You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
It’s difficult to gain any sense of perspective at that such an young age. More so if you’re going down the narrow reality-tunnel of organised religion.
The best option is to make psylocybin legally available to anyone over the age of 18.
And make it compulsory for any political or religious leaders to undergo DMT therapy every six months.
If only Jimmy Saville had been dropping acid back in the day…
Seen a couple of unconfirmed rumours that he may have had his first taste of unpleasant prison life. Oh dear, what a shame, hopefully the next 19,000 or so days are the same
Ian Brady did 20 years in prison and another 30 years in secure psych, and died of natural causes.
I think Ian Brady was extremely lucky, for example Peter Sutcliffe was attacked, quite seriously, multiple times, and his victims weren't children.
The suggestion from former senior prison staff is that Rudakubana will be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life.
I dunno but I guess that if you are a lifer with plenty of time on your hands hatching a plot to slash Rudakubana's face with a sardine tin lid, or gouge one of his eyes out with a pencil, might represent an interesting challenge.
I know a prison officer. And while they will do there utmost to protect prisoners it’s really not s easy as it seems. And it really is reality that if cons want to attack/knife/maim etc it will happen.
And I am one glad it will happen in this case !!
The legal and medical definition is rather more complicated than your take on it
What do you think the "legal and medical definition" of mental illness is, exactly?
What do you think the “legal and medical definition” of mental illness is, exactly?
Unsurprisingly its complicated and so I would stick with his defence didnt go for that line. Its certainly more complicated than "did the defendant know what he was doing, and if so, that what he was doing was wrong". Maybe you can show the legal definition which supports that? Or I you might be in that rare category of being someone who assessed him either before or after the crime and with a liberal approach to privacy but I am going for not.
In which case we have the problem if he wasnt found deficient after the crime exactly why should the authorities have erred on the side before?
Unsurprisingly its complicated
Does it exist, this "legal and medical definition" of mental illness?
it is more than possible, this tragic event would never have happened.
Is there any evidence of that?
Yes. Multiple referrals to prevent and calls to the police
Why it wasn't prevented is a different question and it may well have been very difficult but chances were missed no doubt at all
Does it exist, this “legal and medical definition” of mental illness?
Good question. Perhaps one to ask for those announcing he is mentally ill and so something should have been done prior. I am surprised you havent been challenging them?
Short of that we end up with the fact like with many things it is complicated and so best left with the professionals. That it wasnt found as something to be used in his defence after the fact suggests it is unlikely to have been identified prior.
It's very similar in Scotland too. A quick google and there are a plethora of official sources, or reputable easy-read versions of offical sources.
In the UK, the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) defines a mental disorder as a disability or disorder of the mind.
Diminished Responsibility
The defendant must prove the following four elements:the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning
if so, whether it had arisen from a recognised medical condition
if so, whether it had substantially impaired the defendant's ability either to understand the nature of their conduct or to form a rational judgment or to exercise self-control (or any combination)
if so, whether it provided an explanation for their conduct: section 2 Homicide Act 1957 as amended by section 52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
any mass/serial killer is mentally ill whilst convenient and appealing isnt true.
To make a point, for exactly the reason that has ensued I didn't say legal and medical. I said legal - and that is broadly contained in the McNaughton rules
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%27Naghten_rules
labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong
and SOCIETAL - what would the general public understand as 'insane', which to me stretches to my own belief that while he may have known what he was doing was wrong surely a sane person doesn't do those sorts of things.
I didn't make reference to any medical definition of mentally ill; I'm aware that so many people in prison or the justice system suffer from mental illness of different types but that doesn't automatically infer criminal insanity - far from it. As you say, his defence didn't include it as defence (in the end he pleaded guilty anyway)
You can be mentally ill and not do the things he did (statement of obvious, clearly!); you can be mentally ill AND still perfectly capable of passing a McNaughton test.
it is more than possible, this tragic event would never have happened.
I don't understand how it is "more than possible" that this would never have happened. Why this belief that the risk was incorrectly assessed based on the then available evidence?
And where is the proof that they could have stopped Rudakubana becoming a deranged killer? Apparently his father stopped him at least once but he just carried out the killings on another day.
I don't get the impression that Rudakubana was in two minds over whether he should be a psychopathic killer and had someone talked to him they could have got him to change his mind, he seemed very determined. Although I am very happy to corrected someone qualified in such matters.
personally the only way I can think that the referrals could have stopped him would have been if they had responded by locking him up indefinitely.
As I said previously some people seem to think that someone other than the killer is always also to blame. I believe that sometimes no one other than the killer themselves is to blame. And this horrific case looks like being an example of that.
The only society which could stop all such horrors ever happening imo would be akin to the 1984 scenario, which is neither desirable nor attainable.
personally the only way I can think that the referrals could have stopped him would have been if they had responded by locking him up indefinitely.
what does prevent do to stop realistic terrorist threats? (I genuinely don’t know) but it seems if the system has known you are a risk to society for 4+ yrs, you’ve gone to a school you were excluded from assaulted people with a hockey stick whilst carrying a knife, and admitted you took a knife to school with the intent to use it, and your specialist teachers bringing you work to do at home regularly attend with the police - then maybe that level of serious should have been treated as seriously as terrorist suspects who would have been kept under watch? I’m not a fan of locking young people up for stupid crimes but this doesn’t sound like it was “he was always a bit odd” it’s much more “every warning sign was there”.
what does prevent do to stop realistic terrorist threats?
I really don't know but the police appear to be very certain that Rudakubana's obsession with violence was not driven by ideology. There is apparently no evidence that he was "radicalised".
Now I can understand the logic that through reeducation and engagement someone can deradicalised, ie have their ideology challenged and changed. After all if they have embraced an ideology then it seems reasonable that they can go on to then reject it.
But I really struggle to believe that someone with homicidal intent and an extreme obsession with all forms of violence can somehow be "cured".
I would be interested in any examples of where a homicidal psychopath was successfully cured though, and it was done as an outpatient - otherwise we are getting back to locking up people before they have even committed a crime.
some people seem to think that someone other than the killer is always also to blame. I believe that sometimes no one other than the killer themselves is to blame
Agreed.
Hindsight is often just too easy and doesn't reflect the myriad of pressures on those tasked with making assessments in real time.
I would be interested in any examples of where a homicidal psychopath was successfully cured though, and it was done as an outpatient – otherwise we are getting back to locking up people before they have even committed a crime.
So you know he is a homicidal psychopath? Interesting as i have not seen that diagnosis
As for locking folk up before they committ a crime. Happens all the time. One of the criteria for detention under the metal health act is "danger to others"
what does prevent do to stop realistic terrorist threats? (I genuinely don’t know) but it seems if the system has known you are a risk to society for 4+ yrs.....etc. (snipped for brevity)
I think (IANAL so don't get right into semantics) Prevent is the badge for a reporting scheme that then creates activity (supposedly) based on what is found, but it's 'got teeth' because being a member of a terrorist organisation, or even perhaps holding terrorist views is something that they can be detained for if necessary. From Met Police site - "protect vulnerable people from being exploited by extremists"
Being obsessed with violence or serial killers is not, to my understanding. Plenty of people (Univ researchers, crime writers, documentary makers...) could also fit the category of searching for and accessing some of this material, maybe even 'an obsession'.
Not even sure if a single individual looking terrorist stuff up on their own technically meets the criteria. So in days where we don't have resources in policing or mental health, seems like there were flags and opportunities that were missed - but not sure Prevent would have been the intervention based on my understanding of their guidelines. 'Not a potential terrorist at risk of being radicalised, not our problem'
The only society which could stop all such horrors ever happening imo would be akin to the 1984 scenario, which is neither desirable nor attainable.
I think is a valid point. Sometimes the price of freedom is the risk that those freedoms are abused. Easy to say as an impartial observer, less easy if your daughter has been stabbed to death or blown up by a bomb.
The key point from what I read is when he stopped engaging with the mental health team. Easy to say with hindsight, and I'm sure/hoping patients are critically reviewed at that point - does their behaviour suggest that left without supervision they may be a danger to others? If yes, then sectioning needs to be used - subject as ever to there being space and resources to cope.
I think that's the way CMH is supposed to work - but just like every other public service it's been gutted beyond the point of failure by cuts:-(
I really don’t know but the police appear to be very certain that Rudakubana’s obsession with violence was not driven by ideology. There is apparently no evidence that he was “radicalised”.
exactly, that’s the “controversial” point. It seems like had his motivation or associations been “terror” related then there would have been departments with the interest, motivation and power to *try* to disrupt him. Because they couldn’t attach the right label, every part of the system seemed to say “not our issue”.
Now I can understand the logic that through reeducation and engagement someone can deradicalised, ie have their ideology challenged and changed. After all if they have embraced an ideology then it seems reasonable that they can go on to then reject it.
your confidence in that seems remarkably high. I’m not saying it never happens, but I suspect that turning around entrenched views using logic is much harder than you make it sound.
But I really struggle to believe that someone with homicidal intent and an extreme obsession with all forms of violence can somehow be “cured”.
cured might be too far, but prevented from carrying out, able to redirect or manage their difficulty etc all sound like potential paths, and if not, then just like terror suspects monitored so closely that actions like ordering a taxi in a fake name and leaving the house wearing a mask would get you stopped and searched.
I would be interested in any examples of where a homicidal psychopath was successfully cured though, and it was done as an outpatient – otherwise we are getting back to locking up people before they have even committed a crime.
He has committed a number of crimes previously. He didn’t go from innocent wee boy to crazed serial killer in one move. In fact it looks like he first came to the attention of prevent when he called child line asking about killing someone - almost like at 13/14 he knew his desire was a problem and he wanted help. It sounds like every time he came to the authorities attention they concluded “well he’s not Al Quieda and he’s not pals with Tommy Robinson, so he’s just another teenage boy with an interest in violence, nothing to worry about”. “We” take away (or very seriously restrict) access to the internet from some of our most serious sexual predators to stop them needing to be kept in custody indefinitely. Without unfettered access to the internet he’d have found less to feed his imagination for violence, more difficulty in planning and the final stages of putting it into practice. It might be easy to blame the parents - but it seems one of the occasions they tried to restrict access to a computer the police got involved.
If he is mentally ill (and you called him a psychopath) then the state has the power to section him for public safety.
personally the only way I can think that the referrals could have stopped him would have been if they had responded by locking him up indefinitely.
Indefinitely assumes that once someone is so intent on a course of action that they have been referred that there is no going back? Is that based on evidence? Lots of people get detailed under the mental health act and released again, lots of teenagers get involved with the criminal justice system and then mature and calm down. I dont see why indefinitely was inevitable BUT I’m not sure why indefinitely means it would automatically be wrong.
As I said previously some people seem to think that someone other than the killer is always also to blame.
nobody is suggesting that the blame should be shouldered by anyone else - but if we have safeguards intended to stop attrocities, and they didn’t work because it was obvious that he was a danger but not the right kind of danger, it is entirely appropriate to ask if we need to fix the gaps.
I believe that sometimes no one other than the killer themselves is to blame. And this horrific case looks like being an example of that.
he won’t be the only teenager harbouring fantasies of killing other children for “fun” rather than ideology.
The only society which could stop all such horrors ever happening imo would be akin to the 1984 scenario, which is neither desirable nor attainable.
i think if he’d quietly lurked in his bedroom his whole life watching crazy shit on the internet and then suddenly one day flipped I’d be with you. But it *seems* that there was plenty of warning.
There seems to be one prominent case of a prisoner opting to do so – Frank van den Bleeken.
15 other prisoners also requested an assisted death in Belgium, including Geneviève Lhermitte who was euthanised last year. Its not just Belgium, 3 prisoners in Cananda have been euthanised (a further 8 have requested it) see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8742296/ and as far as I'm aware its a moral quagmire....................
In Canada you must have a terminal illness to ask for MAID and mental health is not a criteria so they must have been incarcerated with a terminal illness. Belgium i am not so clear on the criteria but i am fairly sure mere incarceration wpuld not be enough
Be very wary where you take your data on medical assisted deaths from. There are a bunch of evangelical supposedly Christian outfits pumping out distotions on this issue
edit. Thats a good source quoted tho
Agreed.
Hindsight is often just too easy and doesn’t reflect the myriad of pressures on those tasked with making assessments in real time.
How many other Rudakubanas have been deterred from carrying out attacks? How many are currently being monitored, assessed, analysed? How many have family and associates that could act as early warning? How many haven't?
All pertinent questions that will never be answered, but will be conveniently forgotten about when the armchair public enquiry by Social Media is in full swing.
Hindsight is often just too easy and doesn’t reflect the myriad of pressures on those tasked with making assessments in real time.
All the more reason to be open and transparent. A failure doesn't mean it was deliberate. Errors and mistakes happen.
However the culture of trying to downplay or plain withhold information cedes control of the situation to ideologically driven, bad-faith actors who will undoubtedly use it to push whatever bullshit narrative suits their agenda.
Transparency is the only way lessons can actually be learned and reduce the interference by the Griffins etc al of the world.
I'm not sure how many situations we need to make this clear.
So you know he is a homicidal psychopath? Interesting as i have not seen that diagnosis
No, I know next to nothing about Rudakubana, there is only so much that I can read about this particular case. With any horrific cases involving children I refuse to read the details.
I am purely speculating that he might be a homicidal psychopath plus I was making a more general comment about how the threat from homicidal psychopaths should be dealt with.
In the same way that you are speculating when you claim, without providing any evidence at all, that it is "more than probable" that he could have been stopped. I am basing my speculation on comments made the police and the huge amount of evidence that they collected.
What are you basing your speculation on - the comments made by politicians and those desperate to blame someone other than just Rudakubana?
Transparency is the only way lessons can actually be learned and reduce the interference by the Griffins etc al of the world.
I broadly agree, although having all of the methodology laid bare would possibly help more organised terror perps to avoid setting off alarm bells.
But, to me, that would mean withholding only a small part of the information. So, in the most part, I am agreeing with you.
How many other Rudakubanas have been deterred from carrying out attacks?
This is a very good question. The idea that all horrendous crimes can be stopped is not feasible. Even if you have a system in place which is 99.99% successful horrific crimes will still sometimes occur.
The fact that they happen once in a decade or whatever, in a population of sixty odd million, is not necessarily a sign of systematic failure, as some seem to automatically assume.
How many other Rudakubanas have been deterred from carrying out attacks?
That would probably require a lot of cross checking but almost impossible to ascertain due to GDPR.
Heres some prevent stats:
Here are some statistics about the Prevent program:
Referrals in 2022–2023: 6,817 people were referred to Prevent in the year ending March 31, 2023
Channel cases: 9% of referrals were adopted as Channel cases
Channel consideration: 16% of referrals were considered for Channel support
Not suitable for Channel: 82% of referrals were deemed not suitable for Channel consideration
Signposted to other services: 79% of referrals that were not suitable for Channel consideration were signposted to other services
You'd then have to figure out where all those cases went and what interventions (if any) occured.
Agreed, transparency helps reduce mistakes and allows lessons to be learnt. Though as humans, we will continue to make mistakes, especially when under pressure.
15 other prisoners also requested an assisted death in Belgium, including Geneviève Lhermitte who was euthanised last year.
Ahh.. a few more than I found in my brief Googling. Still not a lot though and just 1 who has actually been allowed to go through with it? Apparently between 2002 when it became legal, and 2023 there have been 33,000 euthanasia procedures in Belgium. including (it seems) one prisoner. Seems she met the requirements of any other Belgian citizen to request this. She was seriously ill and it was at her request.
So rather than this being prisoners having their rights taken away, it seems it's a case of prisoners having the same right as other Belgian citizens. It certainly doesn't seem to be a case of judicial execution by stealth. I know you weren't claiming that, but saying "In Belgium, prisoners can opt for assisted dying, instead of serving their sentence" is a little misleading.
In Canada you must have a terminal illness to ask for MAID and mental health is not a criteria
Yet. They've voted for it, but kicked the can down the road to 2027 to implement it. Maybe it'll go away, maybe it won't.
On one stw thread people are bemoaning the cesspit that is social media and on this we have people wishing harm to a boy (he was a boy when he killed & injured those poor people) who clearly had mental health issues that weren't dealt with properly by the authorities and was further lead down an awful route facilitated by social media, seems the state can't kill him but wishing physical harm & fear from other prisoners is okay 🙁
I think Ian Brady was extremely lucky, for example Peter Sutcliffe was attacked, quite seriously, multiple times, and his victims weren’t children.
Ian Huntley has been repeatedly attacked in prison. Mark Bridger (killer of April Jones) had his throat and face slashed. There are probably others but I'm not about to go searching the internet for examples. Huntley was even awarded legal aid to launch a compensation claim after one of the attacks.
on this we have people wishing harm to a boy
I applaud your moral concern but I doubt it's widely shared. It's a tragic case of the failure of our society to prevent this sort of thing but at the end of the day his actions and the outcomes massively outweigh any other consideration. It will be an interesting case for criminal psychologists and other professionals but beyond that I think he's forfeited the right for anyone to be concerned with his welfare.
This is a very good question. The idea that all horrendous crimes can be stopped is not feasible. Even if you have a system in place which is 99.99% successful horrific crimes will still sometimes occur.
The fact that they happen once in a decade or whatever, in a population of sixty odd million, is not necessarily a sign of systematic failure, as some seem to automatically assume.
Ordinarily I'd agree with you. Sometimes bad shit is going to happen and bad people will do it with little early warning. However on this occasion it doesn't seem like there were no warning signs - there were lots of warning signs.
No, I know next to nothing about Rudakubana, there is only so much that I can read about this particular case. With any horrific cases involving children I refuse to read the details.
And yet here you are saying it couldn't have been prevented! The following facts seem to have been widely reported, and don't require you to read anything about what happened on the day:
- At the age of 13 he called childline and asked "What should I do if I want to kill somebody". He was reported to the Police. He said he wanted to kill a bully.
- He was suspended from school.
- In subsequent discussions he said he has taken a knife to school 10 times. He was excluded from that school.
- Within 2 weeks he's at a new school specialising in children with additional behavioural needs, during the admission process he said he took the knife to the previous school to use it.
- At this school he was "caught" using a computer in an IT class to research school shootings. He was referred to Prevent.
- A few months later he went back (not as a pupil) to the original school, carrying a hockey stick inscribed with the names of certain teachers and pupils he was trying to attack. He broke a boy's wrist and when police arrived they found he had a knife.
- He pleads guilty to ABH and possession of a knife; he got a referral order - exactly what the order required, or if it was fully complied with is not clear.
- The new school won't have him back on site, but provide work for him to do at home, after several months of this he does start to go back to the school but with 2 staff supervising him at all times.
- He gets reported to Prevent twice more (once for instagram posts and once for stuff he was looking at on school computers again).
- Police have further contact on multiple occasions including after he assaults his father and damages his car, and after his dad tries to take his computer away.
- He moves to another school. The staff there mostly reach him remotely and visit his house, sometimes accompanied by police.
- On the final day of school term his dad intervenes to stop him going back to the original school dressed exactly as he did on the day of the crime, having booked a taxi in a false name (as he did on the day of the attack).
So this wasn't someone who quietly sat in their bedroom until one day he snapped. This was an escalating situation with multiple points where people perceived he presented a significant risk to others.
In the same way that you are speculating when you claim, without providing any evidence at all, that it is “more than probable” that he could have been stopped.
In fairness to TJ - he said "more than possible" which you have turned into "more than probable". None of it is scientific wording but I think you can see that:
- it is possible it will rain today
- it is more than possible it will rain today
- it is probable it will rain today
- it is more than probable it will rain today
describes an increasing spectrum of confidence in the outcome
And yet here you are saying it couldn’t have been prevented!
No I didn't say that at all. I am accepting the police's claim that he wasn't ideologically motivated. I don't understand how a programme put in place to deal with persons who have been radicalised and are ideologically driven can help someone who hasn't been - can you?
If you can I would be interested in knowing. Like pretty much everyone else on this thread I have no expertise on such matters.
I applaud your moral concern but I doubt it’s widely shared. It’s a tragic case of the failure of our society to prevent this sort of thing but at the end of the day his actions and the outcomes massively outweigh any other consideration. It will be an interesting case for criminal psychologists and other professionals but beyond that I think he’s forfeited the right for anyone to be concerned with his welfare.
The thing what makes us "better" than him and gives us some degree of moral right to judge him is that we show enough compassion that we don't wish him to suffer the same fate that befell his victims. I'm sure in a poll of the general public, "would you be upset if HE fell down the prison stairs" would not get a huge level of concern BUT "would do you think prisoners should be able to conduct revenge killings inside prisons" or "do you think prison officers should turn a blind eye to attacks on prisoners" would. Its why we don't let the general public determine sentences.
Apparently between 2002 when it became legal, and 2023 there have been 33,000 euthanasia procedures in Belgium. including (it seems) one prisoner.
As with lots of things there are shades of grey, it hasn't been legal for prisoners since 2002, as the justice minister ruled that prisoners did not have the right to die. This was overturned in 2023 and since then there's been one prisoner.
She was seriously ill
In the trial, psychiatrists had found that Lhermitte was not of sound mind when she committed the acts and should not be held accountable for her actions. This was ignored by the court and she was sentenced to prison rather than a pyschiatric unit. It was later accepted that she was indeed suffering a pyschological illness and euthanasia granted because of it.
At the age of 13 he called childline and asked “What should I do if I want to kill somebody”. He was reported to the Police. He said he wanted to kill a bully.
That bully has a lot to answer for. I had my own problems with bullies around that age and it culminated in me beating one of them up with a hockey stick. The difference back then though was that I wasn't immediately suspended/expelled and I was subsequently protected from those bullies by the school (and they left me alone after that in any case - the hockey stick did it's job). I'm not sure how I would have reacted if I had been suspended or expelled, but sometimes a sense of injustice and unfairness leads to extreme actions/motivations.
Does it exist, this “legal and medical definition” of mental illness?
Good question. Perhaps one to ask for those announcing he is mentally ill and so something should have been done prior. I am surprised you havent been challenging them?
I think what we are realising is that there is no singular "legal and medical definition" of mental illness. There is a collection of definitions of "mental illness' and vaguely related concepts, each of which exists for a particular purpose.
For example, the M'Naghten Rule is not a definition of "mental illness". It is an approach to defining "insanity" (not a synonym for mental illness) for the limited purpose of defining when and how a defendant can prove they did not have the requisite mens rea. And it in turn relies on a definition of "disease of the mind" which is also not a synonym for "mental illness"...
And yet here you are saying it couldn’t have been prevented!No I didn’t say that at all.
You certainly seemed to give that impression when you write things like this:
Opportunities were missed to prevent the crime
So what do you think should have been done to stop the Stockport stabbings that wasn’t done?
Your message so far is not "it was referred to the wrong people" as this might suggest:
I am accepting the police’s claim that he wasn’t ideologically motivated. I don’t understand how a programme put in place to deal with persons who have been radicalised and are ideologically driven can help someone who hasn’t been – can you?
But rather that it was unpreventable, and the state would have had to go to extreme lengths to identify that he was a risk and then lock up people without trial etc...
If you can I would be interested in knowing. Like pretty much everyone else on this thread I have no expertise on such matters.
OK so you may be correct that Prevent was not the right place for him to be referred to as he wasn't ideologically motivated. I have to say I don't actually know what prevent is/does etc. However, a system which says "he's not the right type of threat for our department so we do nothing" is potentially worse than no system at all. Perhaps those referring him to Prevent didn't know it was the wrong place, or didn't know where else to refer him to. Certainly I would have expected that if I contacted them about any potential mass murder prospect that it would have got their attention. If someone is referred 3 times, even if not the right place, you'd expect there was some way to make sure the right place did get that information and act on it. Is it local police, is it counter terror command, is it MI5, is it Mental health service, is it Social Work etc - it doesn't matter who should have taken the lead, its clear nobody did take decisive action. The calls for an inquiry aren't because people necessarily want to blame someone, but because history tells us if we don't try to learn from these things they will happen again. The Cullen Inquiry wasn't about trying to attach blame to anyone other than Thomas Hamilton, although it might have rightly criticised those who were too relaxed, but it did result in substantial change to firearms laws, sharing of information/intel between orgs and vetting of those working with vulnerable people, school security etc.
The fact that they happen once in a decade or whatever, in a population of sixty odd million, is not necessarily a sign of systematic failure, as some seem to automatically assume.
The question is not whether every once in a decade incident is a sign of systemic failure, but whether in the circumstances of this case there are clearly missed opportunities for intervention. It may be that the systems we think we have, in the form of Prevent, actually make non-terror related concerns more likely to go unresolved. I'm not normally a fan of public inquiries, but it certainly seems like there's a need for some sort of independent review with the ability to drive change. I don't for one minute think this guy is the only teenager in the country disenfranchised by the system, fascinated by violence and who might try to turn his fantasies into reality.
That bully has a lot to answer for.
Lots of pupils get bullied, for many different reasons. Very few become mass murderers. It may be a contributing factor, but its clearly not the inevitable conclusion. I'm not condoning the bully or saying the school resolved it well, but to some extent bullying is an unavoidable part of growing up (and adult life!), learning how to deal with it without resorting to violence is what most of us achieve.
I had my own problems with bullies around that age and it culminated in me beating one of them up with a hockey stick. The difference back then though was that I wasn’t immediately suspended/expelled and I was subsequently protected from those bullies by the school (and they left me alone after that in any case – the hockey stick did it’s job).
I'd read the order of events again. I don't think his hockey stick and yours were comparable unless you are telling us you went back to a school you were no longer at, with a hockey stick marked with the names of your intended victims and carrying a knife...
I’m not sure how I would have reacted if I had been suspended or expelled, but sometimes a sense of injustice and unfairness leads to extreme actions/motivations.
I agree. Its actually much harder to exclude from school than it was in "our day", but many of the most troubled young adults in society have gone through some period of exclusion. Is it cause or effect? Perhaps too hard to say - but there is a systemic inability in society to take the hardest to manage pupils and divert them away from a path which almost inevitably seems to end in the justice system. Even then, very few of them go on to murder, never mind murder total strangers.
I applaud your moral concern but I doubt it’s widely shared.
It's probably because I have an autistic teenage nephew who has been previously excluded from a special school for concern of safety of other pupils & staff, luckily his YouTube fixation seems to extend to just weird & wonderful spam recipe's, long may that last..
Shall we all meet up in Glasgow and attack a çhurch?
I don't really understand what that's a reference to - the Orange Order or something?
The question is not whether every once in a decade incident is a sign of systemic failure, but whether in the circumstances of this case there are clearly missed opportunities for intervention.
To add on to this: it may be that these particular murders may not have been prevented even by the best possible system because no system is ever perfect - especially when the outcome depends on what a human being (particularly a young, male and apparently mentally ill human being) does.
And it may also be that this affair is the worst possible outcome (murders of multiple children) after the biggest possible red flags (the violence, the multiple referrals, the weapons).
BUT what has happened here is totally symptomatic of a child protection and justice system that is completely, completely overwhelmed and incapable of protecting either the kids or society. Yes, it might be that the kids crash out in less visible ways or ways that don't injure others - dropping out of school or just underachieving, becoming or staying substance dependent, assaulting or vandalising or dealing drugs - but all of those failures have a MASSIVE hidden cost to the kids, to the people they directly impact with their negative actions, and society generally.
Anyone who's involved in this field will tell you the same. You don't have to be some yoghurt-weaving namby pamby Guardian reader that thinks thugs need hugs - the failure to identify, investigate and prosecute huge amounts of real crime is part of the problem.
BUT what has happened here is totally symptomatic of a child protection and justice system that is completely, completely overwhelmed and incapable of protecting either the kids or society. Yes, it might be that the kids crash out in less visible ways or ways that don’t injure others – dropping out of school or just underachieving, becoming or staying substance dependent, assaulting or vandalising or dealing drugs – but all of those failures have a MASSIVE hidden cost to the kids, to the people they directly impact with their negative actions, and society generally.
Amen. MrsMC works in Childrens Services and this week is days 3 and 4 of a court case for some poor lad she was allocated 2 years ago. There is no "right outcome" for him, only a "least worst". It has dominated her working life, and quite frankly our family life, for those two years, and he is one of 18 kids on her workload. I swear it would have been less traumatic for all of us if we'd adopted the poor sod ourselves at the outset.
(Not really on topic but I need to vent)
MCTD, society owes a huge debt to Mrs MCTD and everyone in that line of work. I could never do it and have immense admiration for those that do. She and they deserve far better resourcing and support. I hope the lad in question gets an outcome which improves his situation in some way.
I remember reading somewhere ages ago that each RTC with a fatality costs the state £1 million (or some other big number). This investigation, protection and imprisonment will end up costing the state many, many millions. It would have been cheaper by far to assign the offender a social worker (let alone some kind of mentor) to follow him and hundreds of others around full time - and that's not even mentioning the value in protecting the most vulnerable and important people in society...
Not really on topic but I need to vent
I think it is. A while back I was watching a recording of a select committee on youth & gang violence, the two young people who both have a past connection to it but who now work in voluntary intervention organisation spoke so informatively and eloquently about their experiences and offered some great insight into possible remedies.
When one MP was praising them, about how their experience and rehabilitation is so important, the Probation Service rep made a mic-drop point; neither can consider a career in either the Probation Service or Social Care due to the current vetting processes.
Something to ponder on, I wonder how many people there are out there that could really enhance the public sector and bring insight, relevance and credibility but won't ever get a look in because their start in life wasn't the best?
Two hours per week per child. And that will include travel time to visit them Think about that.
This lad is currently located 60 miles from us. She's up there today. I was attaching a steering ball to her hire car at 8am this morning. She also has a group of 3 siblings 100 miles away in the opposite direction. Thank God that one is going smoothly.
But all kids have to be seen and checked on every "x" weeks, depending on where in the process they are.
Though to be fair, since she moved to adoption in 2021 she also gets some fantastic success stories as well. Usually flowers or cards every couple of months from grateful parents who she helps to complete their family.
I don’t really understand what that’s a reference to – the Orange Order or something?
Was that aimed at me? No it's about the child sex pest gang sent to prison today who weren't...you know..... foreign types
the same way that you are speculating when you claim, without providing any evidence at all, that it is “more than probable” that he could have been stopped
At least 9 referrals to agencies intended to prevent this sort of thing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjew7dv4w9zo
Apparently it turns out that that Yaxley-Lennon isn't very happy in prison :
In a highly unusual challenge to a sentence, Yaxley-Lennon's lawyers said his segregation from other prisoners at HMP Woodhill in Milton Keynes was damaging his mental health in ways the judge who sentenced him did not anticipate.
Although despite "damaging his mental health" he isn't having a mental health crisis, so that's great. It just that his family are worried :
His client was "not currently in mental crisis", he said, but had demonstrated harmful behaviours after his previous releases from jail, raising fears in his family that he may try to kill himself.
It's probably best to keep him in prison just to be sure then, releasing him doesn't sound like a good idea.
I found this interesting :
Mr Eardley also said that Yaxley-Lennon "complains he cannot watch GB News" on the television he has been given access to
Who knew life in prison was that tough?
Mr Eardley also said that Yaxley-Lennon "complains he cannot watch GB News" on the television he has been given access to
Every cloud had a silver lining....
And Ricky Jones is still out on bail with his trail delayed until August.
Which will be over a year after the alleged incident, why do you think that is? No explanation has been given for the delay.
In the case of Yaxley-Lennon he pleaded guilty to all 10 breaches of a High Court order so no delay was necessary.
Outrageous for his lawyers to claim it is affecting his mental health. Thats going to be the case in a huge proportion of people in prison, and they rarely get a lawyer with the audacity to stand in front of a judge and push for release on those grounds.
He is a danger to social cohesion, and is best where he is. Maybe he will either take a lesson from it, or end up in a position where he refrains from his earlier behaviour.
what are you suggesting? That sort of delay is very common in UK criminal courts. A symptoms of chronic underfunding which can’t be quickly fixed by just throwing some extra cash at it - but nobody sees it as a priority like the NHS or even Education.Which will be over a year after the alleged incident, why do you think that is? No explanation has been given for the delay.
what are you suggesting?
I am not suggesting anything at all. The question was in response to doomanic's comment, I wondered why it was relevant.
I believe that the defence asked for the delay and the court agreed. The reason has not been publicised but apparently such delays are usually connected to the defendants health issues.
I am still interested in what doomanic thinks the reason for delay is and how it might be relevant to Yaxley-Lennon's case.
his lawyers have to follow his instructions, perhaps he’s found lawyers sympathetic to his cause, but it’s also possible they are happy publicly pursue such a claim because most of the media and public will say, “oh bless the little bigot”Outrageous for his lawyers to claim it is affecting his mental health.
I suspect there are some weird issues with it being a contempt case (sentencing is different from normal crimes) but the issue for normal prisoners is legal aid would not support such spurious claims - but if he’s got a group of stupid followers then depleting their funds on approaches which are very unlikely to succeed might not be a bad thing!Thats going to be the case in a huge proportion of people in prison, and they rarely get a lawyer with the audacity to stand in front of a judge and push for release on those grounds.
true though that may be - he is not interred for a risk to social cohesion he is serving a sentence for contempt of court…He is a danger to social cohesion, and is best where he is.
seems very unlikely as he was told he could get 4 months off his sentence if he just purged the contempt by stopping his claims - but he’s not done that, which does make you wonder just how bad prison can really be when all he has to do to minimise his suffering is tell someone to delete an internet post and shut the **** up.
Maybe he will either take a lesson from it, or end up in a position where he refrains from his earlier behaviour.
Mangled quotes post deleted
I am still interested in what doomanic thinks the reason for delay is and how it might be relevant to Yaxley-Lennon's case.
I have no idea what the delay is about, I just find it odd that it's taking so long but I have no experience of the legal system in this country. As for "alleged", what he said went viral and ignorance of the law is no defence. Claiming he didn't know that what he was saying constitutes an offence and thus pleading not guilty is a crock.
I just want to see the law applied equally, anything else is ammunition for the far right to claim bias.
Where did I claim it was linked to Yaxley-Lennon's case? It's relevant to the thread, which arguably Y-L's conviction for contempt is not.
In Canada you must have a terminal illness to ask for MAID and mental health is not a criteria
"Yet. They've voted for it, but kicked the can down the road to 2027 to implement it. Maybe it'll go away, maybe it won't."
Wrong way round. The supreme court decided mental health should be a criteria. The government are tring to find a way of implementing this safeledit. Ffs shonky forum
As for "alleged", what he said went viral and ignorance of the law is no defence.
The police have emphasised that he has the right to a fair trial so what went viral is irrelevant and until he is convicted he is innocent.
I just want to see the law applied equally, anything else is ammunition for the far right to claim bias.
And what makes you suggest that the law might not have been applied equally? By your own admission you don't know the reason for the delay. The delay was requested by the defence and the court agreed, presumably the defence made a compelling case for the delay.
On the other hand we know why the Yaxley-Lennon case was dealt with relatively speedily, he pleaded guilty to contempt of court, there wasn't much to discuss or consider beyond his sentence.
And I am fairly sure that previous cases in Yaxley-Lennon's long list of convictions have indeed been long drawn out.
I honestly don't see how the two cases are relevant to each other. Although I can obviously see the attraction to Yaxley-Lennon supporters of the whatabout strategy and/or claim that the courts are not independent and free of political interference from politicians.
I honestly don't see how the two cases are relevant to each other.
Where did I claim it was linked to Yaxley-Lennon's case?
Again, I never claimed one was relevant to the other. However, one is relevant to this thread, the other, not so much.
Don't worry though, I've learned my lesson and will never post anything that can be twisted into an opposing view again.
that can be twisted into an opposing view again.
Eh, what on earth are you talking about? Nothing has been "twisted". Nothing has been alleged, you said :
I just want to see the law applied equally, anything else is ammunition for the far right to claim bias.
I totally agree with you, all I said was that no one knows the reasons for the the delay in the Ricky Jones's case. I am suggesting there is no evidence that the law isn't being applied equally although I appreciate the point you are making, ie Yaxley-Lennon's supporters very clearly claim that there is two tier justice system.
And if there is it certainly doesn't benefit black people! The much repeated far-right claim of racism against white people is obviously nonsense. Although they will keep coming out with the "these days, you get arrested and thrown into jail if you say you're English" nonsense.
his barrister said his prison conditions mean he can't "regulate his emotions".
I am sure not what that means, I'm thinking perhaps he keeps bursting into tears like a big wussy?
I had no idea that he was such a delicate snowflake.
I imagine the judges had to pad out their ruling from the initial "Oh just **** off you ****".
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tommy-robinson-kicked-out-hawksmoor-london-b1231594.html
He tweeted: "Just been kicked out of Hawksmoor steak house for no reason"
What does he mean "no reason"?
Surely they were kicked out for being a shower of ****s?
So the far-right rioting season is in full swing again
One arrest eh?, that’ll show em….bet they all scurry back under their rocks sharpish.
Meanwhile what’s the number arrested for holding a bit of paper calling for action on Palestine?
****ing joke, starmer and cooper need hoofed in the slats
Far-right rioters tend not to hold placards up so it is difficult to identify them as terrorists.
Given that they are intent on invoking terror in the asylum seekers residing in the hotel I’d say that was a pretty clear case of terrorism
Just as well I’ve never lived in such an area that has such ****s
Even decent folks tend to be thinking like them now.At least around here
"Even decent folks ****s tend to be thinking like them now.At least around here"
Even decent folks tend to be thinking like them now folks who used to keep their racist views to themselves have now been emboldened enough to express them openly.At least around here
FTFY
Very easy to just to dismiss people as racists and bigots rather than looking at the reasons why they may hold those views. Ask Gordon Brown how that worked out for him.
MSM and SM present misleading information and blatant lies that fuel fear and distrust. For example the whole "Illegal immigrants being put up in 4 and 5 star hotels" nonsense. Actual truth is that certain hotel chains are making an absolute fortune providing a very basic level of accommodation because various governments haven't invested in the proper official facilities.
Despite the narrative, asylum seekers are not being kept in the lap of luxury.