|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 5, 2020 20:48:41 GMT
Seems pretty obvious that if you cut funding to mental health services, among other health services, that the incidence of tragic events like this will inevitably increase. Of course, if you don't want to believe that poorer funding results in poorer outcomes across all public services, then it's easier to blame individuals for individual mistakes and pretend that it's nothing to do with funding. Not really. Everything in life isn't about money. I've said that I'm against funding cuts. If you look into it this was a decision about whether the offender should have been cared for in the community...or not and if she was on the correct medication. As I say an extra million pounds spent on her would not have changed the facts of this particular case. It seems obvious. True, but as a general life truism, I'm sure you'd agree that you get what you pay for. Underfund public services, including health, and get poor outcomes. Pretty obvious. Trite answer, but an extra million pounds could easily have had a significant impact on this particular case if it had been dedicated to providing monitoring of her mental well-being. That's the whole point.
|
|
|
Post by Cast no shadow on Dec 5, 2020 20:49:48 GMT
Does anyone know what she was doing in the UK? Claiming benefits
|
|
|
Post by Cast no shadow on Dec 5, 2020 20:52:28 GMT
Accused has been cleared of murder and rightly so. Abhorrent crime and according to psychiatrists at Rampton clearly mentally ill, so will probably spend the rest of her life inside Rampton, which is how it should be. Thankfully, we've moved on from stringing up mentally ill people in this country for their crimes. No doubt this will not please some folk on here, nor assuage their desire for vengeance, nor will it do anything to relieve the awful grief that her family must be feeling, but it's the right thing to do in a civilised society. What also needs to happen is better funding for the services whose role it is to track and treat people like this before these crimes are committed, not cut funding to the bone and then wonder why this kind of stuff happens. I'm sure her parents will take solace in the fact that Emily was killed by somebody mentally ill, rather than a murderer.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 5, 2020 21:26:05 GMT
Not really. Everything in life isn't about money. I've said that I'm against funding cuts. If you look into it this was a decision about whether the offender should have been cared for in the community...or not and if she was on the correct medication. As I say an extra million pounds spent on her would not have changed the facts of this particular case. It seems obvious. True, but as a general life truism, I'm sure you'd agree that you get what you pay for. Underfund public services, including health, and get poor outcomes. Pretty obvious. Trite answer, but an extra million pounds could easily have had a significant impact on this particular case if it had been dedicated to providing monitoring of her mental well-being. That's the whole point. Of course more funding will improve the quality of life. Everyone at the age of 18 should get a free house, free Internet, water, gas and electricity, £4000 per month universal income, Teacher / pupil ratio should be 1/5 maximum., NHS budget should not be quesrioned_- spend what you want, Quadruple police numbers, free meals for children all year round, coastal guards should be increased 900 %. But in this case, the title of the thread, money would make little difference...the policy of care in the community or the decision-making would have. And her mental well-being may well have been exacerbated by being isolated, away from her homeland, which is one reason why Felonious ' point is relevant
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 5, 2020 21:59:28 GMT
A bit about Skana from Wikipedia. A history of violence. Many thousands of pounds spent on her care, known to the authorities for at least 5 years. She should not have been in the community. .......
The court heard that Skana was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in 2015 after threatening her neighbours with a weapon, and was again detained and given further treatment in 2017 when she stabbed her mother in the hand and threatened her sister.[31] Police discovered anti-psychotic medication in Skana's flat after her arrest, which defending barrister Simon Csoka said amounted to "about a month's worth". On the fourth day of the trial, Jonathan Pettet, a psychiatric nurse at Rampton Hospital, said Skana had told him, "'I killed someone, that’s the reason why I’m here.' She said, ‘it was premeditated, I waited in the park, I picked my victim and I killed somebody and tried to run away'."[32] Dr. Syed Afghan, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, said on the sixth day of the trial that Skana had a history of violence when unmedicated. He stated that, during Skana's detainment at Rampton Hospital, it was mutually agreed to discontinue the anti-psychotic medication, after which hospital staff observed Skana behaving strangely. She was seen "laughing hysterically" after she noticed a girl on television who bore a resemblance to Jones, and in another incident Skana became enraged and was "frothing at the mouth". Dr. Afghan resumed the course of anti-psychotic medication on October 16, and testified in court that there was "ample evidence" that Skana had paranoid schizophrenia.[33]
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Dec 5, 2020 23:17:49 GMT
The more I read about this case the more angry I get. It should never be about politics or points scoring re funding.
Regardless of the mental health of the female it doesn’t feel right that she’s been found guilty of manslaughter. I wonder how little Emily’s family feel about this.
Why is it that it feels like the murderer is getting sympathy, excuses and justification and that the responsibility for what she’s done is being taken away from her.
It just seems like nowadays it’s all about supporting the offender and giving them the chance while putting the innocent at risk.
Trying to give dangerous people the opportunity to live in the community isn’t working and it’s the innocent that are losing their lives. The worlds gone mad.
I’d rather institutions were bought back for the high risk and dangerous if it meant there weren’t any more Emily Jones’s.
|
|
|
Post by Boothen on Dec 5, 2020 23:45:12 GMT
This foreign psychopath arrived here illegally in the back of a wagon. If she was put on the first plane straight back to Albania then this innocent little girl would still be alive today. Whichever cunt it was that deemed her acceptable to stay in this country needs dragging before a public enquiry to explain why. As do the idiots who allowed her to roam freely when they knew she was a danger to the public.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Dec 6, 2020 0:01:30 GMT
This foreign psychopath arrived here illegally in the back of a wagon. If she was put on the first plane straight back to Albania then this innocent little girl would still be alive today. Whichever cunt it was that deemed her acceptable to stay in this country needs dragging before a public enquiry to explain why. As do the idiots who allowed her to roam freely when they knew she was a danger to the public. The saddest thing is we’re forgetting about the poor little girl and her family who are the only victims in this. I certainly have no satisfaction that this woman has been found guilty of manslaughter and not murder. I don’t look on that as being justice. Am I supposed to feel sorry for her because its the right thing to do in modern society?
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Dec 6, 2020 12:49:37 GMT
This foreign psychopath arrived here illegally in the back of a wagon. If she was put on the first plane straight back to Albania then this innocent little girl would still be alive today. Whichever cunt it was that deemed her acceptable to stay in this country needs dragging before a public enquiry to explain why. As do the idiots who allowed her to roam freely when they knew she was a danger to the public. I asked the question earlier to establish what exactly she was doing in the UK. Albania is not part of the EU or Schengen and although poor there's no real threat to life in that country which does beg the question as to why she was allowed to stay here. If she's fleeing any form of persecution she's obviously travelled through numerous safe countries to get here.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Dec 6, 2020 21:11:27 GMT
This foreign psychopath arrived here illegally in the back of a wagon. If she was put on the first plane straight back to Albania then this innocent little girl would still be alive today. Whichever cunt it was that deemed her acceptable to stay in this country needs dragging before a public enquiry to explain why. As do the idiots who allowed her to roam freely when they knew she was a danger to the public. I asked the question earlier to establish what exactly she was doing in the UK. Albania is not part of the EU or Schengen and although poor there's no real threat to life in that country which does beg the question as to why she was allowed to stay here. If she's fleeing any form of persecution she's obviously travelled through numerous safe countries to get here. She should have been deported as soon as she arrived here illegally she was in no immediate danger, our prisons are now full of foreign criminals who should stand trial in their own countries why are they not sent back to face their own courts ?, meanwhile we have posters on this board who insist Shamima Begum should be sent here to face trial why because she is our problem you couldn't make this shit up.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 6, 2020 21:39:00 GMT
This foreign psychopath arrived here illegally in the back of a wagon. If she was put on the first plane straight back to Albania then this innocent little girl would still be alive today. Whichever cunt it was that deemed her acceptable to stay in this country needs dragging before a public enquiry to explain why. As do the idiots who allowed her to roam freely when they knew she was a danger to the public. I asked the question earlier to establish what exactly she was doing in the UK. Albania is not part of the EU or Schengen and although poor there's no real threat to life in that country which does beg the question as to why she was allowed to stay here. If she's fleeing any form of persecution she's obviously travelled through numerous safe countries to get here. Alf, she said she had been trafficked, which she later said was untrue. She has family in Bolton.....whether those" facts" are enough to give her asylum , who knows. The fact that she slit the throat of a 7 year old girl says that she should not have been.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 7, 2020 12:08:52 GMT
The more I read about this case the more angry I get. It should never be about politics or points scoring re funding. Regardless of the mental health of the female it doesn’t feel right that she’s been found guilty of manslaughter. I wonder how little Emily’s family feel about this. Why is it that it feels like the murderer is getting sympathy, excuses and justification and that the responsibility for what she’s done is being taken away from her. It just seems like nowadays it’s all about supporting the offender and giving them the chance while putting the innocent at risk. Trying to give dangerous people the opportunity to live in the community isn’t working and it’s the innocent that are losing their lives. The worlds gone mad. I’d rather institutions were bought back for the high risk and dangerous if it meant there weren’t any more Emily Jones’s. It's not about politics or point scoring about funding, but it is about funding. And some parties advocate and get elected on reducing the state to its smallest possible size, which obviously includes stuff like this. It might be nice to have a few extra quid in your pocket each week, but the flip side is this - if you consistently reduce the amount of services dedicated to policing, which absolutely has happened, and to monitoring and treating these kind of people with illnesses like this, it's inevitable that awful incidents of this nature will become more common. No doubt being in the community works for some people and doesn't for others. So, if you continually reduce the ability for services to closely monitor these people, then it should come as no surprise when tragedies like this happen. It's the same with all areas of funding. Generally, cut funds - get worse services. And while the dog whistle response of advocating stringing her up might make a few people feel a bit better that they've had their individual vengeance on this clearly mentally ill woman, it will nothing to reduce the likelihood of it happening again elsewhere. That reduction is dependent of proper funding of whatever approach is decided upon, the institutions you refer to, or community based care.
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Dec 7, 2020 13:39:06 GMT
The more I read about this case the more angry I get. It should never be about politics or points scoring re funding. Regardless of the mental health of the female it doesn’t feel right that she’s been found guilty of manslaughter. I wonder how little Emily’s family feel about this. Why is it that it feels like the murderer is getting sympathy, excuses and justification and that the responsibility for what she’s done is being taken away from her. It just seems like nowadays it’s all about supporting the offender and giving them the chance while putting the innocent at risk. Trying to give dangerous people the opportunity to live in the community isn’t working and it’s the innocent that are losing their lives. The worlds gone mad. I’d rather institutions were bought back for the high risk and dangerous if it meant there weren’t any more Emily Jones’s. It's not about politics or point scoring about funding, but it is about funding. And some parties advocate and get elected on reducing the state to its smallest possible size, which obviously includes stuff like this. It might be nice to have a few extra quid in your pocket each week, but the flip side is this - if you consistently reduce the amount of services dedicated to policing, which absolutely has happened, and to monitoring and treating these kind of people with illnesses like this, it's inevitable that awful incidents of this nature will become more common. No doubt being in the community works for some people and doesn't for others. So, if you continually reduce the ability for services to closely monitor these people, then it should come as no surprise when tragedies like this happen. It's the same with all areas of funding. Generally, cut funds - get worse services. And while the dog whistle response of advocating stringing her up might make a few people feel a bit better that they've had their individual vengeance on this clearly mentally ill woman, it will nothing to reduce the likelihood of it happening again elsewhere. That reduction is dependent of proper funding of whatever approach is decided upon, the institutions you refer to, or community based care. This "clearly mentally ill" woman at some point chose to stop taking her medication. At which point in your little socialist world do people have to take any responsibility for their own actions? or should the government and rich people always take the blame for everything that goes wrong on the planet?
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Dec 7, 2020 14:10:02 GMT
It's not about politics or point scoring about funding, but it is about funding. And some parties advocate and get elected on reducing the state to its smallest possible size, which obviously includes stuff like this. It might be nice to have a few extra quid in your pocket each week, but the flip side is this - if you consistently reduce the amount of services dedicated to policing, which absolutely has happened, and to monitoring and treating these kind of people with illnesses like this, it's inevitable that awful incidents of this nature will become more common. No doubt being in the community works for some people and doesn't for others. So, if you continually reduce the ability for services to closely monitor these people, then it should come as no surprise when tragedies like this happen. It's the same with all areas of funding. Generally, cut funds - get worse services. And while the dog whistle response of advocating stringing her up might make a few people feel a bit better that they've had their individual vengeance on this clearly mentally ill woman, it will nothing to reduce the likelihood of it happening again elsewhere. That reduction is dependent of proper funding of whatever approach is decided upon, the institutions you refer to, or community based care. This "clearly mentally ill" woman at some point chose to stop taking her medication. At which point in your little socialist world do people have to take any responsibility for their own actions? or should the government and rich people always take the blame for everything that goes wrong on the planet? Well said that man. I’m sorry RWB but I only have sympathy for the victim and her family on this. There’s a lot of murderers that are ill it’s hard to feel any sympathy for them. I don’t advocate hanging but I certainly don’t think that illness should remove them from any responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Dec 7, 2020 15:25:08 GMT
It's not about politics or point scoring about funding, but it is about funding. And some parties advocate and get elected on reducing the state to its smallest possible size, which obviously includes stuff like this. It might be nice to have a few extra quid in your pocket each week, but the flip side is this - if you consistently reduce the amount of services dedicated to policing, which absolutely has happened, and to monitoring and treating these kind of people with illnesses like this, it's inevitable that awful incidents of this nature will become more common. No doubt being in the community works for some people and doesn't for others. So, if you continually reduce the ability for services to closely monitor these people, then it should come as no surprise when tragedies like this happen. It's the same with all areas of funding. Generally, cut funds - get worse services. And while the dog whistle response of advocating stringing her up might make a few people feel a bit better that they've had their individual vengeance on this clearly mentally ill woman, it will nothing to reduce the likelihood of it happening again elsewhere. That reduction is dependent of proper funding of whatever approach is decided upon, the institutions you refer to, or community based care. This "clearly mentally ill" woman at some point chose to stop taking her medication. At which point in your little socialist world do people have to take any responsibility for their own actions? or should the government and rich people always take the blame for everything that goes wrong on the planet? I'm not really sure how not taking her medication proves that she's not mentally ill? If anything, surely it indicates that she's more likely to be mentally ill?
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Dec 7, 2020 15:47:31 GMT
This "clearly mentally ill" woman at some point chose to stop taking her medication. At which point in your little socialist world do people have to take any responsibility for their own actions? or should the government and rich people always take the blame for everything that goes wrong on the planet? I'm not really sure how not taking her medication proves that she's not mentally ill? If anything, surely it indicates that she's more likely to be mentally ill? If that’s the case she should never have been in the community as she was too big a risk.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Dec 7, 2020 16:21:45 GMT
I'm not really sure how not taking her medication proves that she's not mentally ill? If anything, surely it indicates that she's more likely to be mentally ill? If that’s the case she should never have been in the community as she was too big a risk. Do you think her not taking her medication proves she's not mentally ill? I agree, she shouldn't and her actions have proved that beyond doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Dec 7, 2020 17:07:06 GMT
This "clearly mentally ill" woman at some point chose to stop taking her medication. At which point in your little socialist world do people have to take any responsibility for their own actions? or should the government and rich people always take the blame for everything that goes wrong on the planet? I'm not really sure how not taking her medication proves that she's not mentally ill? If anything, surely it indicates that she's more likely to be mentally ill? Where did I say that? Presumably when taking her medication she doesn't feel the urge to kill children and is able to function relatively normally. She knows that if she stops taking her medication she gets some strange urges but she chose to stop. If she's that deranged that she doesn't understand the consequences of stopping then she shouldn't be out mingling with the greneral public.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Dec 7, 2020 17:22:22 GMT
I'm not really sure how not taking her medication proves that she's not mentally ill? If anything, surely it indicates that she's more likely to be mentally ill? Where did I say that? Presumably when taking her medication she doesn't feel the urge to kill children and is able to function relatively normally. She knows that if she stops taking her medication she gets some strange urges but she chose to stop. If she's that deranged that she doesn't understand the consequences of stopping then she shouldn't be out mingling with the greneral public.
It was the bits in inverted commas and in bold that led me to that conclusion and subsequently ask the question to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Dec 7, 2020 17:31:53 GMT
Where did I say that? Presumably when taking her medication she doesn't feel the urge to kill children and is able to function relatively normally. She knows that if she stops taking her medication she gets some strange urges but she chose to stop. If she's that deranged that she doesn't understand the consequences of stopping then she shouldn't be out mingling with the greneral public.
It was the bits in inverted commas and in bold that led me to that conclusion and subsequently ask the question to be honest. And there was me thinking I'd used quote marks not inverted commas - oh, I did
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Dec 7, 2020 19:06:58 GMT
It was the bits in inverted commas and in bold that led me to that conclusion and subsequently ask the question to be honest. And there was me thinking I'd used quote marks not inverted commas - oh, I did And that's what's important? Thanks for the lesson.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Dec 7, 2020 19:07:36 GMT
The more I read about this case the more angry I get. It should never be about politics or points scoring re funding. Regardless of the mental health of the female it doesn’t feel right that she’s been found guilty of manslaughter. I wonder how little Emily’s family feel about this. Why is it that it feels like the murderer is getting sympathy, excuses and justification and that the responsibility for what she’s done is being taken away from her. It just seems like nowadays it’s all about supporting the offender and giving them the chance while putting the innocent at risk. Trying to give dangerous people the opportunity to live in the community isn’t working and it’s the innocent that are losing their lives. The worlds gone mad. I’d rather institutions were bought back for the high risk and dangerous if it meant there weren’t any more Emily Jones’s. It's not about politics or point scoring about funding, but it is about funding. And some parties advocate and get elected on reducing the state to its smallest possible size, which obviously includes stuff like this. It might be nice to have a few extra quid in your pocket each week, but the flip side is this - if you consistently reduce the amount of services dedicated to policing, which absolutely has happened, and to monitoring and treating these kind of people with illnesses like this, it's inevitable that awful incidents of this nature will become more common. No doubt being in the community works for some people and doesn't for others. So, if you continually reduce the ability for services to closely monitor these people, then it should come as no surprise when tragedies like this happen. It's the same with all areas of funding. Generally, cut funds - get worse services. And while the dog whistle response of advocating stringing her up might make a few people feel a bit better that they've had their individual vengeance on this clearly mentally ill woman, it will nothing to reduce the likelihood of it happening again elsewhere. That reduction is dependent of proper funding of whatever approach is decided upon, the institutions you refer to, or community based care. I wonder what the basis was for granting this mentally ill woman asylum when she entered the UK illegally ?
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Dec 7, 2020 19:35:15 GMT
And there was me thinking I'd used quote marks not inverted commas - oh, I did And that's what's important? Thanks for the lesson. You're most welcome.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Dec 7, 2020 19:46:05 GMT
And that's what's important? Thanks for the lesson. You're most welcome. Out of interest, what message were you conveying with your 'quotation marks' and word in bold?
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Dec 7, 2020 20:19:43 GMT
Out of interest, what message were you conveying with your 'quotation marks' and word in bold? I was trying to say that as RWB had pointed out that she was clearly mentally ill, then it was obviously most important that she kept taking her medication but she chose not to and was therefore more to blame for what happened than some polititian. I wasn't trying to send out some subliminal message, I thought I was being clear.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Dec 7, 2020 20:30:56 GMT
Out of interest, what message were you conveying with your 'quotation marks' and word in bold? I was trying to say that as RWB had pointed out that she was clearly mentally ill, then it was obviously most important that she kept taking her medication but she chose not to and was therefore more to blame for what happened than some polititian. I wasn't trying to send out some subliminal message, I thought I was being clear.
But surely if she's mentally ill, "choosing" not to could well be part of the illness couldn't it? So with the quotes and emboldened word you're essentially saying she's to blame for her own mental illness? I think that's why I was confused.
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Dec 7, 2020 20:40:57 GMT
I was trying to say that as RWB had pointed out that she was clearly mentally ill, then it was obviously most important that she kept taking her medication but she chose not to and was therefore more to blame for what happened than some polititian. I wasn't trying to send out some subliminal message, I thought I was being clear.
But surely if she's mentally ill, "choosing" not to could well be part of the illness couldn't it? So with the quotes and emboldened word you're essentially saying she's to blame for her own mental illness? I think that's why I was confused. But I'm not saying she's to blame for her illness - nowhere near saying that. But if "Sorry, I didn't take me tablets" is an acceptable excuse then everyone will use that defence for every crime ever committed in the future.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Dec 7, 2020 20:42:08 GMT
I was trying to say that as RWB had pointed out that she was clearly mentally ill, then it was obviously most important that she kept taking her medication but she chose not to and was therefore more to blame for what happened than some polititian. I wasn't trying to send out some subliminal message, I thought I was being clear.
But surely if she's mentally ill, "choosing" not to could well be part of the illness couldn't it? So with the quotes and emboldened word you're essentially saying she's to blame for her own mental illness? I think that's why I was confused. Do we know if this woman was mentally ill before we granted her asylum in our country ? questions need to be asked why she was allowed residency in our country she was hardly fleeing a war zone.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Dec 7, 2020 20:43:38 GMT
But surely if she's mentally ill, "choosing" not to could well be part of the illness couldn't it? So with the quotes and emboldened word you're essentially saying she's to blame for her own mental illness? I think that's why I was confused. But I'm not saying she's to blame for her illness - nowhere near saying that. But if "Sorry, I didn't take me tablets" is an acceptable excuse then everyone will use that defence for every crime ever committed in the future.
So she's not to blame for her illness unless she doesn't take her pills then she is? Is that a fair enough assessment so far?
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Dec 7, 2020 20:45:01 GMT
So does the same “mental health” issue apply to Peter Sutcliffe too. Wasn’t he hearing voices? Does that mean that he shouldn’t have been found guilty of murdering all those poor women. I don’t think he was even medicated. The not guilty to murder for the killing of little Emily really doesn’t sit well with me and like with the murders of Sutcliffe she should have got the same guilty charge.
|
|