Jump to content

Liverpool Terror Attack


bickster

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Cognitive dissonance. 

I've see US evangelical websites that seriously insist that Jesus spoke English, because "it's there in the Bible". 

OT but , have you actually seen this ?   ... its usually the often quoted ( and factually untrue) comment attributed to the governor of Texas who refused to have pupils taught Spanish  , where she was supposed to have said " If the King’s English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for the children of Texas!"  ..more recently it was attributed to some US  Republican senator and I've even seen it attributed to George Bush  (tbf i could believe he said it ) and its one of those quotes that circulates from time to time to demonstrate an individuals ignorance of history  .... and religion

 

As Abraham Lincoln said ,  "I believe this statement and variation of it are usually made up  buy mischievous people on the internet " 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a complete aside but related, you may have seen talk in the press of the nice retired Christian Army Officer and his wife from Aigburth that took the bomber in some years ago

Malcolm Hitchcott on Companies House

Quote

EVANGELISM EXPLOSION (GREAT BRITAIN) LIMITED

No ordinary Christians

(and no I'm not suggesting they had anything to do with it)

But it seems his turning to Christianity was as a result of his interactions with these Evangelical Christians

It is also perfectly possible that his Christianity had lapsed too, we don't know

It does however suggest that his mindset was easily swayed by persuasions of a religious nature

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It also seems he had mental health issues and had previously been sectioned.

which seems to have been massively overlooked. people focus on religion, where he's from etc, but it could be that he was just a nutter

i know not everyone with mental health issues are 'nutters' by the way...just seemed an appropriate term for this particular guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always find it fascinating when people who commit certain crimes, which seem to be signs of a very unusual brain, are found to *not* be mentally ill. Suicide bombing a women's hospital surely falls into that category.

I don't get how these criminal psychological diagnoses work. Maybe something for the Things You Often Wonder thread.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tomav84 said:

which seems to have been massively overlooked. people focus on religion, where he's from etc, but it could be that he was just a nutter

i know not everyone with mental health issues are 'nutters' by the way...just seemed an appropriate term for this particular guy

If he was white it would be all over the place. Troubled, mentally ill etc

But he's brown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, KentVillan said:

I always find it fascinating when people who commit certain crimes, which seem to be signs of a very unusual brain, are found to *not* be mentally ill. Suicide bombing a women's hospital surely falls into that category.

I don't get how these criminal psychological diagnoses work. Maybe something for the Things You Often Wonder thread.

"Insanity" is a legal defence which  is defined as the state where someone does not realise what they are doing is wrong.    It does not mean that  person doesn't suffer from a mental illness.  

Many murderers are mentally ill.  But they are not necessarily "insane". 

The obvious example is depression.  It's a mental illness.  But its not a state where you can't distinguish right from wrong.  

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, KentVillan said:

I always find it fascinating when people who commit certain crimes, which seem to be signs of a very unusual brain, are found to *not* be mentally ill. Suicide bombing a women's hospital surely falls into that category.

I don't get how these criminal psychological diagnoses work. Maybe something for the Things You Often Wonder thread.

You don't need to be mentally ill to commit grave actions. It's entirely possible to be entirely sane but hold views that are contrary to societal norms, and to take actions to further your views into society at large that would be widely viewed as wrong. Assuming you were caught, society would judge you on its norms, but that's effectively just the winner choosing the rules.

As examples, Nelson Mandela is rightly heralded as a great man for his fight for equality, but his fight included acts of violence at it's beginnings, using a terrorist methodology to bring about his aims. On the other hand, Ted Kaczynski believed that society was doomed in an increasingly technologically focused world with popular leftist ideals, effectively espousing a type of eco-Luddism, and went on a 20 year long bombing campaign attacking figures in the tech, science and oil industry. His manifesto isn't insane, and he himself is intelligent - his IQ is 170 odd and his background is in highly advanced maths, famously his doctoral thesis was described as something that only a dozen people in America might understand. But he killed 3 people and maimed dozens in his campaign.

A sane mind can do terrible things. And most terrible things are done by sane minds.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spot on @Chindie

The insanity defence is rarely used and is rarely successful. 

What is far more common is:

The defence claim that the accused is unfit to stand trial or could not receive a fair trial due to their mental illness.  

The defence claims diminished responsibility. Putting it very simply this means that they accept they committed a crime but their mental health meant they didn't realise the full consequences of what they did.  

But someone who has the cognitove ability to create and plan a suicide bombing is unlikely to be insane.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, bickster said:

Police and Bomb Disposal are currently back at the Sutcliffe Street address. Which has already been searched once when the initial arrests were made

All very confusing

An anonymous source has suggested that a packet of uneaten custard doughnuts was missed in the first search. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mandy Lifeboats said:

An anonymous source has suggested that a packet of uneaten custard doughnuts was missed in the first search. 

Incorrect, they were Eccles Cakes, the police in charge are from Manchester

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Spot on @Chindie

The insanity defence is rarely used and is rarely successful. 

What is far more common is:

The defence claim that the accused is unfit to stand trial or could not receive a fair trial due to their mental illness.  

The defence claims diminished responsibility. Putting it very simply this means that they accept they committed a crime but their mental health meant they didn't realise the full consequences of what they did.  

But someone who has the cognitove ability to create and plan a suicide bombing is unlikely to be insane.  

Thanks, that’s really helpful. Going back to the original question, what is the threshold for diminished responsibility? One of my mum’s friends was stabbed to death by her son, and diminished responsibility was agreed, although family wanted a murder trial.

Personally I felt he was very obviously mentally ill and had been let down by the state, but it was easy to see where the family were coming from, and difficult to fully understand the reasoning.

Sorry this is going a bit off topic, but say this bomber had survived, would diminished responsibility have been a realistic approach for the defence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The “Conversion to Christianity” appears to be a standard tactic from asylum seekers to try to prove that they should be allowed to stay in the UK. 

It would seem that “conversions” from asylum seekers = lots, and conversions from existing British citizens = none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Incorrect, they were Eccles Cakes, the police in charge are from Manchester

Apropos nothing at all, but I made Eccles Cakes as part of my cookery GCSE. Got an A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Risso said:

Apropos nothing at all, but I made Eccles Cakes as part of my cookery GCSE. Got an A.

Well I made manufacturing drugs part of my science GCSE* and got an E.

 

*I didn't.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Sorry this is going a bit off topic, but say this bomber had survived, would diminished responsibility have been a realistic approach for the defence?

If he'd survived, I wonder what he'd have been charged with?

I presume there are terror based charges for making bombs and blowing them up rather than him just being charged with the destruction of a Vauxhall.

How long do you sentence a failed terrorist for? Would the other prisoners on the terror wing disown him as hopeless? Would he be out in fourteen months and on the sofa with Phil and Holly?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â