How To Get A Privileged Life On The State.....

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-55932915
Just torture and murder a vulnerable woman and the state will protect you forever. Damn savages should never see the light of day again but they'll be out in 2031, free and anonymous and paid for by the state. Wonderful.

[pixie374]

Sunk, by the shallow "defintion" from one hospital in choux's link... it makes every adult "vulnerable". That isn't the proper meaning.
This lady was vulnerable. But so were/are the two girls. So, if the word means anything to anyone, you need to apply it to everyone involved.
I just don't remember (on AB, at least), Floyd being described as "vulnerable", while fitting that definition.... and lots of clamor for the policeman to be killed. I was personally, interested in th difference.
Sex, colour, age?

[david small]

Scum killed scum. Why not disclose precisely the mental illness of the perpetrators. Withholding only their names but not their condition’s.

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // AH, theland shouldn’t be challenged on unrelated threads because of his religion - and it’s not the first time you’ve done it. Even Christians are entitled to voice their opinions. //

Theland has - as usual - walked away from the thread when challenged, and will reappear another day and pretend the challenge never occurred.

You are obviously under the impression that I am in need of advice as to whom I should or should not challenge, on which thread, and what form said challenge should take.

Not for the first time, and probably not the last, you are of course entirely wrong.

I will post and challenge where and when I see fit - as do you, and anyone else. It's how the site works.

[pixie374]

Not that you'll care, Andy, but i agree. Religion comes under Myths and Legends, R&S, whatever it's called. It isn't relevant to real-life.

[andy-hughes]

pixie - // Not that you'll care, Andy, but i agree. Religion comes under Myths and Legends, R&S, whatever it's called. It isn't relevant to real-life. //

Do you mean you agree with naomi?

Fair enough.

But since Theland gives us the 'benefit' of his religion at every single opportunity, and makes a singularly non-Christian observation about the people involved in the story we are debating - and then launches off into his typical 'They've all got it in for me ...' nonsense, I believe he deserves to be challenged, not that he will respond, but that's par for the course.

As far as I am concerned, any challenge to any person on any point they make is fair game in a debate, if you disagree, then so be it.

And I do care what you think - I don't care about what everyone on here says., far from it, but you, I do care.

[Mamyalynne]

David, publicising their particular mental conditions would serve no purpose at all to the public.

[pixie374]

Well, thank you :-). Yes, I agree with her, on this occasion... it just usually seems better to start each thread fresh, and not think back too much. Easier to say than do, but if people can't justify their religion on their own threads, it's unlikely they can with anything real. I am quite soft though.

[Mozz71]

Actually Mamya, I disagree there. If the authorities gave more details of the mental illnesses it might lead to some understanding of exactly the issue is with the leniency of the sentencing, and decision to grant further anonymity. Just saying "mental illness" is too vague and sounds like an excuse.

[naomi24]

AH, I’m under no impression whatsoever - I simply regard your posts to theland here as unnecessarily rude and detrimental to the thread as a whole. I’m not indulging yet another of your rants further so that’s all I have to say on the subject.

[pixie374]

Yes, mozz, I agree.... we don't need names or details, but actually some idea of the issues could well make a huge difference. But that is assuming they know them.
And even then, many people, I think, would still see it as an attempt at an excuse.

[pixie374]

I disagree about "leniency of sentencing" though. There is no maximum and no leeway. In what way could the sentencing have been harsher?

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // AH, I’m under no impression whatsoever - I simply regard your posts to theland here as unnecessarily rude and detrimental to the thread as a whole. I’m not indulging yet another of your rants further so that’s all I have to say on the subject. //

I often find your posts to various people to be unnecessarily rude and detrimental to threads as a whole, but I don't regard it as my role to tick you off as though I am a headmaster and you are a naughty girl who needs a lesson in manners.

[andy-hughes]

Mozz - // Just saying "mental illness" is too vague and sounds like an excuse. //

It's an interesting cultural attitude that we now have as a society - that people who are judged to have mental issues are inevitably seen as using those issues in order to escape responsibility for their actions.

Personally, I think that attitude stinks.

[pixie374]

It does. But even if the issues were given, would most people understand them? I have seen paranoid schizophrenics being called names on here for something they have done.
Sometimes, the responsibility is with the people who should be looking after them, more than them themselves.

[pixie374]

Andy, tbf, mental issues are so varied, it can become meaningless. Losing your temper is a "mental issue" but also normal.
The degree is the point.

[Theland]

Bombastic Andy?
Walked away?
Not at all.
If you want to discuss Jesus Christ count me in.
Don't waffle on about me being evasive, it only confirms the negative aspects of your persona.
Don't be a know it all, all of the time.
It grates.

[Mozz71]

Pixie //I disagree about "leniency of sentencing" though. There is no maximum and no leeway. In what way could the sentencing have been harsher?//

The minimum sentence could've been longer.

AH//It's an interesting cultural attitude that we now have as a society - that people who are judged to have mental issues are inevitably seen as using those issues in order to escape responsibility for their actions.//

I didn't say it was an excuse for the girls' behaviour, I meant that it will be seen that the authorities are crying "Mental illness" to cover for any controversial decisions they make in sentencing or prisoner care.

[jennyjoan]

No matter what the victim did was wrong, some asbos, phoned ambulances and all the other things she done - she didn't deserve the death she got.

Two children concocting the idea of sticks with nails, broken shovel, broken televisions, reigning blow after blow on her for 7 hours while she was probably cowed up to stop the blows. And them taking the wonderful photos of what they had done and probably laughing. No they are termed mental now but they weren't then. They knew what they were doing. Oh Woe is me, I had a terrible past life and that justifies the murder.

I don't believe in a terrible death like that for any one but would like the two lasses to get a taste of what they done. They will live their lovely lives in warm jails, 3 meals a day, education to the hilt and all the rest etc etc. My heart broke when I saw the poor victim's face.

[pixie374]

It could have been, mozz. Although ttt seemed to be thinking release in 2031. All it means is that they can't even start whining about release until then. And would have to jump through hoops to show they have either changed unrecognisably and are ready for psychiatric hospital, or they stay in.
There is no suggestion whatsoever just now, that they will ever be free to do what they like in their whole lives. I don't get what people want here.

[iluvmargie]

jj - excellent post. I agree with everything you say 100% x