John Wright Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 He’s going to be examined by prosecution and defence psychiatrists and psychologists, and they’ll possibly come to an agreement as to insanity or diminished responsibility. In which case there may be agreement as to plea, and no trial, or just a trial of facts. if there isn’t agreement, then there’ll be a trial, of some sort. If he’s not found to be insane, and no legal team want their client found insane because it means indefinite detention, hospital order, there’s the option of diminished responsibility. Diminished responsibility, substantial impairment of judgement of right and wrong, is for the jury after hearing expert evidence. It’s a complex area. Indeed in IoM there’s been a very recent ( July 2024 ) Judicial Committee Privy Council ( final court of appeal ) decision of what the expert is, and isn’t allowed to say about the extent of impairment, that has resulted in an overturning of a 2016 murder conviction and the ordering of a new trial. https://www.jcpc.uk/cases/docs/jcpc-2019-0044-judgment.pdf Whilst I don’t think it’s very helpful to speculate the accused does have performing arts links, and with schizophrenia or bi polar it’s perfectly possible for psychoses and delusions, paranoias, voices, irrational beliefs, to last for days, rather than minutes or hours, and for an affected person to go deeper and deeper down a rabbit hole. Theres certainly no current evidence or implication of him being Muslim, the product of first cousin marriage, or a previous history of mental health issues.we just need to wait and see. This thread has exhibited the usual suspects jumping onto immigrant, Muslim, inbreeding bandwagons, for their own purposes, and with no justification or basis, to make political points. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RecklessAbandon Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 "A lie will be half way around the world before the truth has even finished lacing up it's shoes" A truism that has morphed through the ages since (according to some studies) the Roman poet Virgil: "Fama, malum qua non aliud velocius ullum" - "Rumour, than whom no other evil thing is faster". Some posters, MPs (I'm looking at you Farage) and a large percentage of the rioting fuck wits need to learn from this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeteroErectus Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 2 hours ago, RecklessAbandon said: "A lie will be half way around the world before the truth has even finished lacing up it's shoes" A truism that has morphed through the ages since (according to some studies) the Roman poet Virgil: "Fama, malum qua non aliud velocius ullum" - "Rumour, than whom no other evil thing is faster". Some posters, MPs (I'm looking at you Farage) and a large percentage of the rioting fuck wits need to learn from this. Typically self righteous. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RecklessAbandon Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 44 minutes ago, HeteroErectus said: Typically self righteous. If that is your take away from the last few weeks, then maybe its you that needs some self reflection. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeteroErectus Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 16 minutes ago, RecklessAbandon said: If that is your take away from the last few weeks, then maybe its you that needs some self reflection. No. It's not my "take away" from the last few weeks. My comment is on your generally brattish attitude. You're not here to debate, you're here to grandstand your own (perceived) moral superiority. Telling "some posters" and a large amount of the populace, that they need to learn things because of your opinions is beyond arrogance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RecklessAbandon Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 1 minute ago, HeteroErectus said: No. It's not my "take away" from the last few weeks. My comment is on your generally brattish attitude. You're not here to debate, you're here to grandstand your own (perceived) moral superiority. Telling "some posters" and a large amount of the populace, that they need to learn things because of your opinions is beyond arrogance. What is to debate? Racist agitators posted misinformation with the intent to stoke racial tensions (which they have been stoking for just this reason), which racists used as justification for violence, general shit heads joined in on the violence as excuse to do some violence, and now those who spread the misinformation are now holding their hands up in faux shock and bleating that they were "just asking questions". Which part of my "don't tell lies or spread misinformation "opinion" do you take umbrage with? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 12 hours ago, Chinahand said: I do wonder how politicised that is. If it isn't madness what other motive can there be other than terrorism? Hatred? Revenge? Money? But I think there needs to be a desire to create terror for an act to be terrorist. So this attack could very well be terrorist without being Islamicist. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeteroErectus Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 5 minutes ago, RecklessAbandon said: What is to debate? Yep. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 4 minutes ago, Declan said: Hatred? Revenge? Money? But I think there needs to be a desire to create terror for an act to be terrorist. So this attack could very well be terrorist without being Islamicist. Think the motivation behind terrorism is to use violence to influence government based on idealogical, political or religious beliefs. The definition was posted above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeteroErectus Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 1 minute ago, Gladys said: Think the motivation behind terrorism is to use violence to influence government based on idealogical, political or religious beliefs. The definition was posted above. Although, many past instances of terrorism show there is a desire to kill "infidels" indiscriminately, based on the misinterpretation of religious texts, from an otherwise peace preaching religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RecklessAbandon Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 11 minutes ago, HeteroErectus said: Yep. Exactly. "You" haven't brought anything to debate, except nonsense about "legitimate concerns" and how those who have been peddling the misinformation (lets be generous) by "just asking questions" are not to blame for their actions. Quote Which part of my "don't tell lies or spread misinformation "opinion" do you take umbrage with? Well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 13 hours ago, Chinahand said: I do wonder how politicised that is. If it isn't madness what other motive can their be other than terrorism? If it is madness ... oh I don't know. It's quite a string of probabilities to get someone having a psychotic episode travel miles to get into a 7 year old's dance party carrying a kitchen knife, rather than stabbing a family member in their kitchen or believing the postman is a demon on the pavement outside. This is where politics and the truth can get blurred. What ideologies did this young man have? Did psychosis twist them? I worry we will never be told. A terrorist who keeps his motivations secret is pretty useless to the cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 45 minutes ago, Gladys said: Think the motivation behind terrorism is to use violence to influence government based on idealogical, political or religious beliefs. The definition was posted above. Actually, I would suggest, the motivation is to cause terror and to use that terror to leverage your cause. A false bomb threat only threatens violence but could be terrorism. Equally it doesn’t need to be aimed at government. A militant climate change protestor attacking bank staff to get the board to divest from oil, would be terrorist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 57 minutes ago, Declan said: Actually, I would suggest, the motivation is to cause terror and to use that terror to leverage your cause. A false bomb threat only threatens violence but could be terrorism. Equally it doesn’t need to be aimed at government. A militant climate change protestor attacking bank staff to get the board to divest from oil, would be terrorist. You are right, civilians can be intimidated. Definition below https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1 The point is that just terrifying people is not enough, it needs the promotion of ideological, political, religious, etc. ends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 That’s why ghosts don’t get charged with terrorism. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.