[Closed] Misleading headline of the day award goes to..

Moat claims another victim, hopefully Moat is getting to grips with an eternity in Hell

Moat claims another victim

How d'you work that out?

Elf, I work that out as I have had a business relationship with Pro-Tect for a couple of years and have dealt with Peter (the deceased) in the past and he was one of the most thoroughly professional and dedicated people I've ever done business with. The knock on of this is that I have an additional 'track' on this story and I know that he was concerned that he'd acted in good faith and it has resulted in someones death and the threat to the careers of some dedicated Police officers, therfore I don't see it as a great feat of deduction to lay this death at the door of Moat.

Not at the fact he was supplying the tazers when he shouldn't have done and thus big trouble was coming?

Not worth a life but a major cockup by him.

I don't see it as a great feat of deduction to lay this death at the door of Moat.

No I don't either.

Since Moat was in no way responsible for how Pro-Tect conducted its affairs,
I see it more as a great feat of 'responsibility evasion'.

TJ I'm not on here to defend the actions of Pro-Tect but...the company/he were not supplying Tazers when they shouldn't have been: the company is licensed and authorised to supply by the Home Office and as such they have supplied to Civ Police, Mod Police, MoD, Customs and others for some time, the Tazers supplied to Northumbrian Police were as part of a work place performance evaluation authorised by the HO, where P-T slipped up was in supplying additional Tazer units and aspects there of which lead to North Umb Pol being able to deploy the Tazers operationally, P-T did this before Moats' rampage not due to it. It's worth noting that these 'Tazers' are not the hand held type of thing you see on US Cop shows but a more 'combat' focussed unit which could be employed in a fire-fight where a non-lethal outcome was desired, as such many interested Govt departments were keen to have them 'field-tested', the error lay in not following the (laborious and labrinthine) HO guidelines to do so. I'm sure there are many instances in the professional lives of STW members which could be painted in a less than glorious light if placed under the spotlight of media scrutiny, this is such an instant.

So hang on, Raul Moat was killed by a tazer made by this guy's company, yet the guy's death is Raul Moat's fault?

❓

I'm sure there are many instances in the professional lives of STW members which could be painted in a less than glorious light if placed under the spotlight of media scrutiny, this is such an instant.

I doubt most of us are interesting enough for the media to be bothered with us. Although I reckon a documentary on Ernie's dodgy and unscrupulous work practices and financial dealings would be fascinating...

Had it not been for the Raul Moat case, I doubt this particular story would have made much more than local news tbh.

Into the void - they supplied the tazers in breech of their license IE when they shouldn't have done so

I don't know all the details but its clear that this is the case.

My reading of it is this type of Tazers should not have been supplied and used at all.

How do you do a [b][i]'work place performance evaluation'[/b][/i] of such a device without deploying them operationally?

Elfinsafety
Raul Moat was killed by a tazer made by this guy's company

No he wasn't.

From the OPs link

Earlier this week it emerged supplier Pro-Tect breached its licence by supplying X12 Tasers direct to police.

The Home Office confirmed the firm had had its licence

Pro-Tect was accused of supplying a new Taser weapon to Northumbria Police during the Raoul Moat manhunt in breach of Home Office rules, because the Taser had not been fully tested.

Last week Home Secretary Theresa May said Pro-Tect had only been permitted to supply the X12 Tasers to its scientific development branch testing.

The firm also "breached rules governing the secure transport of the devices and ammunition," the Home Office said.

The Taser, which is fired from a 12-gauge shotgun, was being tested by the Home Office before a decision was taken over whether it could be approved for use by police forces in England and Wales.

I would say this shows a pretty cavalier attitude to the rules. he may have thought he was acting in good faith but there reasons for rules and as this type of Tazer had no licence for operational use he should not have supplied it

No he wasn't.

No of course he wasn't. My mistake. Sorry.

Dunno why I got that one arse over tit. 😳

Which means the link between Moat and this guy's death is even weaker then.

I really don't understand Into the void pointing the blame for this man's death at Raoul Moat though.

I would say this shows a pretty cavalier attitude to the rules. he may have thought he was acting in good faith but there reasons for rules and as this type of Tazer had no licence for operational use he should not have supplied it

even if they forced them into the hands of the police for free there is shared culpability, the police would have been aware of the status of the equipment supplied, they after all enforce the law. I also really doubt they were supplied without a cash transaction. The police are getting let off IIRC because the law allows the to use anything they want tested or not.

It looks like an inqury looking for convenient scapegoats

Is "Raul Moat Taser" a brand name?

Moat claims another victim...

You are not rational.

do you think pc david rathband or the relatives of chris brown give a flying **** about how legal the taser was, as far as i'm concerned they should have run a ****ing tank through the area he was held up in, the bloke was low-life murdering scum.

the bloke was low-life murdering scum.

Or a person with severe mental illness who'd tried to get help but had been ignored...

Elfinsafety - Member

the bloke was low-life murdering scum.

Or a person with severe mental illness who'd tried to get help but had been ignored...

yeah if you like.

EDIT: we're lead to believe he had a specific problem with police officers, sounds a bit to selective just to be put down to mental illness!

I do actually. Seeing as it's the more rational viewpoint, and is the truth, rather than being that which is based on reactionary sensationalist rhetoric.

Elfinsafety - and is the truth

where did you get "the truth" from?

From the fact that he was a person who clearly had a mental illness, had tried to tell people he was ill, but wasn't given the treatment he asked for.

Elfinsafety - From the fact that he was a person who'd been diagnosed with mental illness, had tried to tell people he was ill, but wasn't given the treatment he asked for.

hold on, hold on, answer the question... where did you get "the truth" from?

The 'truth' is that he was indeed a man suffering from mental illness, who had tried to get help.

“I would like to have, erm, a psychiatrist, psychologist, have a word with me regularly, on a regular basis… Why don’t we just have a psychiatrist sit me down and say: ‘Right, OK, I want to see you regularly, then we can move towards where your areas of fault are’.”

His own words. His previous background reveals he was mentally unhinged. And well-balanced, mentally healthy people tend not to go round slaughtering others in a violent rampage. Well not in normal civilian life anyway.

That he was 'Lowlife scum' is merely opinion, not fact.

right, they are indeed the words of rauol moat but that's not what you are claiming, where does that say "he was a person who'd been diagnosed with mental illness"

yes i express my opinion whereas you quote "fact" and "truth" so come on just let us all know where you are getting your reliable information.

Stu - IIRC and I can't be bothered to check he was diagnosed in jail / pre jail.

He clearly was "living with mental health issues"

Mind you - when he is running round with a gun its not really the issue why he is doing it - only what he is doing and how to stop him without endangering others

Elfinsafety - Member
From the fact that he was a person who clearly had a mental illness, had tried to tell people he was ill, but wasn't given the treatment he asked for.

I told the vet I was a horse, but she still won't give me the tranquilisers I wanted...

Saying you're ill doesn't neccesarily make it so. I would suspect if you ask a random group of the population a lot of people will tell you they're a little bit unhinged from previous experiences. Mind you, that doesn't mean he wasn't. Both of you are wrong in this instance. 😀

Granted I corrected my earlier post to 'clearly had a mental illness', as I can't find owt about him being diagnosed. It's clear he was mentally ill though. I don't think there's any question about that.

He was a nutter - truth.

He was a murderer - truth.

He was 'low life scum' - opinion.

Clear now?

I'm not trying to score points here; I just don't think it serves us as a society to see people as 'lowlife scum' when in fact they are seriously disturbed individuals who need help. I'm not excusing Moat's actions or his reasons, just trying to bring some understanding. In this context, I think David Cameron is morally reprehensible for saying that Moat deserved no sympathy. Such comments serve no positive or productive purpose, and are made simply to gain populist support. Personally I believe Cameron to be thoughtless and cowardly, and unfit to serve the office bestowed upon him, but that's my [i]opinion[/i].

He was a nutter - truth.

He was a murderer - truth.

He was 'low life scum' - opinion.

True.

It's clear he was mentally ill though.

Also opinion

i'm with you tj.

for you elfinsafety, the recent "facts" as i know them are one victim dead, one victim with life changing gun-shot injuries and one victim recovering from gun-shot injuries. one dead perpetrator. under the circumstances i would say this was the best outcome.

Not really tree-magnet. I think any psychologist/iatrist who had access to Moat's medical history would tell you that he was indeed mentally ill.

If it looks like a duck and goes 'quack', it's probably a duck. I see your point about his mental illness being mere 'opinion' in the absence of official diagnosis however.

It's pretty safe to say he was mad though. Wouldn't you agree?

I think any psychologist/iatrist who had access to Moat's medical history would tell you that he was indeed mentally ill.

More opinion...

I see your point about his mental illness being mere 'opinion' in the absence of official diagnosis however.

However what? I'm not saying he wasn't bonkers but then I'm not saying he was. Just pointing out that your statement that it was fact was false.

in the circumstances this i would say this was the best outcome.

Again, that's debatable. His death certainly prevented any further killing. However, his arrest and capture could at least have provided the police and health services with a person who could be questioned and studied in order to learn more about what drives people to such an intense mental state. There are different ways of looking at it, wouldn't you agree?

It does seem, in this particular instance, that Moat was never going to come quietly. So, the use of lethal force would probably have been justified, in helping to prevent further injury or death.

What I did find sickening was the slathering media circus hovering like vultures waiting for some juicy news. Personally I would've kept the media at least several miles away from the actual scene.

Just pointing out that your statement that it was fact was false.

So, Moat wasn't a deranged psychopath then?

Interesting.

i'm trying to resist drawing this out any further but how on earth can you critisise me for using the term "low-life murdering scum" when you see it ok to say "nutter" and "mad"

it's impossible to have logical debate with someone with double and ever changing standards.

i'm out of here.

how on earth can you critisise me for using the term "low-life murdering scum" when you see it ok to say "nutter" and "mad"

Because both are simply colloquial terms used to describe someone who has mental health issues? Possibly not quite politically correct I agree. Bit easier to type than 'person with mental health issues' or 'mentally ill' though.

Whereas no-one can exist as 'lowlife' or 'scum' other than in the opinions of others.

The interesting dichotomy is that under the intricacies of firearms law, while it was illegal for Pro-Tect to [b]supply[/b] them to the police, it was however perfectly legal for the police force, as crown servants, to buy them, give them to police officers to carry them around the streets and use them...

one law for them...

Yeah how does that work? Like, if I sell drugs it's illegal, but if I buy them it's also illegal. Etc.

Surely buying weapons from someone who is illegally selling them is 'aiding and betting' an illegal act, no?

Or is it like Prostitution; it's illegal to solicit business, but not to take money for sex?

Confuddled...

Ok, despite the usual knee jerk reaction from some on here in having a go at a business man whilst defending a murderous gunman (anyone going to challenge that statement, i.e. he had a gun and mudered someone), I can see what the into de_void is on about. I would suspect there are all sorts of issues within business deals every day which range from innocent cockup to downright illegal business practices, that get uncovered and resolved in a manner appropriate to the offence committed. In the case of Pro-Tect I have no idea which end of the scale their mistake was, however because of the Moat link the press and now people on here have gone for the firm and owner in a a disproportionate and uninformed way. Unfortunately it would appear that this disproportionate attention has pushed him over the edge (although that to is conjectecture). Having a go at into de-Void when he has more knowledge of what happened than anyone seems to be a little arrogant at best especially as a number of posts above contain blatant innaccuracies that even the poster had to acknowledge were wrong.

As for Moat, none of us know what mental state he was in, there's a fine line between diagnosed mental illness and just being a terrible person fully culpable for your own actions (or do we start saying anyone who is at odds with 'normal' societal behaviour is ill, very slippery slope to go down there).

I can only judge the man by his actions which do seem to well documented and not indispute. It would appear the police were trying to protect the guys life whilst potentially putting themselves at risk, this sort of improvement in law enforce is only possible if private companies like Pro-Tect develop the tools to do this. It's a shame they are expected to jump through so many hoops to achieve this and get hammered when the Home Office is also culpable. In the end these companies will either get out of the market or charge stupid prices to compensate for the risk of being involved in a market that is so politcally sensitve.

Final point, rather than exculsively feeling sorry for Moat and his alleged neglect by the authorites might be worth sparing a thought for those who were directly involved, had to deal with the incidents and had their legitimate lives disrupted by one individual. I personally believe the welfare of one individual in this case was incorrectly prioritised over the welfare (and lives) on many, many others.

Elfinsafety - Member

[b]Just pointing out that your statement that it was fact was false.[/b]

So, Moat wasn't a deranged psychopath then?

Interesting.

Not that one, this one:

Or a person with [b]severe mental illness[/b] who'd tried to get help but had been ignored... it's the truth

Yep, that's true also.

Proof please.

Have a Google. Have a read of the numerous articles written by experts in mental health issues/personality disorders. The mostly state that Moat was mentally ill. I think we can safely say, in this case, that the consensus of expert analysis and [i]opinion[/i] can be taken as [i]fact[/i].

Is the sky blue, or is it merely your opinion that it is blue?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure you know what I'm banging on about, so we'll leave it there. Besides, I'm off to Southampton now me washing's finished.

+1 into de-void - thanks for the insight

I just read the story on The Independent, also thought that there is someone (or two) high up in the Police who decided to duck on this one and let the Taser guy take the heat - hope now they are ashamed.

stumpy jon - who had a go at the businessman? I merely pointed out that the defense of him was simply wrong. He knew he was supplying the tazers illegally or should have done and it wasn't a technical breach of the regulations by any stretch. Nothing to do with noit jumping thru the hoops but he supplyed a weapon that was not lisenced to be used.

Is the sky blue, or is it merely your opinion that it is blue?

It's more a matter of perception.

Elfinsafety - Member
Have a Google. Have a read of the numerous articles written by experts in mental health issues/personality disorders. The mostly state that Moat was mentally ill.

I think we can safely say, in this case, that the consensus of expert analysis and opinion can be taken as fact.

Is the sky blue, or is it merely your opinion that it is blue?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure you know what I'm banging on about, so we'll leave it there.

I do, and you're wrong. Happy to leave it there.

I do, and you're wrong. Happy to leave it there.

I'm right, but happy to accept that you are wrong. Happy to leave it there. 😉

Elfinsafety - Member

I do, and you're wrong. Happy to leave it there.

Ok then a man who went on a rampage killing and injuring others isn't mentally ill. Fact.

Will that do yer?

Nope, cos that's wrong. I wasn't arguing that one or the other of you were right or wrong, I was saying both of you arguing he was/wasn't a mentalist were wrong as nothing had been proven. It's just you took up the gauntlet whereas stu didn't.

Also, you used the word "fact" when there is clearly no "fact" when relating to the mental health of Raoul Moat.

Whatever.

Bored now, bye!

errr... A glaring fact that everyone seems to have overlooked is that the businessman geezer topped hisself..

Now... correct me if I'm wrong... but unless you're an honourable ancient Japanese fella.. (or hormonal Japanese exam student) then you have to be in a pretty bad place indeed to murder yourself right..?

Above and waaaaay beyond poor business practice and feelings of repressed guilt..?

I decided against reading too much of this thread as it's very likely just another STW pissing match.. but just thought it might be useful (?) to add my twopenceworth..

Elfinsafety - Member
Whatever.

Bored now, bye!

WIN!! 😀

*bodypops*

stumpyjon - Member

.... the usual knee jerk reaction from some on here in having a go at a business man whilst defending a murderous gunman ............people on here have gone for the firm and owner in a a disproportionate and uninformed way

"Facts" my dear boy ....... "facts"

It isn't "some on here" who have gone for the firm and owner. And "had a go" at a business man.

If anyone has done that, then it is the Tory Home Secretary Theresa May who has done it.

Are you accusing the Tory Home Secretary of "the usual knee jerk reaction" against a business man ?

.....of going after "the firm and owner in a a disproportionate and uninformed way" ?

Pro-Tect had its licence revoked, not by some punters on STW, but by the Tory Home Secretary.

The title of the thread refers to a "misleading headline", it seems to me stumpyjon, that you want to mislead everyone over the facts concerning who is accusing who.

Personally, I suspect that the Home Office has a better understanding of whether Pro-Tect complied with the requirements of their license, than some, presumably former banned, member of STW ...... even if he was best mates with the firm's owner.

As far as the 'mental health' of those involved is concerned, it is very clear by his suicide, that the Pro-Tect's director of operations Peter Boatman, was not mentally stable.

And I fail to see how Raoul Moat was in anyway responsible for Peter Boatman's mental health problems.

And I fail to see how Raoul Moat was in anyway responsible for Peter Boatman's mental health problems.

No I don't either, Raoul Moat wasn't, unfortunately for Peter Boatman his professional cock up conicided with a story the press ran with, you know what I mean Raoul Moat probably contributed to Mr Boatmans demise but he's not in anyway culpable for that. There's enough other things to lay at his door without lumping that on him as well.

I'm not particularly defending Pro-Tects actions either, I don't know anywhere near enough about what they did or the regulations to be able to come to a sensible conclusion on that.

Are you accusing the Tory Home Secretary of "the usual knee jerk reaction" against a business man ?

Not particularly but if the hat fits..... Politicans of all hues aren't exactly known for being completely fair an impartial in matters like this.

of going after "the firm and owner in a a disproportionate and uninformed way" ?

Nope, you brought that up, never mentionned it in my previous post, again I don't know what the Home Secretary knows or what they've been advised, I was commenting on my impressions on some of the earlier contributions to this thread.

Up to this point politics hadn't actually been mentionned by anyone 😐

As far as the 'mental health' of those involved is concerned, it is very clear by his suicide, that the Pro-Tect's director of operations Peter Boatman, was not mentally stable.

Again I don't know the full details but I would have to agree that it's unlikely someone would take their own life unless there was some sort of underlying problem.

Ernie, I may have been unfair in what I said, I did choose my words fairly carefully though, there's enough intelligent people on here who can pull a dodgy badly worded argumant to pieces on here after all. It just felt to me that Peter Boatman was getting a right hammering whilst others who were involved in all this (police etc.) seem to be not in the firing line (poor choice of words). It also felt there were more people attempting to defend Raoul Moat than Peter Boatman.

These things are never as black and white as everybody would like. Bit like the whole sorry Raoul Moat saga, yes he was probably let down be the authorities, many people are, few go on to kill indiscriminately. Where's the personal responsibilty in all this?

Not a thread to be proud of.