anymore if this is serving the cause of destigmatisation anymore or not, TBH. It appears that a number of people are still not interested in any suggestion that they might be contributing to stigmatisation, and that they're reacting with varying amounts of distortion, dismissal and derision.
> 
> I'm not expecting this to be a safe space, but I am disappointed that I can't bring this up without being treated this way.
> 
> And as far as your references to poking with sticks and having people's accusations pointed at them, well that's pretty much exactly how I feel about what's happened here.




You think that the discussion here about violence and mental health is contributing to stigmatisation - other people don't.

I happen to think that some of the discussion about personality disorder here is a contributing (in a very tiny tiny way; its more of a consequence tbh) to stigmatisation.  Other people don't.

People in debate disagree shock.  Meh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> TBH, I can't see anything on this thread which suggests you are actually interested in opening up the discussion, more that you're trying to force other people down particular avenues which you want to go down.
> 
> I do note however that you said yesterday that you would return and deal with my suggestion that you had misrepresented me with regard to psychiatrists and that you have so far failed to do so.


you seem to have gone down a cul-de-sac rather than an avenue


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> However, if someone literally can't empathise, it's a meaningless concept to them, how can they know something is wrong? We require emotions to make fully rational decisions. See Damasio's book Descartes' Error and his telling of the story of Phineas Gage.



Yes - i suppose it would be more accurate to say that he understands what society considers to be right and wrong - which iirc was closer to how it was phrased in the sentencing report.  But I would say that he still then has a choice.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Nobody said he could not empathise. All documentation indicates that he had a hatred (expressed numerous times..verbally and in writing) of this teacher. The judge called it a "completely irrational hatred" of her. ..
> The fact he wasn't sorry and doesn't care about the victim's family does not mean he can't empathise. What it means is that he does not care...and he has said this over and over.
> People need to read the entire 17 page summation. It quotes what this youth said prior to murdering his teacher. .during the murder and afterwards.



Isn't one of the criteria for psychopathy a lack of empathy?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Yes - i suppose it would be more accurate to say that he understands what society considers to be right and wrong - which iirc was closer to how it was phrased in the sentencing report.  But I would say that he still then has a choice.



Yes, he may have had a choice - but choices are contingent aren't they?  Not everyone has the same capacity to make choices.  I would argue that someone diagnosed with "personality disorder with some marked psychopathic traits" has a limited capacity for choice and decision making.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Please read the 17 pages



Yes, I've read them.  Not sure what point you're making tbh.


----------



## 8115 (Nov 5, 2014)

I wish we could have more mental health threads on here that were a bit more mundane, or informative or interesting.

We do seem to cover a lot of the same ground and I'm not sure it's always that helpful for people personally (it quite often isn't helpful for me or can even be upsetting).

I'm going to resolve to start more positive/ assertive mental health threads.  I don't mean, lets hide the truth but even reflective of reality, the good and bad bits would be nice.  It's a fascinating topic.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Absolutely.
> I'd add that in the case of this boy he cannot be assessed or diagnosed as having certain "conditions" until he is 18. So the judge made a decision on this youth's sanity (legal sense) in consultation with and on the advice of two psychiatrists and one clinical psychologist ...their assessment was that this boy / youth was suffering from a personality disorder .....in a few years time when he is 18 he may well be reassessed and a more detailed conclusion may be arrived at regarding his personality disorder and how it may or may not relate to psychopathy or sociopathy.



What conditions can he be assessed as having when he is 18 that are precluded now?


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 5, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Yes - i suppose it would be more accurate to say that he understands what society considers to be right and wrong - which iirc was closer to how it was phrased in the sentencing report.  But I would say that he still then has a choice.



And given that he understood the likely consequence for him, whether or not he could envisage the pain he would inflict on others, it's still an utter puzzle to me why he _needed _to do it, as he clearly did. 

If we go along the lines that recurrent fantasy led to an idee fixe at some point this will diminish he may have an  awakening to come.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 5, 2014)

Thing is, we don't know what happened to this boy, how or why he is how he is, or why he did what he did. We don't know.


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2014)

elbows said:


> Thank you for making those assumptions, I hope you can continue to make them even if some things I say run the risk of upset.
> 
> You came into this thread in an aggressive and demanding way.  And most of your subsequent arguments with people did not seem to actually match the original subject for which you were most enraged about when you first entered the thread. Or rather, you blended together the broad topic of mental health stigmatisation, with how various peoples words on this thread were making you feel personally. In reality of course there is a genuine connection between these things, but when trying to debate them it can be messy and ugly when the personal and the principal are so intimately linked in this way.



I agree that I came into this thread in an aggressive and demanding way. The reasons for that (which you have probably guessed, but I'll spell them out anyway) are that the issue of stigmatising of people with mental health issues is a personal one for me, one which I find upsetting and angering at times. The way I began my argument was a result of how I felt about things people were saying, but I accept that I am responsible for how I've conducted myself - I'm certainly not trying to suggest anyone else is responsible (I'm just making that clear, I'm not suggesting you or anyone else is suggesting otherwise).

But even after I'd calmed down, even after I'd made what I was saying clearer, even after I'd explained that I have a personal stake in this, I still had people (one person in particular, though I'm not going to bring him back into it, because he's since accepted my central point) telling me I was being patronising and sanctimoneously sticking up for others (or words to that effect) and had some new made-up insults thrown at me. In that overall context, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that's the behaviour of someone who doesn't really care if he causes upset or stigmatisation to someone else or not, or that's certainly how that behaviour feels to the person who's on the sharp end of it.

In addition, I've had various people distort what I've been saying, and when I've pointed this out, far from correcting or admitting their distortions, they've gone on to make further distortions. 

One particular mental health professional has repeatedly demanded that I answer their questions about definitions of mental illness and whether that or other terms are preferred, even when I've given the answers I think are relevant and said I'm not interested in answering questions in the way they want me to answer them, and then categorised me as behaving defensively. And despite their colleague or partner earlier making a fuss about what they thought was my claim that psychiatrists were experts who couldn't/shouldn't be questioned, the way this has been done has left me feeling that they (Blagsta) are adopting the role of the expert who questions whether I know what the correct/acceptable definition or terminology is. This may not be his intention, this may be merely my impression, but in the overall context, this is an understandable and pretty shitty way to feel you're being treated.

So yeah, the broad topic of mental health stigmatisation has been blended together with how various peoples words on this thread were making me feel personally (to the detriment of the discussion and distressingly enough for me that a couple of times I've felt like I just needed to walk away for a while) but I'm really not convinced that I have played the lead role in that.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, he may have had a choice - but choices are contingent aren't they?  Not everyone has the same capacity to make choices.  I would argue that someone diagnosed with "personality disorder with some marked psychopathic traits" has a limited capacity for choice and decision making.


Sure - and you speak from a position of authority... and then clearly many other people in that field would disagree.  I don't, personally, know enough about psychiatry or psychology to continue the debate - but thanks for giving me your perspective.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> I agree that I came into this thread in an aggressive and demanding way. The reasons for that (which you have probably guessed, but I'll spell them out anyway) are that the issue of stigmatising of people with mental health issues is a personal one for me, one which I find upsetting and angering at times. The way I began my argument was a result of how I felt about things people were saying, but I accept that I am responsible for how I've conducted myself - I'm certainly not trying to suggest anyone else is responsible (I'm just making that clear, I'm not suggesting you or anyone else is suggesting otherwise).
> 
> But even after I'd calmed down, even after I'd made what I was saying clearer, even after I'd explained that I have a personal stake in this, I still had people (one person in particular, though I'm not going to bring him back into it, because he's since accepted my central point) telling me I was being patronising and sanctimoneously sticking up for others (or words to that effect) and had some new made-up insults thrown at me. In that overall context, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that's the behaviour of someone who doesn't really care if he causes upset or stigmatisation to someone else or not, or that's certainly how that behaviour feels to the person who's on the sharp end of it.
> 
> ...




I'm sorry you feel that way.  It was certainly not my intention.  I'm also not sure how I "demanded" anything.  Its a debate.  People ask questions.  If you feel that this is no good for your mental health, then maybe its time to take a break from the boards for a while?

I wish you all the best.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Isn't one of the criteria for psychopathy a lack of empathy?



I edited my post ... predictive text on my phone ran amock.

To answer your question. .. yes...it is..
He didn't empathise with the victim or her family. 

Here's a quote from the judge's summation...

_"(c)	Dr Kent was the prosecution’s leading psychiatric expert. He concluded that William Cornick was at
least of average intelligence and found no evidence of any thought disorder, psychotic or other major psychiatric illness. Dr Kent said that the defendant
had an adjustment disorder (something with which Dr Lengua agreed) and that this affected the development of his personality at a time when he should have been
developing and maturing into an independent person.
He noted “a gross lack of empathy for his victim and a degree of callousness rarely seen in clinical practice.”
He found evidence of personality disorder with some 8
marked psychopathic traits with a preoccupation with homicide. He said he presented a risk of serious harm
to the public and that the risk was immediate and unpredictable, and could cause serious and lethal
injury."

Again..I'd suggest reading the summation. _


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Sure - and you speak from a position of authority... and then clearly many other people in that field would disagree.  I don't, personally, know enough about psychiatry or psychology to continue the debate - but thanks for giving me your perspective.



Oh, yeah, I'm not saying I'm right and everyone else is wrong.  I just find the issues involved endlessly fascinating to think about and discuss.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I edited my post ... predictive text on my phone ran amock.
> 
> To answer your question. .. yes...it is..
> He didn't empathise with the victim or her family.
> ...




Yes, I've read it.  Still not clear what point you're making.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, I've read it.  Still not clear what point you're making.


so often the case with bubbles


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> What conditions can he be assessed as having when he is 18 that are precluded now?



Sociopathy and psychopathy for two.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, I've read it.  Still not clear what point you're making.



Answering your question.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Sociopathy and psychopathy for two.



Which, as I've repeatedly stated, are not actual diagnostic categories.  They are more traits or features of a diagnosis.  The ICD10 classifies these as dissocial personality disorder.  And they can be diagnosed in under 18's. In fact, Cornick was found to have "evidence of personality disorder with some marked psychopathic traits with a preoccupation with homicide. "


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Answering your question.



The post you were responding to was this one



> However, if someone literally can't empathise, it's a meaningless concept to them, how can they know something is wrong? We require emotions to make fully rational decisions. See Damasio's book Descartes' Error and his telling of the story of Phineas Gage.



Not sure how your response answers this.


----------



## Cribynkle (Nov 5, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> And given that he understood the likely consequence for him, whether or not he could envisage the pain he would inflict on others, it's still an utter puzzle to me why he _needed _to do it, as he clearly did.
> 
> If we go along the lines that recurrent fantasy led to an idee fixe at some point this will diminish he may have an  awakening to come.



His justification was that he didn't think he'd get any qualifications or a job so he needed to go to prison

‘I know it’s uncivilised but I know it’s incredibly instinctual and human. Past generations of life, killing is a route of survival. It’s kill or be killed. I did not have a choice. It was kill her or suicide.’

Though obviously that's probably not why he felt he needed to do it - just why he *said* he needed to do it


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

Cribynkle said:


> His justification was that he didn't think he'd get any qualifications or a job so he needed to go to prison
> 
> ‘I know it’s uncivilised but I know it’s incredibly instinctual and human. Past generations of life, killing is a route of survival. It’s kill or be killed. I did not have a choice. It was kill her or suicide.’
> 
> Though obviously that's probably not why he felt he needed to do it - just why he *said* he needed to do it



We'll probably never know why he felt he needed to do it.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> The post you were responding to was this one
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how your response answers this.




You keep saying he couldn't have known what he did was wrong because he could not empathise. 
Yet he stated very clearly that he knew  what he had done was wrong...that he'd known at the planning stages that it was wrong.


----------



## Cribynkle (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> We'll probably never know why he felt he needed to do it.



Hopefully not, there's someone I'm not desperate to be able to empathise with


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You keep saying he couldn't have known what he did was wrong because he could not empathise.
> Yet he stated very clearly that he knew  what he had done was wrong...that he'd known at the planning stages that it was wrong.



I'm questioning whether anyone can make fully informed decisions without emotions like empathy.  He may have clearly stated that he knew it was wrong - intellectual understanding is not necessarily the same as being able to understand on an emotional level.  I suggest you read the Damasio book, its fascinating.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

Cribynkle said:


> Hopefully not, there's someone I'm not desperate to be able to empathise with



I'd love to know, personally.  Not because I want to empathise necessarily (although from what I gather he was an angry young man and I wonder if this had been picked up, this could have been avoided), but because if we can understand what drives people to do these things, maybe we can prevent some of these things happening.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> We'll probably never know why he felt he needed to do it.



He was very clear in his mind why he felt the need to murder. 
He stated that he had a choice.  Suicide or murder. 
I think the summation is very clear on what his thoughts were throughout all of this. 


Blagsta said:


> I'm questioning whether anyone can make fully informed decisions without emotions like empathy.  He may have clearly stated that he knew it was wrong - intellectual understanding is not necessarily the same as being able to understand on an emotional level.  I suggest you read the Damasio book, its fascinating.


He was not devoid of emotional understanding. 
His anger and hate were emotions too. However he was not in control of his internal emotional life. The absence of empathy for his victim could have been as a result of stronger emotions overriding it....don't you think?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> He was very clear in his mind why he felt the need to murder.
> He stated that he had a choice.  Suicide or murder.
> I think the summation is very clear on what his thoughts were throughout all of this.
> 
> ...



I really don't know.  We know that psychiatrists found he had "a gross lack of empathy for his victim and a degree of callousness rarely seen in clinical practice." and that there was "evidence of personality disorder with some marked psychopathic traits with a preoccupation with homicide."

That's what we have to go on.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> One particular mental health professional has repeatedly demanded that I answer their questions about definitions of mental illness and whether that or other terms are preferred, even when I've given the answers I think are relevant and said I'm not interested in answering questions in the way they want me to answer them, and then categorised me as behaving defensively. And despite their colleague or partner earlier making a fuss about what they thought was my claim that psychiatrists were experts who couldn't/shouldn't be questioned, the way this has been done has left me feeling that they (Blagsta) are adopting the role of the expert who questions whether I know what the correct/acceptable definition or terminology is. This may not be his intention, this may be merely my impression, but in the overall context, this is an understandable and pretty shitty way to feel you're being treated.



It was a debate, a political debate about mental health issues which were raised by an extreme act of violence and hatred and the legal response to that. I don't like the hegemony of psychiatry as a means of thinking about emotional experience and I think the role of psychiatry with its rigid classification system makes it harder to talk about these kinds of cases than not. As a society, I would like that we are able to think about really difficult and complex experiences like illness or distress or being a cunt in ways that aren't dependent on medical experts, which is just one view, sometimes a helpful one, amongst others. I think this is a political issue and was posting about it as such. The truth is we just don't know an awful lot of things about how we are how we are and anybody claiming a knowledge based on certainty in this area should be questioned.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> I'd love to know, personally.  Not because I want to empathise necessarily (although from what I gather he was an angry young man and I wonder if this had been picked up, this could have been avoided), but because if we can understand what drives people to do these things, maybe we can prevent some of these things happening.



The 17 page summation goes into all if this in detail. The school knew how he hated his victim...for months.
They also witnessed him shouting that he hated her at a parent teacher meeting. Pupils knew he had knives that day. One teacher was told that he had knives.  Pupils knew he was plotting to kill this teacher and others he had posted it on Facebook and told others. 
Wtf went on that the alarm bells were not ringing?
Sorry but after reading the 17 page summary I felt sick and angry that so many people knew what this youth had openly stated he was going to do and nobody thought it wise to do something


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The 17 page summation goes into all if this in detail. The school knew how he hated his victim...for months.
> They also witnessed him shouting that he hated her at a parent teacher meeting. Pupils knew he had knives that day. One teacher was told that he had knives.  Pupils knew he was plotting to kill this teacher and others he had posted it on Facebook and told others.
> Wtf went on that the alarm bells were not ringing?
> Sorry but after reading the 17 page summary I felt sick and angry that so many people knew what this youth had openly stated he was going to do and nobody thought it wise to do something



Yeah, I'd agree with you there.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> I really don't know.  We know that psychiatrists found he had "a gross lack of empathy for his victim and a degree of callousness rarely seen in clinical practice." and that there was "evidence of personality disorder with some marked psychopathic traits with a preoccupation with homicide."
> 
> That's what we have to go on.



No....it's not all we have to go on. His statements are all quoted in the summation.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> No....it's not all we have to go on. His statements are all quoted in the summation.



When I said "all we have to go on", I meant the entire summary, but also the bit I quoted, in terms of his emotional life - these are what we know about his capacity for empathy.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 5, 2014)

I finf all of this very sad and extremely depressing. 

Can't really discuss it much more. It's getting to me.
Probably because I work in a school where staff are assaulted on a weekly basis and have received threats ...
It's getting to me.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 5, 2014)

Nobody is saying he wasn't culpable and he shouldn't be imprisoned. Is anyone arguing that?

The issue raised was one of control and how much control we have over our actions. Blagsta was suggesting it's a continuum rather than sane = you have control and insane = no control. I don't think he was suggesting the boy had no control at all, but rather asking what are some of the conditions necessary for making moral choices.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Nobody is saying he wasn't culpable and he shouldn't be imprisoned. Is anyone arguing that?
> 
> The issue raised was one of control and how much control we have over our actions. Blagsta was suggesting it's a continuum rather than sane = you have control and insane = no control. I don't think he was suggesting the boy had no control at all, but rather asking what are some of the conditions necessary for making moral choices.




Personally, I think he should be in a secure forensic psychiatric hospital, however I'm not in full possession of the facts of the case.  None of us here are.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 5, 2014)

Also, I think something that has been lost in the last few pages is the more immediate political issue of the lack of funding for CAMHS and specifically the decline of child psychotherapy in mental heath services in favour of short term work. Funding is so low that the criteria for access to CAMHS is set very high and unless you have a diagnosable mental illness it is increasingly difficult to get treatment. It should be a scandal but it isn't.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2014)

elbows said:


> You came into this thread in an aggressive and demanding way.  And most of your subsequent arguments with people did not seem to actually match the original subject for which you were most enraged about when you first entered the thread. Or rather, you blended together the broad topic of mental health stigmatisation, with how various peoples words on this thread were making you feel personally. In reality of course there is a genuine connection between these things, but when trying to debate them it can be messy and ugly when the personal and the principal are so intimately linked in this way.


 this, methinks.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Personally, I think he should be in a secure forensic psychiatric hospital, however I'm not in full possession of the facts of the case.  None of us here are.



Yeh, I meant imprisoned in the broadest loosest sense


----------



## Cribynkle (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> I'd love to know, personally.  Not because I want to empathise necessarily (although from what I gather he was an angry young man and I wonder if this had been picked up, this could have been avoided), but because if we can understand what drives people to do these things, maybe we can prevent some of these things happening.



I don't think he could even understand or articulate why he did it.  What's the old chestnut about if the brain was simple enough to understand we'd be so simple we couldn't?  You can study patterns and probabilities - this mix of physiology, experiences, circumstances and hormones may cause this personality type and reaction - but there'll always be anomalies that couldn't be predicted or understood


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> I'm sorry you feel that way.  It was certainly not my intention.  I'm also not sure how I "demanded" anything.  Its a debate.  People ask questions.  If you feel that this is no good for your mental health, then maybe its time to take a break from the boards for a while?
> 
> I wish you all the best.



Ok, thanks for that. Let's both attempt to draw a line under it and move on.

But I'll make my own decisions about when and how I participate here thanks very much


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Did you not read the judge's summation and the direct quotes from interviews with the boy/youth?



Yes, I did. I find it interesting that you believe you've represented the material accurately.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> As for you criticising my use of "them" "they"....I'm hardly going to say "us" am I??
> And I don't know every psychopath or sociopath by name do you?
> So the use of "them" and "they" is perfectly acceptable despite your sense of affront.


So you say "psychopaths" or "sociopaths". You define rather than generalising.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I edited my post ... predictive text on my phone ran amock.
> 
> To answer your question. .. yes...it is..
> He didn't empathise with the victim or her family.
> ...



So actually we don't know from the sentencing remarks that Cornick lacked empathy. What we do know is that he manifested and displayed a lack of empathy when interviewed. Without access to the contemporaneous notes and/or recordings taken by the psychiatrists and psychologist, we have no way of telling whether his "lack of empathy" was real, or a construct he manufactured.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, I did. I find it interesting that you believe you've represented the material accurately.



Eh?
Seeing as I quoted it  I'm not sure what you mean?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you say "psychopaths" or "sociopaths". You define rather than generalising.



Ffs


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> So actually we don't know from the sentencing remarks that Cornick lacked empathy. What we do know is that he manifested and displayed a lack of empathy when interviewed. Without access to the contemporaneous notes and/or recordings taken by the psychiatrists and psychologist, we have no way of telling whether his "lack of empathy" was real, or a construct he manufactured.



And now you're interpreting the psychs records ?


----------



## andysays (Nov 6, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> It was a debate, a political debate about mental health issues which were raised by an extreme act of violence and hatred and the legal response to that. I don't like the hegemony of psychiatry as a means of thinking about emotional experience and I think the role of psychiatry with its rigid classification system makes it harder to talk about these kinds of cases than not. As a society, I would like that we are able to think about really difficult and complex experiences like illness or distress or being a cunt in ways that aren't dependent on medical experts, which is just one view, sometimes a helpful one, amongst others. I think this is a political issue and was posting about it as such. The truth is we just don't know an awful lot of things about how we are how we are and anybody claiming a knowledge based on certainty in this area should be questioned.



I agree with the broad thrust of what you're saying here, though I really don't think you explained it like that when you first started (you may have done so on previous threads - I'm afraid I can't remember everything I've ever read here).

My overall point, which others then took up and some were apparently then persuaded by, was that it isn't helpful (indeed it's often stigmatising) for people to immediately jump in with uninformed comments about how anyone who commits violent acts must be mentally ill, or some other imprecise equivalent. It may (or may not) be useful to talk in more specific terms about particular psychlogical traits which have been identified in the particular individual.

And in terms of the hegemony of psychiatry, which you suggested I was somehow supporting, what I said was that the particular psychologists and psychiatrists who were asked to decide whether this young man could be considered criminally responsible are in a better position to decide that than anyone speculating on this thread, mainly (although I didn't spell this out) because they have actually had the opportunity to assess him and arrive at some sort of informed decision.

This decision will also be informed by their experience and their particular outlook, which will likely affect their judgement in some areas, including whether and how he might be treated to deal with the traits which have been identified (and someone approaching the question of treatment might have a different but still relevant perspective), but I'm not sure how or why their answer to this specific question can or should be called into question by anyone who hasn't had the opportunity to actually make a proper assessment themselves.

I say all this not in an attempt to re-start a row, but to clarify exactly what I meant. You're welcome to respond if you wish, but you're equally welcome to leave it at that


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2014)

andysays said:


> My overall point, which others then took up and some were apparently then persuaded by, was that it isn't helpful (indeed it's often stigmatising) for people to immediately jump in with uninformed comments about how anyone who commits violent acts must be mentally ill, or some other imprecise equivalent. It may (or may not) be useful to talk in more specific terms about particular psychlogical traits which have been identified in the particular individual.


 Without looking back, I think this all came out of the very precise interaction between psych services and the courts when determining whether an offender was responsible for their actions - for the very specific purpose of determining whether it's prison or hospital.  In a way, that interaction leads shrinks and expert witnesses into a quite narrow channel.  In the world beyond the courtroom I think there still is a place to describe certain acts as 'insane' or to ruminate around the old cliche of 'mad or bad'.  All very tricky and all running the risk of tarring people with MH problems generally - yes, stigmatising - but people all need some way of getting at why someone would undertake an irrational act.  As always, issues about language are messy when discussing a difficult topic. In passing, I say all that as someone who has had 20 years of MH issues.

In some ways the word 'rational' is one that got lost in this discussion.  Irrational - and sometimes horrific - acts are always rational at some level to the person involved. In fact that's something that's common to those with MH problems and the rest of society. Maybe that's for another day though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Ffs



You don't get it, do you? Correct use of language *matters*. Maybe not to you, but to those on the sharp end of your generalisations.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> And now you're interpreting the psychs records ?



I haven't interpreted anything, I've posited a possibility based on what was written (and not written) in the sentencing remarks.


----------



## andysays (Nov 6, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Without looking back, I think this all came out of the very precise interaction between psych services and the courts when determining whether an offender was responsible for their actions - for the very specific purpose of determining whether it's prison or hospital.  In a way, that interaction leads shrinks and expert witnesses into a quite narrow channel.  In the world beyond the courtroom I think there still is a place to describe certain acts as 'insane' or to ruminate around the old cliche of 'mad or bad'.  All very tricky and all running the risk of tarring people with MH problems generally - yes, stigmatising - but people all need some way of getting at why someone would undertake an irrational act.  As always, issues about language are messy when discussing a difficult topic. In passing, I say all that as someone who has had 20 years of MH issues.
> 
> In some ways the word 'rational' is one that got lost in this discussion.  Irrational - and sometimes horrific - acts are always rational at some level to the person involved. In fact that's something that's common to those with MH problems and the rest of society. Maybe that's for another day though.



I agree that in the world outside the courtroom, people will always use words in a speculative, sometimes imprecise way, and that it's necessary/helpful for them to do so in order to make sense of things. 

I'm not trying to prohibit or prevent that (and if it came across that way, I apologise and recognise that was because of my own anger inspired imprecision), I'm trying to encourage people to think about the effect that their use of words might have, and, perhaps, to speculate in a sensitive way.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 6, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Without looking back, I think this all came out of the very precise interaction between psych services and the courts when determining whether an offender was responsible for their actions - for the very specific purpose of determining whether it's prison or hospital.  In a way, that interaction leads shrinks and expert witnesses into a quite narrow channel.  In the world beyond the courtroom I think there still is a place to describe certain acts as 'insane' or to ruminate around the old cliche of 'mad or bad'.  All very tricky and all running the risk of tarring people with MH problems generally - yes, stigmatising - but people all need some way of getting at why someone would undertake an irrational act.  As always, issues about language are messy when discussing a difficult topic. In passing, I say all that as someone who has had 20 years of MH issues.
> 
> In some ways the word 'rational' is one that got lost in this discussion.  Irrational - and sometimes horrific - acts are always rational at some level to the person involved. In fact that's something that's common to those with MH problems and the rest of society. Maybe that's for another day though.



I agree with this.

andysays, I'm not going to reply at length directly to your post as I think this answers it better.

I wasn't questioning the assessment of the psychiatrists and psychologist in the terms set by the legal process. I haven't challenged their professional judgement in these circumstances. But outside the courtroom there must be room for people to ponder and grapple and try and make sense of extreme brutal and sadistic acts that take place in our society, amongst us, to think ourselves about the language and the concepts that we find helpful in making meaning of such things.


----------



## andysays (Nov 6, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> andysays, I'm not going to reply at length directly to your post as I think this answers it better.
> 
> I wasn't questioning the assessment of the psychiatrists and psychologist in the terms set by the legal process. I haven't challenged their professional judgement in these circumstances. But outside the courtroom there must be room for people to ponder and grapple and try and make sense of extreme brutal and sadistic acts that take place in our society, amongst us, to think ourselves about the language and the concepts that we find helpful in making meaning of such things.



That's fine, and I wasn't suggesting you were questioning their assessment, rather that you were suggesting because I said they were better placed to make it than anyone else, that I was necessarily buying into some idea of their inherent superiority to pass judgement about everything, or whatever it was exactly that you said - it no longer matters, TBH.

And I think we're pretty much in agreement about the rest, even if it took a while for both of us to clarify.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 6, 2014)

andysays said:


> That's fine, and I wasn't suggesting you were questioning their assessment, rather that you were suggesting because I said they were better placed to make it than anyone else, that I was necessarily buying into some idea of their inherent superiority to pass judgement about everything, or whatever it was exactly that you said - it no longer matters, TBH.
> 
> And I think we're pretty much in agreement about the rest, even if it took a while for both of us to clarify.



I can see that I wasn't very clear. 

I think that their judgement within the terms they were working was probably sound. The terms, however, are very narrow, especially when such a big decision as sentencing someone to prison or hospital rests upon them. So I don't think that the process as a whole should go unchallenged. But I also understand that making decisions based on capacities that lie on a continuum rather than more clear black and white categories is undoubtedly very difficult and it _is_ necessary to make decisions, to act, and not be paralysed by a surfeit of uncertainty.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You don't get it, do you? Correct use of language *matters*. Maybe not to you, but to those on the sharp end of your generalisations.



Lecturing me now...?
I used correct language.
Get over yourself


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I used correct language.


what do you mean, you "used correct language"? do you mean you managed to string a sentence together?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't interpreted anything, I've posited a possibility based on what was written (and not written) in the sentencing remarks.



You "posit possibilities" yet you ctiticise me for actually quoting the court documents ....??
I'm only interested in the facts of the case as presented in court and the judgement made by the judge and the statements made by those who met and assessed the youth.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> what do you mean, you "used correct language"? do you mean you managed to string a sentence together?



Ask VP.
It's his terminology.
And while you're at it piss off


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Ask VP.
> It's his terminology.
> And while you're at it piss off


no, what do YOU mean when YOU say YOU "used correct language"? why would i ask ViolentPanda what you meant in a post he'd nothing to do with? you simple or something?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> no, what do YOU mean when YOU say YOU "used correct language"? why would i ask ViolentPanda what you meant in a post he'd nothing to do with? you simple or something?



Why not read the previous posts and glean something from them?
I was replying to vp.
I'm not trawling through the thread for you just to satisfy your twittery.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you simple or something?



And get to fuck with that inflammatory crap.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Why not read the previous posts and glean something from them?
> I was replying to vp.
> I'm not trawling through the thread for you just to satisfy your twittery.


you don't need to trawl the thread, just say what you meant by your using "correct language", which incidentally is not a phrase ViolentPanda has used on this thread. hence my question about your simplicity, because anyone paying attention to this thread would have known that.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you don't need to trawl the thread, just say what you meant by your using "correct language", which incidentally is not a phrase ViolentPanda has used on this thread. hence my question about your simplicity, because anyone paying attention to this thread would have known that.



I used the terminology used by the judge in his summation throughout the thread. In answering a post made by another poster who used the same terminology in their post I used the words "they" and "their" instead.
VP took umbrage.
Hence his dig about correct use of language.
I replied to him.

Now please go pick your nose before you stick it into a thread you've not been following properly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Lecturing me now...?
> I used correct language.
> Get over yourself



Lecturing you would be a waste of time. You're convinced that you're right, and nothing as quotidian as rational argument or being lectured would convince you differently.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Lecturing you would be a waste of time. You're convinced that you're right, and nothing as quotidian as rational argument or being lectured would convince you differently.



I quoted the judge's summation.
You seem to have a difficulty recognising quotation marks. 
It's not my fault you thought I was giving an opinion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I used the terminology used by the judge in his summ...


 so first it's the terminology VP's used when it isn't, now you're blaming the fucking judge.

i don't give a fuck about the judge, i don't care what VP said, i'm asking what YOU mean by "i used correct language".


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so first it's the terminology VP's used when it isn't, now you're blaming the fucking judge.
> 
> i don't give a fuck about the judge, i don't care what VP said, i'm asking what YOU mean by "i used correct language".





bubblesmcgrath said:


> I used the terminology used by the judge in his summation throughout the thread. In answering a post made by another poster who used the same terminology in their post I used the words "they" and "their" instead.
> VP took umbrage.
> Hence his dig about correct use of language.
> I replied to him..


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 6, 2014)

It wouldn't be urban if it didn't boil down to semantics.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You don't get it, do you? Correct use of language *matters*. Maybe not to you, but to those on the sharp end of your generalisations.



For the last time...


bubblesmcgrath said:


> Personality disorders along the lines of psychopathic personality disorders very  difficult to treat. Mainly because they are part and parcel of the person's personality. They can be managed to a degree and monitored..
> Psychopathic criminals are another step up again and there are those who maintain that these individuals cannot ever be "cured"...
> 
> http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201408/psychopathic-criminals-cannot-be-cured
> ...





8115 said:


> Something I have always wondered. Why don't so-called psychopaths avoid committing crime out of self interest? To avoid punishment?





bubblesmcgrath said:


> Punishment means nothing to them.
> One of the only things they respond to is reward. See the link in my previous post.




The use of "they" and "them" is not and was not wrong. I was responding to a post by 8115 who asked a question about my previous post.
All are above to see .. including quotes from Nigel Blackwood on criminal psychopathy which is what was being discussed at that moment in the thread


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath you must be simple as i ask 'what do you mean?' but you're answering 'why did you say?'


----------



## elbows (Nov 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> So actually we don't know from the sentencing remarks that Cornick lacked empathy. What we do know is that he manifested and displayed a lack of empathy when interviewed. Without access to the contemporaneous notes and/or recordings taken by the psychiatrists and psychologist, we have no way of telling whether his "lack of empathy" was real, or a construct he manufactured.



And we don't know if he lacked empathy far more broadly in his life. I'm sure it is quite possible for people to withhold their empathy from certain targets but not others, and under such conditions I do not think the stereotypical idea of a psychopath would apply very well.


----------



## elbows (Nov 6, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> For the last time...
> 
> The use of "they" and "them" is not and was not wrong. I was responding to a post by 8115 who asked a question about my previous post.
> All are above to see .. including quotes from Nigel Blackwood on criminal psychopathy which is what was being discussed at that moment in the thread



Like I said the other day, some of the problems relating to our discussions about psychopaths no doubt stems from the ownership that criminology has over the term. I mean no wonder you are comfortable with generalisations such as 'psychopaths can't be cured', because that is what a great chunk of criminologists who talk to the press will say, dealing as they are with the most extreme of cases. On one level thats fair enough, but on another level it is not right to use that to promote broader old ideas that personality disorders are incurable, because that does a disservice to the cause of helping those with complaints of the mind.

Seemingly compelling notions such as personality disorders being impossible to cure because of how central and often relatively inflexible personality is to a person don't stand up to scrutiny. Because personality disorders are said to be extremes of certain personality types, considered disorders because they cause pain, distress and problems for the person and/or those they come into contact with. In order to cure them, it is therefore not necessary to change their personality to a different type, only to enable their behaviour to change.

It's also far from clear to me that the murderers etc that criminologists often dwell on are actually harder to cure, that it is impossible to bring their behaviour back within a threshold considered acceptable to society. Rather what is almost impossible, is obtaining the confidence of a society and its institutions that a person who has already committed a most terrible deed against another can ever be trusted to have been cured.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 6, 2014)

elbows said:


> And we don't know if he lacked empathy far more broadly in his life. I'm sure it is quite possible for people to withhold their empathy from certain targets but not others, and under such conditions I do not think the stereotypical idea of a psychopath would apply very well.



.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> bubblesmcgrath you must be simple as i ask 'what do you mean?' but you're answering 'why did you say?'



Dear God man....get a fucking life!


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 6, 2014)

I didn't go to this because I don't live in London but this project looks really interesting for those interested in these things from an historical perspective:

http://aspd-incontext.org/historical-perspectives-on-aspd/

There are papers to download which I only just saw so I haven't read them.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 6, 2014)

elbows said:


> Like I said the other day, some of the problems relating to our discussions about psychopaths no doubt stems from the ownership that criminology has over the term. I mean no wonder you are comfortable with generalisations such as 'psychopaths can't be cured', because that is what a great chunk of criminologists who talk to the press will say, dealing as they are with the most extreme of cases. On one level thats fair enough, but on another level it is not right to use that to promote broader old ideas that personality disorders are incurable, because that does a disservice to the cause of helping those with complaints of the mind.
> 
> Seemingly compelling notions such as personality disorders being impossible to cure because of how central and often relatively inflexible personality is to a person don't stand up to scrutiny. Because personality disorders are said to be extremes of certain personality types, considered disorders because they cause pain, distress and problems for the person and/or those they come into contact with. In order to cure them, it is therefore not necessary to change their personality to a different type, only to enable their behaviour to change.
> 
> It's also far from clear to me that the murderers etc that criminologists often dwell on are actually harder to cure, that it is impossible to bring their behaviour back within a threshold considered acceptable to society. Rather what is almost impossible, is obtaining the confidence of a society and its institutions that a person who has already committed a most terrible deed against another can ever be trusted to have been cured.



I was quoting Dr. Nigel Blackwood, a leading Forensic Psychiatrist at King’s College London on criminal psychopaths. A rather specific group I'd say


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Dear God man....get a fucking life!


we could have moved on from this hours ago if only you had the wit to say what you meant.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> we could have moved on from this hours ago if only you had the wit to say what you meant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I was quoting Dr. Nigel Blackwood, a leading Forensic Psychiatrist at King’s College London on criminal psychopaths. A rather specific group I'd say


yes, there aren't many leading forensic psychiatrists at strand poly.


----------



## andysays (Nov 6, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


>



I find the ignore function is useful when he's in one of these moods


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Illness is treatable. Personality disorders along the lines of psychopathic personality disorders very  difficult to treat. Mainly because they are part and parcel of the person's personality. They can be managed to a degree and monitored..
> Psychopathic criminals are another step up again and there are those who maintain that these individuals cannot ever be "cured"...
> 
> http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201408/psychopathic-criminals-cannot-be-cured
> ...


you quote a couple of people who say psychopathy can't be cured, as though that was the end of it. IN YOUR OPINION (that is, in your opinion without running round quoting people whose work you're really not all that familiar with) is that it? there's nothing more to be done?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you quote a couple of people who say psychopathy can't be cured, as though that was the end of it. IN YOUR OPINION (that is, in your opinion without running round quoting people whose work you're really not all that familiar with) is that it? there's nothing more to be done?



As I'm not a clinical psychotherapist or a psychiatrist or an expert in forensic psychiatry and I doubt that you are, I find that your question and any possible answer I may give would both be irrelevant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> As I'm not a clinical psychotherapist or a psychiatrist or an expert in forensic psychiatry and I doubt that you are, I find that your question and any possible answer I may give would both be irrelevant.


it's disappointing that you don't seem to have digested the articles you affect to have read. it's really very simple and doesn't need an academic knowledge of psychiatry or indeed psychopathy. what would you propose as a moderately well informed person is done with people with psychopathy. you say they're not mentally ill. so? do they get put in prison and see the key thrown away? or do you say, no, these people can't be chucked away like that - maybe they can't be 'cured' but let's see what can be done to best rehabilitate them? you seem to be all "i know i know" above and all "i don't know and my opinion's worthless" now. i think we can at least concur on that last point.


----------



## elbows (Nov 6, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> As I'm not a clinical psychotherapist or a psychiatrist or an expert in forensic psychiatry and I doubt that you are, I find that your question and any possible answer I may give would both be irrelevant.



Oh yes, far be it from us to question expert wisdom, or even suggest that the context in which they are speaking may not cover the full spectrum of the debate to be had here.

I see Nigel managed to use a MRI scanner to achieve a modern, sophisticated equivalent of 'we can spot criminals by measuring their skulls'.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120507164636.htm



> Dr Blackwood explains: 'Identifying and diagnosing this sub-group of violent offenders with brain scans has important implications for treatment. Those without the syndrome of psychopathy, and the associated structural brain damage, will benefit from cognitive and behavioural treatments. Optimal treatment for the group of psychopaths is much less clear at this stage.'


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it's disappointing that you don't seem to have digested the articles you affect to have read. it's really very simple and doesn't need an academic knowledge of psychiatry or indeed psychopathy. what would you propose as a moderately well informed person is done with people with psychopathy. you say they're not mentally ill. so? do they get put in prison and see the key thrown away? or do you say, no, these people can't be chucked away like that - maybe they can't be 'cured' but let's see what can be done to best rehabilitate them? you seem to be all "i know i know" above and all "i don't know and my opinion's worthless" now. i think we can at least concur on that last point.



If you had read my posts properly it should have registered with you that I was writing specifically about criminal psychopathy as evidenced in the murder of Mrs McGuire.
It is you who has decided now to generalise about all psychopaths.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it's disappointing that you don't seem to have digested the articles you affect to have read. it's really very simple and doesn't need an academic knowledge of psychiatry or indeed psychopathy. what would you propose as a moderately well informed person is done with people with psychopathy. you say they're not mentally ill. so? do they get put in prison and see the key thrown away? or do you say, no, these people can't be chucked away like that - maybe they can't be 'cured' but let's see what can be done to best rehabilitate them? you seem to be all "i know i know" above and all "i don't know and my opinion's worthless" now. i think we can at least concur on that last point.



And if you'd read my posts you'd also have read that I did not say my opinions were worthless. I said that as neither you nor I are psychiatrists that you asking me for answers to psychiatric problems is a pointless exercise. 
Maybe it is you who is a tad dm?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

elbows said:


> Oh yes, far be it from us to question expert wisdom, or even suggest that the context in which they are speaking may not cover the full spectrum of the debate to be had here.
> 
> I see Nigel managed to use a MRI scanner to achieve a modern, sophisticated equivalent of 'we can spot criminals by measuring their skulls'.
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120507164636.htm



You should probably misinterpret and misrepresent this article too.

http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guide...cans-show-why-psychopaths-dont-feel-your-pain

And this...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/

^^^^^^^
This is extremely interesting and well worth reading ...for anyone truly interested in the subject of pro-social psychopathology.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you say they're not mentally ill. so? do they get put in prison and see the key thrown away? or do you say, no, these people can't be chucked away like that - maybe they can't be 'cured' but let's see what can be done to best rehabilitate them? you seem to be all "i know i know" above and all "i don't know and my opinion's worthless" now. i think we can at least concur on that last point.



It's a pity that pickman seems to think all psychopaths are dangerous. It's estimated that 1% of the population have high levels of psychopathy. Only a percentage of those become crimnals let alone dangerous ones.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10737827/Psychopaths-how-can-you-spot-one.html

Have a proper read of this...^

"Many people in the population have high levels of psychopathy - about 1 per cent. But not all of them become criminals. In fact many of them, because of their glibness and charm and willingness to ride roughshod over the people in their way, become quite successful. They become CEOs, professional athletes, soldiers. These people are revered for their courage and their straight talk and their willingness to crush obstacles in their way. Merely having psychopathy doesn't tell us that a person will go off and commit a crime.”


So why is it that you Pickman's model  are suggesting that i should recommend anyone be locked away? Why would you imply that I would even consider pre-emptively judging or punishing anyone?

I'll repeat again...the points I have made throughout this thread have been specifically related to criminal psychopathy not general or pro-social psychopathy.

The article above is quite informative. Worth reading if you're confused about what is referred to as the psychopathic spectrum.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> It's a pity that pickman seems to think all psychopaths are dangerous. It's estimated that 1% of the population have high levels of psychopathy. Only a percentage of those become crimnals let alone dangerous ones.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10737827/Psychopaths-how-can-you-spot-one.html
> 
> ...


have i touched a nerve?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> If you had read my posts properly it should have registered with you that I was writing specifically about criminal psychopathy as evidenced in the murder of Mrs McGuire.
> It is you who has decided now to generalise about all psychopaths.


but it's you who posted that they can't be cured


----------



## andysays (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> have i touched a nerve?



Fuck off Pickmans - there's absolutely no need for that sort of insinuating crap


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You should probably misinterpret and misrepresent this article too.
> 
> http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guide...cans-show-why-psychopaths-dont-feel-your-pain
> 
> ...


before i read them perhaps you could offer an opinion on their currency, on their position in the discourse on the subject and whether they appear in reputable sources


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

andysays said:


> Fuck off Pickmans - there's absolutely no need for that sort of insinuating crap


3 replies to one post suggest the touching of a nerve, do they not. especially when they're so religious.


----------



## elbows (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'll repeat again...the points I have made throughout this thread have been specifically related to criminal psychopathy not general or pro-social psychopathy.



No, various people took issue with some things you said because you really were not careful enough to distinguish 'criminal psychopathy' from psychopathy in general in all of your posts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

elbows said:


> No, various people took issue with some things you said because you really were not careful enough to distinguish 'criminal psychopathy' from psychopathy in general in all of your posts.


& her posts are so holey


----------



## elbows (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You should probably misinterpret and misrepresent this article too.



In what way did I misrepresent an article? I was simply pointing out in a rather facetious manner the relationship between modern-day criminologists and the history of attempts to identify and get inside 'the criminal mind'. With the implication that in several key areas, there is potential for a distinct lack of harmony between those whose primary concern is the mental wellbeing of people, and those who operate within the field of criminal justice, with all the baggage that comes with it.



> This is extremely interesting and well worth reading ...for anyone truly interested in the subject of pro-social psychopathology.



The insinuation that I am not genuinely interested in the underlying themes has been noted. Kindly take it back.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 7, 2014)

Personality disorder was mental health services speak for "they is fucked and theres fuck all we can do its a personality disorder"
Which is just great when your trying to access services for someone " men in crisis  counselling 6 month waiting list " which is some kahesque shit


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

I'm guessing that was supposed to be a frown not a smile, likesfish?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

The trouble with bubbles is that bubbles doesn't understand that quantifying an entire group (and in the case of psychopaths and sociopaths, it's a *very* broad group) as "they" or "them" leads to the sort of reductive thinking whereby people tend to assume that the worst traits of the group are shared by all. Classic "othering".


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> but it's you who posted that they can't be cured


And that was a reference to psychiatric documentation. ... take it up with the emminent author at Kings University if you have a difficulty with his research.



elbows said:


> No, various people took issue with some things you said because you really were not careful enough to distinguish 'criminal psychopathy' from psychopathy in general in all of your posts.



Actually I was careful enough and if you had read the posts entirely rather than believe Pickmans nonsense and VPs assumptions, you'd recognise that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> And that was a reference to psychiatric documentation. ... take it up with the emminent author at Kings University if you have a difficulty with his research.


yes, i said YOU posted it - YOU decided to quote it and included it in a post. i am taking it up with YOU not only because yer man's not a poster here but also because YOU decided it supported the case YOU were trying to build. i never said YOU said it, i said YOU posted it.

ffs, please engage brain before posting, you so rarely do and it would be a perhaps pleasant change.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

elbows said:


> And we don't know if he lacked empathy far more broadly in his life. I'm sure it is quite possible for people to withhold their empathy from certain targets but not others, and under such conditions I do not think the stereotypical idea of a psychopath would apply very well.



Yup, empathy, as with sympathy, tends to require the individual to *find* fellow-feeling with another person. It isn't a trait we universally "broadcast", as it were. 
As for the stereotypical idea of a psychopath - that is, the media version rather than the 100+-yr old scientific version (which was out-of-date almost before it was disseminated) - it is shite. Poor shorthand for such a broad range of conditions that it's pretty meaningless except as a very simplistic label to say "this person is bad!" - inaccurately, most of the time.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The trouble with bubbles is that bubbles doesn't understand that quantifying an entire group (and in the case of psychopaths and sociopaths, it's a *very* broad group) as "they" or "them" leads to the sort of reductive thinking whereby people tend to assume that the worst traits of the group are shared by all. Classic "othering".



I refer you again to post #508
Please read the quoted posts as you seem to have missed out on them...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, i said YOU posted it - YOU decided to quote it and included it in a post. i am taking it up with YOU not only because yer man's not a poster here but also because YOU decided it supported the case YOU were trying to build. i never said YOU said it, i said YOU posted it.
> 
> ffs, please engage brain before posting, you so rarely do and it would be a perhaps pleasant change.




Clearly you need a wank.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Clearly you need a wank.


it's this sort of incisive engagement with the issues you've raised which has given you the reputation you enjoy.

if i said "clearly you need a shag" i think you might have one or two pungent comments to make. why not think before you post, on the off-chance that a moment's reflection might allow you to post something worth saying or indeed reading?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yup, empathy, as with sympathy, tends to require the individual to *find* fellow-feeling with another person. It isn't a trait we universally "broadcast", as it were.
> As for the stereotypical idea of a psychopath - that is, the media version rather than the 100+-yr old scientific version (which was out-of-date almost before it was disseminated) - it is shite. Poor shorthand for such a broad range of conditions that it's pretty meaningless except as a very simplistic label to say "this person is bad!" - inaccurately, most of the time.




Why don't you read a bit more about the current research? Scientific and medical research....probably worth a bit more than opinions??
See post 527



Pickman's model said:


> before i read them perhaps you could offer an opinion on their currency, on their position in the discourse on the subject and whether they appear in reputable sources



No.... get to grips with them yourself


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> No.... get to grips with them yourself


so what you're saying is that you cannot gauge whether those sources are reputable or not, nor whether they have any bearing on the argument. pisspoor.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it's this sort of incisive engagement with the issues you've raised which has given you the reputation you enjoy.
> 
> if i said "clearly you need a shag" i think you might have one or two pungent comments to make. why not think before you post, on the off-chance that a moment's reflection might allow you to post something worth saying or indeed reading?






Pickman's model said:


> have i touched a nerve?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath well, have i touched a nerve?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so what you're saying is that you cannot gauge whether those sources are reputable or not, nor whether they have any bearing on the argument. pisspoor.



Why not read them and extrapolate what ever you want to from them?
That's what you're good at.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> bubblesmcgrath well, have i touched a nerve?



I'd say you've not touched another human being in a long time...let alone a nerve


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2014)

I admire your tenacity, Pickman's, but this is no fun for anyone to read.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'd say you've not touched another human being in a long time...let alone a nerve


i'm sure you would. now, accepting for the time being that psychopathic criminals cannot be cured, what do YOU think should be done with them?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I admire your tenacity, Pickman's, but this is no fun for anyone to read.


should it be fun?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> should it be fun?


Maybe not fun but interesting to more than just the pair of you


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm sure you would. now,



You'd be wrong there


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

elbows said:


> Like I said the other day, some of the problems relating to our discussions about psychopaths no doubt stems from the ownership that criminology has over the term. I mean no wonder you are comfortable with generalisations such as 'psychopaths can't be cured', because that is what a great chunk of criminologists who talk to the press will say, dealing as they are with the most extreme of cases. On one level thats fair enough, but on another level it is not right to use that to promote broader old ideas that personality disorders are incurable, because that does a disservice to the cause of helping those with complaints of the mind.



Criminology (except the dusty corners the likes of James Q. Wilson inhabits) has spent the past two decades attempting to avoid the "psychopath" and "sociopath" labels, and to find nuanced and accurate descriptive terms that can be applied to the myriad of conditions that those two terms used to be used to cover.
BTW, most criminologists won't talk to the press in such terms. Those who call themselves "profilers"*, though - some of them are ignorant enough to.

*I have nothing against profiling, in either of its' main forms, but the dependence by police on the likes of Paul Britton, whose approach is very much to see himself as someone who works in rather than with law enforcement, with all the attendant values that adds to the mix.



> Seemingly compelling notions such as personality disorders being impossible to cure because of how central and often relatively inflexible personality is to a person don't stand up to scrutiny. Because personality disorders are said to be extremes of certain personality types, considered disorders because they cause pain, distress and problems for the person and/or those they come into contact with. In order to cure them, it is therefore not necessary to change their personality to a different type, only to enable their behaviour to change.



Unfortunately, even while being able to define the type of personality disorder (as measured against "the norm") that a person has, not a lot of progress (in relative terms as opposed to general terms) has been made in creating treatment programmes - possibly *because* of the multiplicity of variants of personality disorders there are - and while some drug therapies work, except in a hospital situation compliance to a treatment regime is voluntary (as it should be).



> It's also far from clear to me that the murderers etc that criminologists often dwell on are actually harder to cure, that it is impossible to bring their behaviour back within a threshold considered acceptable to society. Rather what is almost impossible, is obtaining the confidence of a society and its institutions that a person who has already committed a most terrible deed against another can ever be trusted to have been cured.



99% of criminologists don't dwell on murderers. many are interested in stuff like corporate crime, the relationship between poverty and crime, labeling theory, class, sexual and racial bias in the criminal justice system and 1001 other concepts and theories. Also, criminologists aren't interested in *cures* _per se_, so much as in analysing the origins of a crime within an individual and a community.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You'd be wrong there


jesus mary & joseph 

i said i was sure you would say "I'd say you've not touched another human being in a long time...let alone a nerve". now you say i'm wrong, so you WOULDN'T say that 

this correspondence is over now you deny what you said just a couple of posts above.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'd say you've not touched another human being in a long time...let alone a nerve


Hence all the attention he's giving you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Hence all the attention he's giving you.


she has subsequently said she wouldn't in fact say that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Maybe not fun but interesting to more than just the pair of you


tbh afaic it isn't even that interesting to me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> It's a pity that pickman seems to think all psychopaths are dangerous. It's estimated that 1% of the population have high levels of psychopathy. Only a percentage of those become crimnals let alone dangerous ones.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10737827/Psychopaths-how-can-you-spot-one.html
> 
> ...



You're touting Robert Hare's work as some kind of exemplar of the idea that psychopathy is still relevant.
Most psychiatric and psychological practitioners only use it in combination with several other indices, in order to assess disturbance. Hare created his original psychopathy checklist in the '70s, and has revised it half a dozen times since then, sometimes incongruously, in order to make it still seem relevant. It was a great piece of work *of its' time*, but frankly it assumes a static condition where a static condition doesn't exist, which is why it's only used alongside other indices nowadays (it's also worth noting that one of the reasons it has fallen from favour is the licencing fee charged for usage of the PCL-R - most other indices are free).


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're touting Robert Hare's work as some kind of exemplar of the idea that psychopathy is still relevant.
> Most psychiatric and psychological practitioners only use it in combination with several other indices, in order to assess disturbance. Hare created his original psychopathy checklist in the '70s, and has revised it half a dozen times since then, sometimes incongruously, in order to make it still seem relevant. It was a great piece of work *of its' time*, but frankly it assumes a static condition where a static condition doesn't exist, which is why it's only used alongside other indices nowadays (it's also worth noting that one of the reasons it has fallen from favour is the licencing fee charged for usage of the PCL-R - most other indices are free).




And did you not see Jon Ronsen, Jamez Fallon and David Eagleman's contributions to the article?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I refer you again to post #508
> Please read the quoted posts as you seem to have missed out on them...



I've read them.
You appear to take disagreement with you as a sign that people haven't read your "quoted posts", while ignoring the possibility that people have read your "quoted posts", but happen to disagree with your spin.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've read them.
> You appear to take disagreement with you as a sign that people haven't read your "quoted posts", while ignoring the possibility that people have read your "quoted posts", but happen to disagree with your spin.




I've not put a spin on anything

Have you read anything by Ronsen, Fallon or Eagleman?
They and many others all conclude that psychopathy is not a mental illness.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I've not put a spin on anything
> 
> Have you read anything by Ronsen, Fallon or Eagleman?
> They and many others all conclude that psychopathy is not a mental illness.


but what do YOU think?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> And did you not see Jon Ronsen, Jamez Fallon and David Eagleman's contributions to the article?



Yes. I choose to comment on Hare because Hare's work is the framework on which the article is constructed - the rest (Fallon, Eagleman etc) is just reinforcement the journo has added to support his article.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I've not put a spin on anything
> 
> Have you read anything by Ronsen, Fallon or Eagleman?
> They and many others all conclude that psychopathy is not a mental illness.



If you'd bothered to read my posts, you'd know that I don't consider psychopathy a "mental illness" either.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

So instead of being picky then...why dont you engage with the scientific and medical research that is ongoing.



ViolentPanda said:


> Yes. I choose to comment on Hare because Hare's work is the framework on which the article is constructed - the rest (Fallon, Eagleman etc) is just reinforcement the journo has added to support his article.



Ah but you're missing out on so much by your choice.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you'd bothered to read my posts, you'd know that I don't consider psychopathy a "mental illness" either.



We are in greement then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> We are in greement then.


hurrah for reading ViolentPanda's posts


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> hurrah for reading ViolentPanda's posts



I've read all the posts on the thread Pickman.

Now off you go ...back under that stone...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I've read all the posts on the thread Pickman.
> 
> Now off you go ...back under that stone...


i think we've all learned something today about your reading of other people's posts. you look at them but don't read them.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i think we've all learned something today about your reading of other people's posts. you look at them but don't read them.



I think you like the royal "we" a bit too much...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I think you like the royal "we" a bit too much...


apart from me there's ViolentPanda - see, for example, his post #567.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

It's a pity you didn't read my posts properly pickman. You failed to realise that I was not equating psychopathy with mental illness.


----------



## elbows (Nov 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Criminology (except the dusty corners the likes of James Q. Wilson inhabits) has spent the past two decades attempting to avoid the "psychopath" and "sociopath" labels, and to find nuanced and accurate descriptive terms that can be applied to the myriad of conditions that those two terms used to be used to cover.
> BTW, most criminologists won't talk to the press in such terms. Those who call themselves "profilers"*, though - some of them are ignorant enough to.





> 99% of criminologists don't dwell on murderers. many are interested in stuff like corporate crime, the relationship between poverty and crime, labeling theory, class, sexual and racial bias in the criminal justice system and 1001 other concepts and theories. Also, criminologists aren't interested in *cures* _per se_, so much as in analysing the origins of a crime within an individual and a community.



Interesting stuff, cheers. Unfortunately I was dwelling on the sorts of criminologists that people are likely to link to on threads like this one. Ones who are very much unafraid of saying stuff about psychopaths which is crude and simplified for 'public consumption'. For example bubblesmcgrath's initial quotes from Dr Nigel Blackwood don't come directly, but from Scott A Bonn, 'Ph D in Wicked Deeds', who is not only a media commentator but has been a Vice President of NBC television. (Also has proper qualifications behind the silly sexed up title on that site)


----------



## elbows (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Actually I was careful enough and if you had read the posts entirely rather than believe Pickmans nonsense and VPs assumptions, you'd recognise that.



I usually read for myself before wading in, and I certainly did in this case. Anyway this is now too tedious even for me, and I may have run out of productive things to try to say about the term psychopath in between the bickering.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

elbows said:


> Interesting stuff, cheers. Unfortunately I was dwelling on the sorts of criminologists that people are likely to link to on threads like this one. Ones who are very much unafraid of saying stuff about psychopaths which is crude and simplified for 'public consumption'. For example bubblesmcgrath's initial quotes from Dr Nigel Blackwood don't come directly, but from Scott A Bonn, 'Ph D in Wicked Deeds', who is not only a media commentator but has been a Vice President of NBC television.



http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/news/records/2012/May/The-antisocial-brain.aspx

There you go then..
Complain about kings college too...


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I've not put a spin on anything
> 
> Have you read anything by Ronsen, Fallon or Eagleman?
> They and many others all conclude that psychopathy is not a mental illness.



Jon Ronson? Seriously?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Jon Ronson? Seriously?


What?
The others too high brow to be associated in the same sentence?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> What?
> The others too high brow to be associated in the same sentence?



He's a journalist. Hardly someone to quote in support of your argument.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> He's a journalist. Hardly someone to quote in support of your argument.



Lol...ever read his book? Cracking read.

*The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry*


----------



## elbows (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/news/records/2012/May/The-antisocial-brain.aspx
> 
> There you go then..
> Complain about kings college too...



For crying out loud, thats the same article I referenced when I was taking the piss out of the old school 'measure criminals heads' stuff.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

You want scholarly articles??

*Mesolimbic dopamine reward system hypersensitivity in individuals with psychopathic traits*
JW Buckholtz, MT Treadway, RL Cowan… - …*neuroscience*, 2010 - nature.com
*...* Journal name: Nature *Neuroscience* Volume: 13*...* How might mesolimbic DA hyper-reactivity leadto the development of a *psychopathic* personality style? *...* in learning from aversive outcomes 3 ,could lead to the instrumental style of aggression that is common in *psychopaths*. *...


*
*Reduced prefrontal connectivity in psychopathy*
JC Motzkin, JP Newman, KA Kiehl… - … of*Neuroscience*, 2011 - Soc *Neuroscience
...* 4 Departments of Psychology and *Neuroscience*, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico*...* R scores.) Following the convention of previous studies identifying *psychopathic* subtypes (Arnett *...*2004; Hiatt et al., 2004; Koenigs et al., 2010),*psychopaths* were subdivided *...*
Cited by 78 Related articles More


----------



## elbows (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You want scholarly articles??
> 
> *Mesolimbic dopamine reward system hypersensitivity in individuals with psychopathic traits*
> JW Buckholtz, MT Treadway, RL Cowan… - …*neuroscience*, 2010 - nature.com
> *...* Journal name: Nature *Neuroscience* Volume: 13*...* How might mesolimbic DA hyper-reactivity leadto the development of a *psychopathic* personality style? *...* in learning from aversive outcomes 3 ,could lead to the instrumental style of aggression that is common in *psychopaths*. *...*



Call me old fashioned, but I'm not too sure about the audacity of fallypride positron emission tomography. For my tastes the oscelot wombler infragration tubes are a tad too parallel to the parplenet squeegee timber anothrapy module, running the risk of invalidating the hypothesis of the inverse crammel smignets.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

elbows said:


> For crying out loud, thats the same article I referenced when I was taking the piss out of the old school 'measure criminals heads' stuff.



I know...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

elbows said:


> Call me old fashioned, but I'm not too sure about the audacity of fallypride positron emission tomography. For my tastes the oscelot wombler infragration tubes are a tad too parallel to the parplenet squeegee timber anothrapy module, running the risk of invalidating the hypothesis of the inverse crammel smignets.



Lol

Yeah..well that's why they're experts and that's why I said ten pages ago that our opinions are pretty irrelevant


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

*The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex: functional contributions and dysfunction inpsychopathy*
RJR Blair - … Transactions of the Royal Society B: …, 2008 - rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
*...* 3. The cognitive *neuroscience* of *psychopathy*: amygdala and vmPFC dysfunction. *...* Studiesexamining expression processing in both adults with *psychopathy* (Deeley et al. 2006) and children with *psychopathic* traits have shown a reduced differential response within fusiform *...*
Cited by 130 Related articles More


And there are hundreds more...but this one is probably the most relevant. .


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

*Psychopaths know right from wrong but don't care*
M Cima, F Tonnaer, MD Hauser - … affective*neuroscience*, 2010 - scan.oxfordjournals.org
*...* policies of the Ethical Commission of the Faculty of Psychology and *Neuroscience*, MaastrichtUniversity *...* First, like healthy subjects and non-*psychopath* delinquents, *psychopaths* judgedimpersonal moral actions as *...* *Psychopaths* know what is right or wrong, but simply don't care *...*
Cited by 117 Related articles More


Last one.
And I'm off for a while.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Lol...ever read his book? Cracking read.
> 
> *The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry*



Yes.  He's a journo.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Lol...ever read his book? Cracking read.
> 
> *The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry*



You should google some of the criticisms of Ronson's book. They're extensive - extensive enough that he's contemplating inserting an "I'm not an expert" disclaimer in the next edition (and if there is another edition, it'll be larded with corrections from where he misquoted or misrepresented [through his own ignorance] citations he used).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Yes.  He's a journo.



A journo, author and (best for his credibility by a long chalk) former Frank Sidebottom band-member.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

elbows said:


> For crying out loud, thats the same article I referenced when I was taking the piss out of the old school 'measure criminals heads' stuff.



However hard we struggle, we just don't seem to be able to escape Lombroso's heritage of attributing criminal action to simplistic physiological causes, even though we've had over a century of accurately locating such action in social and cognitive causes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You want scholarly articles??
> 
> *Mesolimbic dopamine reward system hypersensitivity in individuals with psychopathic traits*
> JW Buckholtz, MT Treadway, RL Cowan… - …*neuroscience*, 2010 - nature.com
> ...



How many of the articles that you've linked to, have you actually read through and understood?


----------



## andysays (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Lol...ever read his book? Cracking read.
> 
> *The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry*



With a title like that, I'm sure it's a really well researched and sensitive examination of the issues.

I have no idea now how your argument with others began and what point you thought you were making, but I think you may have finally and fatally undermined it here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You want scholarly articles??
> 
> *Mesolimbic dopamine reward system hypersensitivity in individuals with psychopathic traits*
> JW Buckholtz, MT Treadway, RL Cowan… - …*neuroscience*, 2010 - nature.com
> ...


it would be good if you cited scholarly articles you'd actually read. in addition, when articles have received a high number of citations it may be because lots of other people have rubbished them. copying and pasting from either google scholar or a bibliographic database does not mean you are making a case: quite the opposite, in fact.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

elbows said:


> Call me old fashioned, but I'm not too sure about the audacity of fallypride positron emission tomography. For my tastes the oscelot wombler infragration tubes are a tad too parallel to the parplenet squeegee timber anothrapy module, running the risk of invalidating the hypothesis of the inverse crammel smignets.



To be frank, in terms of research into disorders that are associated with violent behaviour, I prefer Scientific American: Mind to Nature: Neuroscience. Neuroscientists too often have only basic psychological knowledge, whereas more psychologists are up-to-date with regard to cognitive and structural neuroscience - psychology as a discipline being an avowed magpie of practices and knowledge from other disciplines - they'll have it away with anything!!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

andysays said:


> With a title like that, I'm sure it's a really well researched and sensitive examination of the issues.
> 
> I have no idea now how your argument with others began and what point you thought you were making, but I think you may have finally and fatally undermined it here.




Lol...that was just whimsy  it is a great book and he does demystify psychiatric units and to an extent shows some of the pomposity behind psychiatry.

As for undermining an argument?
Nah. It's not my argument.  It's a well evolved theory which through modern medical technology and recently researched neuroscientific work shows that a very significant sample of clinically assessed criminal psychopaths have different brain structures to non psychopathic criminals. The other point made by numbers of others is that . some of the research that's ongoing..most of it by neuroscientists .. is that psychopathy is not a mental illness....there's plenty more scholarly research for anyone interested.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Lol...that was just whimsy  it is a great book and he does demystify psychiatric units and to an extent shows some of the pomposity behind psychiatry.
> 
> As for undermining an argument?
> Nah. It's not my argument.  It's a well evolved theory which through modern medical technology and recently researched neuroscientific work shows that a very significant sample of clinically assessed criminal psychopaths have different brain structures to non psychopathic criminals. The other point made by numbers of others is that . some of the research that's ongoing..most of it by neuroscientists .. is that psychopathy is not a mental illness....there's plenty more scholarly research for anyone interested.



Wow, different brain structures. Incredible. You know professional musicians have different brain structures to non musicians?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

http://m.jneurosci.org/content/23/27/9240.full


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it would be good if you cited scholarly articles you'd actually read. in addition, when articles have received a high number of citations it may be because lots of other people have rubbished them. copying and pasting from either google scholar or a bibliographic database does not mean you are making a case: quite the opposite, in fact.



Lol... the arrogance. .
I dont have to make any case .
The research is all there to see...plenty more of it. And it is accepted by not only the neuroscientific community but those in medical psychiatry.
But do go on with the dark age belief that pretends that the personality is not effected by physical differences in the brain....


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Lol... the arrogance. .
> I dont have to make any case .
> The research is all there to see...plenty more of it. And it is accepted by not only the neuroscientific community but those in medical psychistry.
> But do go on with the dark age belief that pretends that the personality is not effected by physical differences in the brain....


the personality is indeed not effected by physical differences in the brain. i don't believe you'll find a scientist alive today who disagrees with the statement that the personality is not effected by physical differences in the brain.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Wow, different brain structures. Incredible. You know professional musicians have different brain structures to non musicians?



Why don't you read the research and learn something? 
A change over time in a musicians brain is not the same thing as brains all having the very same physical characteristics.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the personality is indeed not effected by physical differences in the brain. i don't believe you'll find a scientist alive today who believes the personality is effected by physical differences in the brain.



Clearly you've never met someone who had a brain injury


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Clearly you've never met someone who had a brain injury


do you know what effected means?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Why don't you read the research and learn something?
> A change over time in a musicians brain is not the same thing as brains all having the very same physical characteristics.



There has been research to show that people with a schizophrenia diagnosis have different brain structure.	Does this mean, by your argument, that schizophrenia is not mental illness?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> do you know what effect means?



Yes. ...don't you?
And brain injury can effect a person's personality.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yes. ...don't you?
> And brain injury can effect a person's personality.



affect


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yes. ...don't you?
> And brain injury can effect a person's personality.


so you don't mean affect. the verb effect means to cause. i don't believe you'll find a scientist today who believes that personality is caused by physical differences in the brain.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> There has been research to show that people with a schizophrenia diagnosis have different brain structure.	Does this mean, by your argument, that schizophrenia is not mental illness?



It's not my argument.
The research referred to was carried out on persons described as criminal psychopaths. 
As you well know schizophrenia is a mental illness.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> affect


what, as in bubblesmcgrath affects an intellectual pose?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> affect



No....effect
As in cause change

a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

The brain injury effecting a change in personality. 

Was that not clear?
Or are you two just picking holes for the sake of it..


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> No....effect









why don't you stop digging?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> It's not my argument.
> The research referred to was carried out on persons described as criminal psychopaths.
> As you well know schizophrenia is a mental illness.



You appear to be using the evidence that people with a diagnosis of psychopathy have different brain structures as an argument to support psychopathy not being a mental illness.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> what, as in bubblesmcgrath affects an intellectual pose?



As you're in such a picky little way...
Could you lease start using capital letters?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> As you're in such a picky little way...
> Could you lease start using capital letters?


not for you darling


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> You appear to be using the evidence that people with a diagnosis of psychopathy have different brain structures as an argument to support psychopathy not being a mental illness.



Yet again you think it's my argument. 
Do the research.
Psychopathy is not considered a mental illness. ..


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> No....effect
> As in cause change
> 
> a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.
> ...


A CHANGE in personality? that rumbling you hear is you moving the goalposts.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yet again you think it's my argument.
> Do the research.
> Psychopathy is not considered a mental illness. ..



As I mentioned before - psychopathy isn't even a valid diagnosis.  Its either anti-social personality disorder (DSMV) or dissocial personality disorder (ICD10).


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> As I mentioned before - psychopathy isn't even a valid diagnosis.  Its either anti-social personality disorder (DSMV) or dissocial personality disorder (ICD10).



You do know that neuroscientists have turned that on its head in the past few years and that  psychopathy and sociopathy are terms that are being used ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You do know that neuroscientists have turned that on its head in the past few years and that  psychopathy and sociopathy are terms that are being used ?


ALL neuroscientists or just the ones you like?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...a=X&ei=FihdVI_yIOHY7AaHvoGQBA&ved=0CBgQgQMwAA


Knock yourself out with all of those. ..pages and pages of links to neuroscientific research and psychopathy..clearly the British Journal of Psychiatry and many other authors of scholarly articles in the field didnt get memo about not using the term psychopath


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=psychopathy neuroscience scholarly articles&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=FihdVI_yIOHY7AaHvoGQBA&ved=0CBgQgQMwAA
> 
> 
> Knock yourself out with all of those. ..pages and pages of links to neuroscientific research and psychopathy..clearly the British Journal of Psychiatry and many other authors of scholarly articles in the field didnt get memo about not using the term psychopath


that's a crap search

when you're searching scholar about 99% of the results are books or articles. so putting in 'scholarly articles' makes you look a bit, er, limited. and looking for the words 'scholarly articles' is stupid because so few articles about psychosocial studies, neurology, psychiatry etc include the words 'scholarly articles'. 

in addition, you've included patents, for reasons no doubt best kept to yourself, and you haven't set a date range so the results are from all years. what we're looking for, following on from your claim about changes in terminology, are changes over time.

pisspoor.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> So instead of being picky then...why dont you engage with the scientific and medical research that is ongoing.



Oh, I do. Probably more than you do. It is, after all, an area I'm qualified in.  You appear to mistake plucking a few bits and pieces off of google, and posting links, as engaging with...the research. How much of what you've linked to, have you read and understood.



> Ah but you're missing out on so much by your choice.



Because, of course, you've read the entire corpus (or even a fraction of it) of those authors' work, haven't you?[/QUOTE]


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> that's a crap search
> 
> when you're searching scholar about 95% of the results are books or articles. so putting in 'scholarly articles' makes you look a bit, er, limited.



Couldn't give a toss. ..the first page alone references these

 The British Journal of Psychiatry, 2003 - RCP

Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 2001 

M Cima, F Tonnaer, MD Hauser - … affective*neuroscience*, 2010 - scan.oxfordjournals


KA Miczek, RMM de Almeida, EA Kravitz… - … of*Neuroscience*, 2007 - Soc *Neuroscience*
*
E Bora, M Yucel, NB Allen - Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 2009 - journals.lww.com
*

RJR Blair, DGV Mitchell - Psychological medicine, 2009 - Cambridge Univ Press


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because, of course, you've read the entire corpus (or even a fraction of it) of those authors' work, haven't you?



And you've not?
Goodness I thought you and Pickmans were experts ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Couldn't give a toss. ..the first page alone references these
> 
> The British Journal of Psychiatry, 2003 - RCP
> 
> ...


*what you mean is the first page alone contains those terms. referencing something is citing it, e.g. Youra Madeupname, 'A new neurological condition: the case of bubbles mcgrath', Journal of Something Big & Clever 28(3) (1971), pp. 36-98*


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You do know that neuroscientists have turned that on its head in the past few years and that  psychopathy and sociopathy are terms that are being used ?



No, because that's not true.  Neuroscientists don't diagnose.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=psychopathy neuroscience scholarly articles&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=FihdVI_yIOHY7AaHvoGQBA&ved=0CBgQgQMwAA
> 
> 
> Knock yourself out with all of those. ..pages and pages of links to neuroscientific research and psychopathy..clearly the British Journal of Psychiatry and many other authors of scholarly articles in the field didnt get memo about not using the term psychopath



Its a term that's used, yes.  However it is not an "official" diagnosis.  It is a subtype.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> *what you mean is the first page alone contains those terms. referencing something is citing it, e.g. Youra Madeupname, 'A new neurological condition: the case of bubbles mcgrath', Journal of Something Big & Clever 28(3) (1971), pp. 36-98*




Bless..... awwwww.....


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Couldn't give a toss. ..the first page alone references these
> 
> The British Journal of Psychiatry, 2003 - RCP
> 
> ...



Are you still arguing that differences in brain structure mean something isn't a mental illness?

How are you defining "mental illness"?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> No, because that's not true.  Neuroscientists don't diagnose.




Lol.

You're the only one talking about diagnosing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Wow, different brain structures. Incredible. You know professional musicians have different brain structures to non musicians?



Formula One drivers to other professional drivers...the list is long, even though the research has only really been going for the last 30 years - basically since we've had decent real-time imaging systems. It's not particularly meaningful though, except in those few cases where we have a decently-developed understanding of what the various structures of the brain actually do - an understanding beyond "this crudely maps to that", anyway.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Are you still arguing that differences in brain structure mean something isn't a mental illness?
> 
> How are you defining "mental illness"?





Circle circle going around again.
Read the thread again.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Circle circle going around again.
> Read the thread again.


Stop blagging then


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Circle circle going around again.
> Read the thread again.


= "fuck knows"


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Its a term that's used, yes.  However it is not an "official" diagnosis.  It is a subtype.




Yep...so it's still a term that is used to describe a particular neurologically based disorder. 


Orang Utan said:


> Stop blagging then



Feck off...or post something relevant


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Lol... the arrogance. .
> I dont have to make any case .
> The research is all there to see...plenty more of it. And it is accepted by not only the neuroscientific community but those in medical psychiatry.
> But do go on with the dark age belief that pretends that the personality is not effected by physical differences in the brain....



You'vemade a claim. It *is* incumbent on you to support your claim, and that means in your own words, and with a nuanced argument that doesn't rely on you googling your info and posting links to stuff you haven't read.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Circle circle going around again.
> Read the thread again.



I have no beef with you and i dont intend this to cause any. But you won't get away with constructing arguments on here based on some rapid googling. There's some seriously knowledgable people who post here and their knowledge comes from study.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

I'm off.
Have fun with the neuroscientific links.
They are actually worth reading.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yep...so it's still a term that is used to describe a particular neurologically based disorder.
> 
> 
> Feck off...or post something relevant



"neurologically based"?


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Are you still arguing that differences in brain structure mean something isn't a mental illness?



She means that some people are born bad.

Interesting stuff.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Lol.
> 
> You're the only one talking about diagnosing.



You do understand why, right?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I have no beef with you and i dont intend this to cause any. But you won't get away with constructing arguments on here based on some rapid googling. There's some seriously knowledgable people who post here and their knowledge comes from study.




Then they should read the links about the research into neuroscientific mapping of the brain.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> She means that some people are born bad.
> 
> Interesting stuff.



Innit doe


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Then they should read the links about the research into neuroscientific mapping of the brain.



What makes you think we haven't?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yep...so it's still a term that is used to describe a particular neurologically based disorder.
> 
> 
> Feck off...or post something relevant


It is relevant. I don't know why you do it but you constantly stink up and derail threads with this shit.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> What makes you think we haven't?



Because then we too would think they is born bad.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> What makes you think we haven't?



Because if you had your posts would have reflected a knowledge of the latest research.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Because if you had your posts would have reflected a knowledge of the latest research.



You think doing a google search gives you access to the latest research?  And that the "latest research" all agrees with each other?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Then they should read the links about the research into neuroscientific mapping of the brain.



Im sure they will. I'm just pointing out that there's academics on here; it's not always just people playing internets (unlike me lol).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> There has been research to show that people with a schizophrenia diagnosis have different brain structure.	Does this mean, by your argument, that schizophrenia is not mental illness?



Also, cart or horse?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Because if you had your posts would have reflected a knowledge of the latest research.


you wouldn't know how to find the latest research.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Never mind...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yet again you think it's my argument.
> Do the research.
> Psychopathy is not considered a mental illness. ..



We're all well aware of that. Where we differ is what "psychopathy is not a mental illness" actually means.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> And you've not?
> Goodness I thought you and Pickmans were experts ...



I haven't claimed to, and compared to you and your bad google habit, Animal from The Muppets is an expert.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Lol

Well I've a feeling I'm not the only one who uses google..


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Lol
> 
> Well I've a feeling I'm not the only one who uses google..


yeh but you don't know how to use it

no one's said you are the only person to use google. so nice try at setting up a strawman.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

I use it. It's better than ask jeeves.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> "neurologically based"?



Which simply means "based in the neural system", which is pretty meaningless in its' generality, isn't it?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> We're all well aware of that. Where we differ is what "psychopathy is not a mental illness" actually means.



I think you've gone into that.  I don't need to repeat it surely?



ViolentPanda said:


> Which simply means "based in the neural system", which is pretty meaningless in its' generality, isn't it?



Take it up with the BJP ...


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Also, cart or horse?



Well, quite.  "Latest research" shows how brain structure is affected by environment, especially relationships (or lack of them) in infancy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> She means that some people are born bad.
> 
> Interesting stuff.



"Born bad". 
The last article I read along those lines was written by a religious type who was also a "right realist" criminologist who *really* rated Charles Murray.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Well, quite.  "Latest research" shows how brain structure is affected by environment, especially relationships (or lack of them) in infancy.



And brain structure at birth can also impact on many different areas of development


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Lol
> 
> Well I've a feeling I'm not the only one who uses google..



Everyone uses Google.  I also use my NHS athens access, which gives me access to NICE HDAS.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> And brain structure at birth can also impact on many different areas of development



What should we do with these born bad people? What if they grow born bad children?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> And brain structure at birth can also impact on many different areas of development



Indeed.  Brain structure at birth can be influenced by what happened in the womb  Interestingly, one of the people you mentioned earlier (Fallon) states that its environment that is the main determining factor in someone's life.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 7, 2014)

I use the library. Well, until it closed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> What makes you think we haven't?



I read and assessed over a dozen papers on neural mapping 3-4 years ago (for my MSc). The thing they all had in common was that they acknowledged the degree to which any conclusions were contingent, mostly on the fact that our understanding of the *nuance* of a particular input mapping to a particular area was still poor, so there were a lot of "ifs" and "buts" to each paper. We know enough to make surgical interventions such as what is done with tremors in Parkinson's disease, but that's only enough so that we know to stick an electrode in a general area.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Because then we too would think they is born bad.



Any fule kno only blues singers is born bad, and that's only 'cos their daddies used black cat bones, a hand of glory and John the Conqueror root as contraceptives.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Because if you had your posts would have reflected a knowledge of the latest research.



Like your posts do, you mean?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> You think doing a google search gives you access to the latest research?  And that the "latest research" all agrees with each other?



Who know, bubbles *may* have an ATHENS account or similar (although if bubbles does, then their _search fu_ is pretty lousy).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you wouldn't know how to find the latest research.



Both hands and a flashlight?


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 7, 2014)

You can look at a portrait and describe it in every which way, the shape, colour, shading and suchlike right down to scientific analysis of the paint, canvas and whatnot but this information will never tell you the full story about the image, the expression or the character of the subject. And thank fuck for that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Lol
> 
> Well I've a feeling I'm not the only one who uses google..



I'd *never* use Google for academic research. It's far too clunky. I use, as I have for the past 15 years, an ATHENS account. That way you can target what you're searching for with much greater ease and finesse.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> What should we do with these born bad people? What if they grow born bad children?



How about encouraging them to become a hereditary caste of Satan-worshipping blues musicians?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Nov 7, 2014)

Is Will Cornick a psychopath? 
Maybe the diabetes diagnosis just came at the wrong time and messed with his head during a crucial stage of his development. The prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed at that age, and his diabetes diagnosis could have had a profound effect on him. It may well be the case that in a few years time, when his brain has fully developed, he realises the error of his ways and is truly repentant for his actions. He will still has to finish his sentence, but should a minimum sentence be imposed on children, considering they're not mentally mature, and arguably not sufficiently mature to be fully accountable for their actions?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Indeed.  Brain structure at birth can be influenced by what happened in the womb  Interestingly, one of the people you mentioned earlier (Fallon) states that its environment that is the main determining factor in someone's life.



Yes and he cites the love he received during his childhood as a factor in his development. ..he also recognises his own psychopathy and controls aspects of it.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yes and he cites the love he received during his childhood as a factor in his development. ..he also recognises his own psychopathy and controls aspects of it.



If he is functional, happy and not in distress, not causing distress to others, can he be called a psychopath?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> If he is functional, happy and not in distress, not causing distress to others, can he be called a psychopath?



He calls himself one so maybe you should ask him...


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> He calls himself one so maybe you should ask him...



From the ICD10


F60 SPECIFIC PERSONALITY DISORDERS

G1. Evidence that the individual's characteristic and enduring patterns of inner experience and behaviour 
deviate markedly as a whole from the culturally expected and accepted range (or 'norm'). Such deviation 
must be manifest in more than one of the following areas: 

(1) cognition (i.e. ways of perceiving and interpreting things, people and events; forming attitudes and images 
of self and others); 

(2) affectivity (range, intensity and appropriateness of emotional arousaland response); 

(3) control over impulses and need gratification; 

(4) relating to others and manner of handling interpersonal situations. 

G2. The deviation must manifest itself pervasively as behaviour that is inflexible, maladaptive, or otherwise 
dysfunctional across a broad range of personal and social situations (i.e. not being limited to one specific 
'triggering' stimulus or situation). 

G3. There is personal distress, or adverse impact on the social environment, or both, clearly attributable to the 
behaviour referred to under G2. 

G4. There must be evidence that the deviation is stable and of long duration, having its onset in late childhood 
or adolescence. 

G5. The deviation cannot be explained as a manifestation or consequence of other adult mental disorders, 
although episodic or chronic conditions from sections F0 to F7 of this classification may co-exist, or be 

F60.2 Dissocial personality disorder 
A. The general criteria of personality disorder (F60) must be met. 
B. At least three of the following must be present: 

(1) Callous unconcern for the feelings of others. 

(2) Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations. 

(3) Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty to establish them. 
(4) Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence. 

(5) Incapacity to experience guilt, or to profit from adverse experience, particularly punishment. 

(6) Marked proneness to blame others, or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behaviour bringing the 
subject into conflict with society.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd *never* use Google for academic research. It's far too clunky. I use, as I have for the past 15 years, an ATHENS account. That way you can target what you're searching for with much greater ease and finesse.


google's very useful for academic research if you know what makes a reputable source, if you know how to search and if you use the advanced operators.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/

Have a look at what he says himself


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/
> 
> Have a look at what he says himself



Irrelevant.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yes and he cites the love he received during his childhood as a factor in his development. ..he also recognises his own psychopathy and controls aspects of it.



That's twice you've said you're off! Three strikes and you're out!


----------



## Part 2 (Nov 7, 2014)

I'm a psychopath too.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/
> 
> Have a look at what he says himself



He also doesn't call himself a psychopath either.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 7, 2014)

Chip Barm said:


> I'm a psychopath too.



Well I am not a psychopath and if I have to say this one more fucking time I swear I'm gonna plunge every fucking one of ye. Gospel.


----------



## Part 2 (Nov 7, 2014)

Proper mad me mate


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2014)

I'm a psychopath and so's my wife.
Will Cornick's not a psychopath, he's a very naughty boy


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 7, 2014)

Chip Barm said:


> Proper mad me mate



No need to lower the tone though but can't be helped you were born that way. Don't beat yourself up or anyone else.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Irrelevant.



So are you dismissing James Fallon or his work?


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 7, 2014)

This won't end well but then it never does.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> So are you dismissing James Fallon or his work?



I'm pointing out that it's irrelevant whether he calls himself a psychopath or not.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> He also doesn't call himself a psychopath either.



Read his book...The Psychopath Inside


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> I'm pointing out that it's irrelevant whether he calls himself a psychopath or not.



I don't find it irrelevant. 
Why do you think so?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I don't find it irrelevant.
> Why do you think so?



Does he fit the diagnostic criteria?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Does he fit the diagnostic criteria?



According to him he does..
Did you not read the interview with him?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> According to him he does..
> Did you not read the interview with him?



So he fits the ICD10 diagnostic criteria I posted earlier?  Yet he has a succesful career, relationships etc?


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Does he fit the diagnostic criteria?



I saw him on the telly and he has a flashing brain.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I don't find it irrelevant.
> Why do you think so?


i could call myself the great calloo but it doesn't mean i am the great calloo


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 7, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> So he fits the ICD10 diagnostic criteria I posted earlier?  Yet he has a succesful career, relationships etc?



According to him he does but he's clear that he recognises his psychopathy as pro-social ... and describes how he manages his own behaviour.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> According to him he does but he's clear that he recognises his psychopathy as pro-social ... and describes how he manages his own behaviour.



You didn't read the ICD10 criteria did you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> According to him he does but he's clear that he recognises his psychopathy as pro-social ... and describes how he manages his own behaviour.


wouldn't that be the best way for someone who knows they are in fact an anti-social psychopath to disguise themselves, to proclaim themselves pro-social, as you put it, to avoid suspicion.


----------



## Ming (Nov 8, 2014)

I think it depends on being 'diagnosed'. I've been an RPN/RMN for over 10 years. Nursed all sorts. Depends on whether you believe in free will or not i think (I don't). I believe we're like any type of biological organism. Depends on the seed, soil and the weather how you turn out (and the trees around you also).


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Thing is, we don't know what happened to this boy, how or why he is how he is, or why he did what he did. We don't know.



looks clear he derived a great deal of satisfaction from it ,so it looks like he did it primarily to enjoy himself. There no evidence of any schizophrenia so it was  a conscious decision 

an evil little cunt is all


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 8, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> looks clear he derived a great deal of satisfaction from it ,so it looks like he did it primarily to enjoy himself. There no evidence of any schizophrenia so it was  a conscious decision
> 
> an evil little cunt is all



Hark at the mental health expert


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> looks clear he derived a great deal of satisfaction from it ,so it looks like he did it primarily to enjoy himself. There no evidence of any schizophrenia so it was  a conscious decision
> 
> an evil little cunt is all


Jeez, you are an objectionable so and so. Evil for fuck's sake.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

He has a goat's head and sings backwards on hard rock albums.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 8, 2014)

Nobody here is qualified to assess or diagnose this youth. 
So everyone's opinion is as worthless as everyone else's. 

The people I feel for are the victim, her family and the murderer's fellow students. Their lives have been altered  significantly by the actions of this person...and I've no doubt that they will need a great deal of help to try to cope with what they have witnessed and experienced. I cant but think about them....and MrsMcGuire....what must she have felt as she lay there dying.. knowing she would not see her husband or family again...and for what? 61 years of age..2/3 of her life given to educating young people. .on the verge of retiring to live the rest of her life with her husband..

I feel for her and her family. 
And those pupils...some of whom must surely be feeling extremely sad and possibly guilty too. 

The damage one individual can do.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Jeez, you are an objectionable so and so. Evil for fuck's sake.



missed your objection to the term on the Ian Watkins and Jimmy saville threads. Dont see how this self gratifying and remorseless little predator is being any more oppressed than his contemporaries at being described as such when he indulged his own _megalols_ . Perhaps you and your clever trevor chums should toddle off to those threads and give  people a ticking off there for not being more understanding  before attempting to lecture myself in this instance . Otherwise you might look hypocritical...stupid even .


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2014)

I think you'll find plenty of posts on those threads attempting to figure out what led them to carry out those despicable acts, rather than dismissing them as evil and leaving it there, which is what you seem to be doing


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> He s a goat's head and sings backwards on hard rock albums.



no he stabs defenceless women to death for sick gratification and notoriety among his peers, whom he regularly boasted to . and even winked at prior to the act .

Hes  as clinically sane  calculating and remorseless as  Anders Breivik and with an evil streak just as wide .


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 8, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> no he stabs defenceless women to death for sick gratification and notoriety among his peers, whom he regularly boasted to . and even winked at prior to the act .
> 
> Hes  as clinically sane  calculating and remorseless as  Anders Breivik and with an evil streak just as wide .



"clinically sane"?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I think you'll find plenty of posts on those threads attempting to figure out what led them to carry out those despicable acts, rather than dismissing them as evil and leaving it there, which is what you seem to be doing



Calling something evil is describing it, not dismissing it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> Calling something evil is describing it, not dismissing it.


Calling an act evil is describing is but calling a person evil is dismissing it


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Calling an act evil is describing is but calling a person evil is dismissing it



Dismissing the act or the person (bit confused by the 'it' there)?

Calling a person evil is a clear way of designating them as out of the group, or "not like us".


----------



## andysays (Nov 8, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> looks clear he derived a great deal of satisfaction from it ,so it looks like he did it primarily to enjoy himself. There no evidence of any schizophrenia so it was  a conscious decision
> 
> an evil little cunt is all



Just when I thought the level of debate couldn't sink any lower.

So what do you recommend, exorcism or burning at the stake?


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> Just when I thought the level of debate couldn't sink any lower.
> 
> So what do you recommend, exorcism or burning at the stake?



reommend to do what exactly 

hes been  jailed . and unless some do gooder comes along and gets him out he wont get the opportunity to prey on the public again for  some time to come


----------



## andysays (Nov 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> Dismissing the act or the person (bit confused by the 'it' there)?
> 
> Calling a person evil is a clear way of designating them as out of the group, or "not like us".



I think in this case, CR's use of the word evil is intended to dismiss the act, the person, and everyone else attempting to discuss the two of those even half way reasonably. The level of contempt he has for anyone who doesn't agree with his archaic fire and brimstone moralising is pretty clear.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> I think in this case, CR's use of the word evil is intended to dismiss the act, the person, and everyone else attempting to discuss the two of those even half way reasonably. The level of contempt he has for anyone who doesn't agree with his archaic fire and brimstone moralising is pretty clear.



Calling someone an 'evil little cunt' for killing someone for kicks seems pretty mild by Urban standards.
People get called worse round these parts for their choice of brand of muesli.


----------



## andysays (Nov 8, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> reommend to do what exactly
> 
> hes been  jailed . and unless some do gooder comes along and gets him out he wont get the opportunity to prey on the public again for  some time to come



But that's exactly what all of us do-gooders who don't share your knee jerk diagnosis of evil are going to do - we want nothing more than to free him and enable him to resume his reign of satanic terror.

Quick, get a priest to exorcise the devil out of him now before we make sure this evil is let loose among us all. Kill it with fire before it's too late!!!1!


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> Dismissing the act or the person (bit confused by the 'it' there)?
> 
> Calling a person evil is a clear way of designating them as out of the group, or "not like us".



and expressing strong disapproval for not only the action but the type of moral character that derived gratification, satisfaction and self fulfilling notoriety from it .

i thought much the same about Anne Widdicome when she was publicly revelling in chaining pregnant shoplifters to hospital beds . satisfying her self empowerment nd deire for cruelty toward the defenceless she had an irrational hatred for  and the notoriety among her peers her actions got her . sheer evil .


----------



## andysays (Nov 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> Calling someone an 'evil little cunt' for killing someone for kicks seems pretty mild by Urban standards.
> People get called worse round these parts for their choice of brand of muesli.



If it was more or less anyone else, and they were simply calling someone an evil little cunt as a one-off, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But given the particular poster and the overall context, it seems to me that his main aim is to attack all of us here whose views he attempts to parody here


Casually Red said:


> missed your objection to the term on the Ian Watkins and Jimmy saville threads. Dont see how this self gratifying and remorseless little predator is being any more oppressed than his contemporaries at being described as such when he indulged his own _megalols_ . Perhaps you and your clever trevor chums should toddle off to those threads and give  people a ticking off there for not being more understanding  before attempting to lecture myself in this instance . Otherwise you might look hypocritical...stupid even .



And see numerous other examples on other threads seemingly whenever he posts...


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> Calling someone an 'evil little cunt' for killing someone for kicks seems pretty mild by Urban standards.
> People get called worse round these parts for their choice of brand of muesli.



But if he acted the way he did because he is 'evil' then it's debate over, isn't it? It's for God and Jesus to sort out with no understanding required on our part.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> But if he acted the way he did because he is 'evil' then it's debate over, isn't it? It's for God and Jesus to sort out with no understanding required on our part.


it's wicked to mock the afflicted


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> But if he acted the way he did because he is 'evil' then it's debate over, isn't it? It's for God and Jesus to sort out with no understanding required on our part.



There seem to be a lot of people interested in understanding why people do abhorrent things, but yes, the term can be employed in that way.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it's wicked to mock the afflicted



But are the wicked and the afflicted one and the same?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

And wicked in a Mr C sense?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> reommend to do what exactly
> 
> hes been  jailed . and unless some do gooder comes along and gets him out he wont get the opportunity to prey on the public again for  some time to come


Do-gooder as a pejorative. Such a weird thing to say.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Do-gooder as a pejorative. Such a weird thing to say.


do-gooder is always a pejorative


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 8, 2014)

I wonder how the husband and family will cope and be helped to cope? What supports will be in place for them?
Will the students who had to witness the murder of their teacher, be given ongoing help and counselling? When they realise that they had opportunities to stop him....what then? Who will be there to pick up the pieces of their lives?

The focus is on the murderer and what led him to do this. ..what thoughts were in his head.. ....the media like to focus on him...
Perhaps all of this infamy is partly what he wanted...

Personally, my thoughts are with his victim(s)


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> do-gooder is always a pejorative


It is, yes. Bizarre though.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> I think in this case, CR's use of the word evil is intended to dismiss the act, the person, and everyone else attempting to discuss the two of those even half way reasonably. The level of contempt he has for anyone who doesn't agree with his archaic fire and brimstone moralising is pretty clear.



no...its something called my fucking opinion you jumped up twat . absolutely nowhere did i contradict or attack anyone elses .Ive condemned both the heinous act and the perpetrator in the strongest possible terms and the only contempt and dismissal here is coming from yourself and others towards myself for daring to suggest the most basic morality plays  role in how people should assess the actions of this predator and our human reactions to him.

im not preventing anyone from discussing this in clinical terms but hes  a human being and not a lab rat or  computer to be programmed . We are the same species  .Not everyone approaches this like its  a sterile homework exercise and opportunity to Quote textbooks, an innocent woman was deliberately persued, hunted down and butchered to death for fun. was there any evidence of schizophrenia or delusion id have  a completely different reaction but theres none . Expressing revulsion at a deed like this is what actual humans do . Normal ones anyway .

Evil little shits like this one, saville, Breivik ,Fritzl, Detroux, Watkins and Widdicome do actually make normal human beings a bit angry and disgusted. Theyve committed serious injustice against others and deserve to be morally shunned and cast out as part of their punishment in order to reinforce an alternative set of values were predatory behavior and total lack of empathy are completely heinous .  That human reaction is where the term boycott originated from.  a moral reaction to the evil predators among us .

On one level i can understand this type of chilling callousness in an everyday setting scares people so they try to seek solace in finding a rational scientific explanation for something going badly wrong . The world appears safer then if an answer and  remedy can be found . suspect in this case though the hysterically angry reaction to any moral aspect to this crime is the usual libertarian aversion to the concept of morality being a societal bond and there actually being such  thing as _we _. always lurking under the surface, scratching away to get out . and refusal to accept there are  rational sane people among us who simply like and prefer _the dark side_ and will indulge their depraved whims regardless .  and are prepared to pay the price for indulging those desires because self importance and self fulfilment trumps all . some people just get off on cruelty..its their bag and i dont think theres any scientific cure for it .


----------



## andysays (Nov 8, 2014)




----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2014)

andysays said:


>


i'll see your matthew hopkins and raise you bernardo gui


----------



## JimW (Nov 8, 2014)

Do you reckon "Vinegar Tom" got a lot of strokes?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2014)

JimW said:


> Do you reckon "Vinegar Tom" got a lot of strokes?


only towards the end of the evening.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> But if he acted the way he did because he is 'evil' then it's debate over, isn't it? It's for God and Jesus to sort out with no understanding required on our part.



hes been sorted out already by a judge and jury. What is it you think we can do for him ? and whats to debate now hes been sent down? . If anyone can post evidence of an underlying delusion or condition that means he wasnt mentally responsible for his own action ill happily reconsider my attitude to him, what he did and why .

personally i dont think theres any happy ending here except for himself...he did what he truly wanted to do to satisfy his own warped desires.hes the only happy one and the world sucks like that. Evil can be Quite banal . Proven time and again by history including recent .Thats my understanding of it .


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> hes been sorted out already by a judge and jury. What is it you think we can do for him ? and whats to debate now hes been sent down? . If anyone can post evidence of an underlying delusion or condition that means he wasnt mentally responsible for his own action ill happily reconsider my attitude to him, what he did and why .
> 
> personally i dont think theres any happy ending here except for himself...he did what he truly wanted to do to satisfy his own warped desires.hes the only happy one and the world sucks like that. Evil can be Quite banal . Proven time and again by history including recent .Thats my understanding of it .



Good and evil is a religious construct. Which often characterises villains as good upstanding members of the community because they go to church and people with a social conscience as the sinners. You're free to walk away rubbing your rosary beads and saying your hail marys if you so wish but for the rest of us interested in discussion, and that's the purpose of this forum if im remembering rightly, then It's interesting to explore the broader picture regarding crimes such as this one.

I didn't suggest that what we talk about would have any effect on his fate so you can stick that straw man up your jacksy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> It is, yes. Bizarre though.


i hope you don't consider yourself a do-gooder.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

Do-gooder generally means doing something terribly humanitarian for someone considered worse than dog shit. Which now apparently encompasses discussing them on the internet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Do-gooder generally means doing something terribly humanitarian for someone considered worse than dog shit. Which now apparently encompasses discussing them on the internet.


do-gooder: a well-meaning but unrealistic or interfering philanthropist or reformer


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 8, 2014)

cf. fabian


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> do-gooder: a well-meaning but unrealistic or interfering philanthropist or reformer



Interfering and unrealistic to who though? One man's do-gooder is another man's fairly commendable if slightly annoying liberal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> cf. fabian


what, psychogeographical fabian?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Interfering and unrealistic to who though? One man's do-gooder is another man's fairly commendable if slightly annoying liberal.


do-gooders don't do good for women then


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Good and evil is a religious construct. Which often characterises villains as good upstanding members of the community because they go to church and people with a social conscience as the sinners. You're free to walk away rubbing your rosary beads and saying your hail marys if you so wish but for the rest of us interested in discussion, and that's the purpose of this forum if im remembering rightly, then It's interesting to explore the broader picture regarding crimes such as this one.
> 
> I didn't suggest that what we talk about would have any effect on his fate so you can stick that straw man up your jacksy.



what a load of utter shit thats got absolutely fuck all to do with anything i said..... cliched infantile shit at that. evil simply mean deriving benefit and  or enjoyment from extreme deliberate badness and cruelty. Morality determine whats good and bad . whether ones an theist or  Muslim . Why you anarchist aresholes are dragging religion into it is anyone guess . Strawmen nd pointscoring .

Nazis werent evil ...Nazism int an evil philosophy . Auschwitz want evil . Hannah rendt was talking utter bollocks..religious mumbo jumbo ??. Rosary beads and prayer mats ???

fuck off


----------



## cesare (Nov 8, 2014)

I do see where CR is coming from with his comparison to Anders Breivik etc ( although that throwing in of eg Widdecombe just reduces the argument to hyperbolic ranting).  As well to find out now before he went on to bigger and worse things. Is he rehabilitable though, that's the thing.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> rubbing your rosary beads and saying your hail marys .



seriously ...away and fuck yourself


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> I do see where CR is coming from with his comparison to Anders Breivik etc ( although that throwing in of eg Widdecombe just reduces the argument to hyperolic ranting).  As well to find out now before he went on to bigger and worse things. Is he rehabilitable though, that's the thing.




what widdicombe did to those women  and the pleasure she plainly derived from forcing women in actual childbirth to be manacled is genuine evil in my book ... deliberate act of hatred ,cruelty and probable envy that went beyond mere wrong and nasty and the usual not caring. As a mentality i found it genuinely  chilling ...chills and repulses me . But maybe thats just me .


----------



## cesare (Nov 8, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> what widdicombe did to those women  and the pleasure she plainly derived from forcing women in actual childbirth to be manacled is genuine evil in my book ... deliberate act of hatred ,cruelty and probable envy that went beyond mere wrong and nasty and the usual not caring. As a mentality i found it genuinely  chilling ...chills and repulses me . But maybe thats just me .


Shall we flip a coin, heads derail into widdecombe tails stay on topic? Bloody annoying that you always always always focus on where people disagree with a part of what you say and the thread goes to shit from there. Effectively means that people can't even generally agree with you with a quantifier - you'll hit on the quantifier thus ensuring people won't disagree with you if they want the larger discussion to carry on.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> seriously ...away and fuck yourself



Well use less infantile words then.

Reading 'evil' and 'do-gooder' in the same paragraph means i may aswell be reading some of murdoch's shite.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> Shall we flip a coin, heads derail into widdecombe tails stay on topic? Bloody annoying that you always always always focus on where people disagree with a part of what you say and the thread goes to shit from there. Effectively means that people can't even generally agree with you with a quantifier - you'll hit on the quantifier thus ensuring people won't disagree with you if they want the larger discussion to carry on.




then dont flipping drag it up to give out about it and then accuse me of derailing because i replied to your giving out

jesus h christ on  bike. Like Kafkas feckin trial this place


----------



## cesare (Nov 8, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> then dont flipping drag it up to give out about it and then accuse me of derailing because i replied to your giving out
> 
> jesus h christ on  bike. Like Kafkas feckin trial this place


I disagree with you on one part of a post you made but agreed with the rest. You're more concerned with where I disagree than agree. Now you call it Kafka's Trial. You're behaving like a thwarted toddler.


----------



## rioted (Nov 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> I disagree with you on one part of a post you made but agreed with the rest. You're more concerned with where I disagree than agree. Now you call it Kafka's Trial. You're behaving like a thwarted toddler.


TBF I don't think a toddler would have heard of Kafka. Or his trial.


----------



## cesare (Nov 8, 2014)

rioted said:


> TBF I don't think a toddler would have heard of Kafka. Or his trial.


Kevin the teenager then. Not sure Kevin ever referenced his "so unfair" teenage trial to Kafka either though


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2014)

rioted said:


> TBF I don't think a toddler would have heard of Kafka. Or his trial.


they have down our way


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> I disagree with you on one part of a post you made but agreed with the rest. You're more concerned with where I disagree than agree. Now you call it Kafka's Trial. You're behaving like a thwarted toddler.



because of specifically why you disagreed i felt it necessary to clarify my attitude towards that persons record of cruelty and inhumanity ...for the sake of clarity alone . You dont feel quite as strongly about it as i do ...fine. But for me that act was  particularly heinous and burned into my memory . For me it stands out above others and i regard the person responsible  as cut from the same evil cloth as  various other monsters.

your behaving like  a crotchety old Victorian spinster who cant brook being answered back

no offence


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

For someone who glorifies and relishes the actions of cunts like Gaddafi and the Argentinian Junta you're proper uptight when the proles dare to get up to similar shit, eh, CR?


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

for an anarchist or whatever youre proper uptight when it comes to  the few occasions johnny foreigner has dared stand up to good old blighty and all its innate moral superiority. poppy season i suppose

and if youre really determined to go on  this utterly wild derail after loftily accusing me of derailing you should really be chucking in  Putin  too . Do it right you big skipping rope


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> for an anarchist or whatever youre proper uptight when it comes to  the few occasions johnny foreigner has dared stand up to good old blighty and all its innate moral superiority. poppy season i suppose



Link?


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

your fucking post mate ..the one i was just laughing at


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

If Will Cornick had been a Gaddafi henchman and Ann Maguire from one of the provinces creating the regime a spot of bother CR would have been the first on the streets waving his flag as the tanks rolled past to correct this transgression against hierarchy whatever the horror that unfolded.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> your fucking post mate ..the one i was just laughing at



The link to the claims you just made?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

Okay, i get it.

You've deluded yourself into thinking that the reason why i think Gaddafi and the Argentinian Junta are cunts is because they were horrid anti imperialists rather than the fact they were shitbags to their own people.

I'm anti imperialist too btw. But I don't jump into bed with everyone else wearing the same badge unless I check behind their foreskin first, unlike you it seems.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> If Will Cornick had been a Gaddafi henchman and Ann Maguire from one of the provinces creating the regime a spot of bother CR would have been the first on the streets waving his flag as the tanks rolled past to correct this transgression against hierarchy whatever the horror that unfolded.



if your aunty had massive big hairy balls shed be be what ?



 the hairy bollocked uncle of a derailing bastard is what


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

She'd be killing the babies of lefties but it'd be okay on the grounds that she didn't like hitler and the queen.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> As well to find out now before he went on to bigger and worse things. Is he rehabilitable though, that's the thing.



Seriously? 
Murdering his teacher wasn't big enough for you?

I wonder at the damage his actions have caused to those pupils who witnessed him murdering their teacher?
I wonder how they will be helped?
Do you think they will get over it?
Do you think the murdered woman's husband will get over how his wife was stabbed to death?
Or her daughter. ..who doesn't have her mother to talk to and confide in anymore? 

This guy is inside for the next 20 years and only those working with him will be able to answer you question. 
How the fuck would anyone else know if he can be rehabilitated?  Do you think they have specific classes in how to be?  He presented as completely normal until he wasn't....he's already mastered normal.....


----------



## xenon (Nov 8, 2014)

Zzzz wankers


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> He has a goat's head and sings backwards on hard rock albums.



You mean he's Cliff Richard?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> He presented as completely normal until he wasn't....he's already mastered normal.....


doing better than you then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2014)

8ball said:


> Calling someone an 'evil little cunt' for killing someone for kicks seems pretty mild by Urban standards.
> People get called worse round these parts for their choice of brand of muesli.



Fuck you, you Satanic Alpen-munching sack of cat-shit!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2014)

andysays said:


> But that's exactly what all of us do-gooders who don't share your knee jerk diagnosis of evil are going to do - we want nothing more than to free him and enable him to resume his reign of satanic terror.
> 
> Quick, get a priest to exorcise the devil out of him now before we make sure this evil is let loose among us all. Kill it with fire before it's too late!!!1!



And there's the rub with tossing around words like "evil". To some people this absolves the person in respect of responsibility - they couldn't help it, 'twas evil possessing them, your honour! - and sets the crime's attribution somewhere in the metaphysical realm, rather than where it truly lies - the ordered or disordered psyche of the person who committed the crime.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> and expressing strong disapproval for not only the action but the type of moral character that derived gratification, satisfaction and self fulfilling notoriety from it .
> 
> i thought much the same about Anne Widdicome when she was publicly revelling in chaining pregnant shoplifters to hospital beds . satisfying her self empowerment nd deire for cruelty toward the defenceless she had an irrational hatred for  and the notoriety among her peers her actions got her . sheer evil .



Just to make it clear (as Casually Red has not) that Doris Karloff didn't *legislate* the manacling of pregnant prisoners, she used extant legislation after several inmates at Holloway and Styal absconded during pre-natal hospital visits.  The woman may have been/be evil, but any approbation she got for the actions mentioned above were to do with extant legislation, not with anything she (a fairly ineffectual prisons minister who was seen as a comic turn by her civil servants - wind her up and watch her spout hang 'em and flog 'em sentiments) enacted or enabled.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 9, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/will-cornick-sentence-defies-logic?CMP=fb_gu


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> But if he acted the way he did because he is 'evil' then it's debate over, isn't it? It's for God and Jesus to sort out with no understanding required on our part.



Quite.
Fuck that for a laugh, though. The logical outcome of that is having a bunch of G-d-botherers mediating whether or not someone is "evil", and deciding the outcome in _lieu_ of the participation of the Sky Pixies. Or, "return to the supremacy of canon law", basically.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Good and evil is a religious construct.



A *moral* construct, and not a static moral construct either, as "good" and "evil" are relative to the wider context of "good" and "evil" acts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2014)

cesare said:


> I do see where CR is coming from with his comparison to Anders Breivik etc ( although that throwing in of eg Widdecombe just reduces the argument to hyperbolic ranting).  As well to find out now before he went on to bigger and worse things. Is he rehabilitable though, that's the thing.



I'm not convinced that Casually Red gives even an atom of a shit about rehabilitation. He's more into retribution.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 9, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/will-cornick-sentence-defies-logic?CMP=fb_gu



theres the do gooder issue cleared up anyway


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> cf. fabian



cf. articul8 .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/will-cornick-sentence-defies-logic?CMP=fb_gu



Orr misses the point that Cornick's sentence can be appealed at a future date, if Cornick so wishes.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 9, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/will-cornick-sentence-defies-logic?CMP=fb_gu




Orr questions the murderer's sentence on the grounds that in her opinion it is illogical. .... yet she only glances at the murder itself which was completely at odds with any sense of logical norms.
The victim gets little mention...

Interestingly the comments below the article don't reflect agreement with her opinion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Orr questions the murderer's sentence on the grounds that in her opinion it is illogical. .... yet she only glances at the murder itself which was completely at odds with any sense of logical norms.


are you saying that you're happy with illogical sentencing as long as you don't understand the reasoning behind the original incident?

and as for the original incident being at odds with any sense of logical norms, don't you think you're exaggerating somewhat?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Orr questions the murderer's sentence on the grounds that in her opinion it is illogical. .... yet she only glances at the murder itself which was completely at odds with any sense of logical norms.
> The victim gets little mention...
> 
> Interestingly the comments below the article don't reflect agreement with her opinion.


Typically asinine observation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Typically asinine observation.


i've always found asses and donkeys to have more good sense than bubblesmcgrath.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> are you saying that you're happy with illogical sentencing as long as you don't understand the reasoning behind the original incident?
> 
> and as for the original incident being at odds with any sense of logical norms, don't you think you're exaggerating somewhat?



Keep it up...
You're doing a great job looking like a tit


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 9, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Typically asinine observation.



Anything else you want to say?
Hmmm?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Keep it up...
> You're doing a great job looking like a tit


so you ARE happy with illogical sentencing as long as you can't understand the reasoning behind the original incident.

ta for clearing that up.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Anything else you want to say?
> Hmmm?


Not really. Not worth bothering.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so you ARE happy with illogical sentencing as long as you can't understand the reasoning behind the original incident.
> 
> ta for clearing that up.




See post #788


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> See post #788


come now that's raising your posting standard beyond a level you can maintain


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 9, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> And there's the rub with tossing around words like "evil". To some people this absolves the person in respect of responsibility - they couldn't help it, 'twas evil possessing them, your honour! - and sets the crime's attribution somewhere in the metaphysical realm, rather than where it truly lies - the ordered or disordered psyche of the person who committed the crime.



so all those books and documentaries bout Nazism..Stalin...all were actually hinting at demonic possession when using the term evil and actually absolving them of reponsibility for their crimes ...fuckin hell .Bizarre that..surprised ive never herd this accusation before to those descriptions.

Ive always  understood the term to mean nothing more in everyday language than extremely nasty unpleasant and hateful ...used to describe everything from a murderous philosophy to the stench from  blocked drain. Ive never once heard of a demonic possession defence made in court ever...except maybe in a Hammer film in the 70S. But no, according to you this can be a problem  in court due to people ..judges too...considering actions and individuals to be evil in nature and thereby absolving the miscreant of guilt due to supernatural influence  . Never heard of it happening personally . Have heard of very disturbed people giving statements to that effect but not about anyone taing it remotely seriously. 

In this case the heretofore nonexistent problem lies directly with a handful of people on the internet seizing on a words etymology  in order to misrepresent someone completely , and then somehow _win_ an argument on the internet . Very common occurence on this site .Evidenced by the fact even fucking Gaddafi was dragged into it soon afterward  . Far as im aware he never set foot in Leeds in his life.

its a common tactic known as demonising ...._woooo_...ones opponent . again sweet eff all to do with accusations of actual supernatural influence and absolutely everything to do with very deliberate misrepresentation of what someone actully says in order to _win_.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> come now that's raising your posting standard beyond a level you can maintain




Good for you...
You found the edit button


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Good for you...
> You found the edit button


another post full of vacuity ^^


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Orr questions the murderer's sentence on the grounds that in her opinion it is illogical. .... yet she only glances at the murder itself which was completely at odds with any sense of logical norms.
> The victim gets little mention...
> 
> Interestingly the comments below the article don't reflect agreement with her opinion.



might be due to Orrs opinion of who the victim actully is in this case being different to most peoples .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> so all those books and documentaries bout Nazism..Stalin...all were actually hinting at demonic possession when using the term evil and actually absolving them of reponsibility for their crimes ...fuckin hell .Bizarre that..surprised ive never herd this accusation before to those descriptions.
> 
> Ive always  understood the term to mean nothing more in everyday language than extremely nasty unpleasant and hateful ...used to describe everything from a murderous philosophy to the stench from  blocked drain. Ive never once heard of a demonic possession defence made in court ever...except maybe in a Hammer film in the 70S. But no, according to you this can be a problem  in court due to people ..judges too...considering actions and individuals to be evil in nature and thereby absolving the miscreant of guilt due to supernatural influence  . Never heard of it happening personally . Have heard of very disturbed people giving statements to that effect but not about anyone taing it remotely seriously.
> 
> ...



As ever, you've used a misrepresentation of what I posted, in order to have a rant.
As ever, it's boring reactionary crap.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 9, 2014)

which bit did i misrepresent exactly ....all ears.

_And there's the rub with tossing around words like "evil". *To some people this absolves the person in respect of responsibility - they couldn't help it, 'twas evil possessing them, your honour! - and sets the crime's attribution somewhere in the metaphysical realm*, rather than where it truly lies - the ordered or disordered psyche of the person who committed the crime._


Pretty straightforward from where im sitting . Never herd of this happening anywhere in real life.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> another post full of vacuity ^^




Again I'll direct you to post #788
It seems to not be registering with you.
Probably because you spend too much time with donkeys.



Pickman's model said:


> i've always found asses and donkeys to be excellent company.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 9, 2014)

You appeared to say the reason he acted the way he did was because he was 'evil' bang right in the middle of a discussion around personality disorders. 

If someone can offend due to the fact they are 'evil' then surely we should devise a test to determine who is and who isn't of this affliction and get them banged up before they are able to act?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Again I'll direct you to post #788
> It seems to not be registering with you.
> Probably because you spend too much time with donkeys.


and you spend too much time up your own ass.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> and you spend too much time up your own ass.


#788


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 9, 2014)




----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Nov 9, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


>



That'd suit Pickman perfectly. ..


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 9, 2014)

;


Citizen66 said:


> You appeared to say the reason he acted the way he did was because he was 'evil' bang right in the middle of a discussion around personality disorders.



oh right...so i should wait for you to finish your wee chat and for someone else to change the subject before posting a common everyday word describing someones hateful personality ... otherwise its actually my fault you start accusing me of claiming the devil..the cloven hoofed dark lord..Nicodemus..Lucifer...the terrible  horned one.. Be,elZebub himself no less..actually made him do it . Pointy tail and all . Thats my actual fault and not you lots utter stupidity . 

_
If someone can offend due to the fact they are 'evil' then surely we should devise a test to determine who is and who isn't of this affliction and get them banged up before they are able to act?_

Peronlly Id not bother with the science fiction and just gracefully accept the fact evil i an everyday common usage  word to describe the personality of  a particularly nasty piece of work and leave it at that . For example i called him a cunt too but nobody  suggested i was accusing him of actually being an actual proper real ladys fanny . Because that would take the misrepresentation way too far


----------

