Stabbing in Hither Green.

[JoeLeg]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rendel, what's tiresome is how quickly you retreat

> into moral outrage and personal attack when

> someone has an opinion that's opposed to yours.

> For what it's worth, I've worked in communication

> and mental health so perhaps I just have a more

> developed awareness around this than you do!

Then perhaps you?re well placed to answer the question I posted to you earlier?

[Blah Blah]

Just been announced that the pensioner will face no charges.

[rendelharris]

Pensioner to face no charges - so, to address the ranters who started the thread, police investigated quickly and efficiently, justice done as it should be.

ETA Crossed with BB

[Blah Blah]

Yep. They followed procedure. Referred it tot he CPS within 24 hours and the CPS decided no charges could be sucessfully prosecuted in court. Standard procedure.

[robbin]

Yep. From the moment the Police said the dead man was one of two armed burglars (i.e. not someone known to homeowner and therefore not someone he stabbed in a rage, or an argument) the 78 year old man with his sick wife upstairs (with the other man going upstairs while the dead man stayed in the kitchen) was never realistically going to be charged. Since the law changed to permit disproportionate force there's no real prospect of a conviction on those facts.

The Police had to check it out first though - it's their function. Fair play to them and the CPS that they did it quickly.

[robbin]

It would have been lunacy to charge him with murder. Lunacy.

[Blah Blah]

These guys, and their family are known for distraction burglaries, where someone conns their way into an OAPs home and distracts them, while the other sneaks in and robs the place. But the thing that helped Mr Brooks is that the burglar did not die in his home. He left, fataly injured and died a street away, from the injury. So the defence of self defence holds up as opposed to an unreasonable display of force. It is one thing to charge a person, but a jury has to be pursuaded of the charge and it is hard to see how any charge against Mr Brooks would have held up.

[Earl Aelfheah]

But hold on minute? What about political correctness gone mad? Surely we're still going to hell in a handcart? Aren't we?

[maxxi]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>" As for loonies, a term we threw around with GAY

> abandon at school..."

Now hold on a minute!

I have worked with people with abandonment issues and I have serious concerns over the...

[nxjen]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But hold on minute? What about political

> correctness gone mad? Surely we're still going to

> hell in a handcart? Aren't we?

Some people are, some people aren't, it's a variation on Schrodinger (too much BBT)

[hammerman]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Pensioner to face no charges - so, to address the

> ranters who started the thread, police

> investigated quickly and efficiently, justice done

> as it should be.

>

> ETA Crossed with BB

Somebody started a perfectly reasonable thread at the time but to call them a ranter?

It does seem like you got your tuppence worth in though Rendel!

[lavender27]

who was stabbed? and who stabbed them? were the po lice called?

[rendelharris]

hammerman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Pensioner to face no charges - so, to address

> the

> > ranters who started the thread, police

> > investigated quickly and efficiently, justice

> done

> > as it should be.

> >

> > ETA Crossed with BB

>

> Somebody started a perfectly reasonable thread at

> the time but to call them a ranter?

>

> It does seem like you got your tuppence worth in

> though Rendel!

Not like you, obviously.

Unbelievable.

Pensioner attacked by two scum burglars in his home. He fights back and in the struggle stabs and kills one (pity not both). Police, who have given up on theft and burglaries, and with London streets littered with bodies,arrest the householder.

I despair of this country.

You don't regard that as a rant, and think it's "perfectly reasonable"?

[apbremer]

Does the ever so PC rendelharris not think that if we ranters and the public outrage that followed not occurred that the lethargic wheels of justice would have got around to releasing our Hero so quickly?? A similar incident in Catford last December when a violent drunken intruder was killed, strangely attracted little public attention or outcry and the brave householder was hauled up to face a murder charge months later at doubtless huge public expense, before being summarily acquitted by the jury.

[JoeLeg]

hammerman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Pensioner to face no charges - so, to address

> the

> > ranters who started the thread, police

> > investigated quickly and efficiently, justice

> done

> > as it should be.

> >

> > ETA Crossed with BB

>

> Somebody started a perfectly reasonable thread at

> the time but to call them a ranter?

>

> It does seem like you got your tuppence worth in

> though Rendel!

Apbremer unfortunately had no understanding of proper police procedure. The homeowner in this case was actually afforded greater protection by being arrested because his rights to legal representation, and to advance a defence of self-defence, which the law recognised, kicked in. And as can be seen it was dealt with in a manner which was not only legally but also morally/ethically correct.

The rant was in the OP, who hopefully has more of an understanding now. There police face many problems, but fortunately on this occasion the system worked.

ETA - it?s got very little to do with being PC. Someone died. The police have very strict rules to follow on these occasions. Did the public outcry affect things? Maybe. But that had nothing to do with the original nevcesityvto attest and interview under caution with a lawyer present, which was the original focus of your anger.

[rendelharris]

apbremer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Does the ever so PC rendelharris not think that if

> we ranters and the public outrage that followed

> not occurred that the lethargic wheels of justice

> would have got around to releasing our Hero so

> quickly?? A similar incident in Catford last

> December when a violent drunken intruder was

> killed, strangely attracted little public

> attention or outcry and the brave householder was

> hauled up to face a murder charge months later at

> doubtless huge public expense, before being

> summarily acquitted by the jury.

No actually I don't, the police and judiciary have their faults but thank goodness they are not generally influenced by the likes of you baying for blood.

OK, the case you mentioned in Catford: a drunken man with mental health issues (and no weapon) stumbled into someone's home late at night. After a struggle the "brave householder" (your words) managed to throw him into the garden and went inside and locked the door. He (the homeowner) then got a knife, unlocked the door, went back into the garden and stabbed the intruder fifty times, including thirty times in the neck, killing him. The two cases are not in the slightest bit comparable, taking the man in the Catford case to court was entirely justifiable and frankly I'm astonished he got away with a justification of self defence given the frenzied nature of the violence and the fact that he had secured his safety, then chose to abandon it in order to carry out the attack. I recall at the time legal experts criticising the CPS, saying that if they'd gone for manslaughter rather than murder as the charge he would in all likelihood have been found guilty. ETA and by the way, the defendant in that case himself had severe mental health issues, and admitted to police that he was "in a rage" and had "lost control". But still, yeah, the police and CPS should have just done nothing about it.

But of course you see everything as black and white, "heroes" and "scum", so pointing out that policing and the legal process are highly nuanced, complex, require handling by experts and should not be rushed under pressure from a baying mob is probably a bit of a waste of time.

[apbremer]

Not worth a reply. Missed the point totally. Pathetic.

[rendelharris]

apbremer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not worth a reply. Missed the point totally.

> Pathetic.

In other words, you don't have a reply. I've answered your "point" (such as it was) in full, and in detail - but then facts aren't really your thing, are they?

[JoeLeg]

apbremer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not worth a reply. Missed the point totally.

> Pathetic.

Well, hang on, what IS your point?

You got really pissed off that someone got *arrested* - not charged, arrested - which is simply the police doing what they?re supposed to do when they find a person has been killed. The poor homeowner was arrested ?on suspicion of? murder.

At that point he gets a lawyer and tells is side of the story. Of course it?s awful for him, I?d hate to be in that situation, he?s just undergone a traumatic event and now he?s in a police interview room. BUT if it doesn?t go like that then he can?t be officially exonerated. And hey presto, he was officially exonerated. You say the law is an ass, but actuallyvthe law had his back from start to finish on this occasion.

As for the guy in Catford? No, sorry, that one isn?t as clear cut in my view. That needed to go to trial.

[uncleglen]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rendel, what's tiresome is how quickly you retreat

> into moral outrage and personal attack when

> someone has an opinion that's opposed to yours.

> For what it's worth, I've worked in communication

> and mental health so perhaps I just have a more

> developed awareness around this than you do!

It is a lot easier to 'talk the talk' when you have a set view that conforms to the current PC brigade (deliberate choice of word) because then you don't have to think about it- unless Rendel is playing devil's advocate just to stir stuff up.

[rendelharris]

Deliberate choice of word Uncle? Glad to hear it, looking at the majority of your posts I assumed they were just created by a random Daily Mail froth generator.

If you took two seconds to look at the discussion, you'd see that it is actually RPC who's arguing for a more PC form of language, saying we mustn't use the term "lunatic" in any context because it's offensive to those with MH issues, and I argued against that. RPC actually obviously feels sincerely about this and I rather regret being quite so aggressive about it (though I wasn't until I was accused of being the same as someone saying "Paki" or "Gyppo"). However, you're just jumping without an ounce of thought on the opportunity to have a go at "the PC brigade" without thinking at all about who's said what. But I'm guessing you don't often engage the old brain before rushing to comment.

[JoeLeg]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> It is a lot easier to 'talk the talk' when you

> have a set view that conforms to the current PC

> brigade (deliberate choice of word) because then

> you don't have to think about it-

Much like yourself and your solid aversion to anything that doesn?t fit your narrow worldview.

unless Rendel is

> playing devil's advocate just to stir stuff up.

Coming from one of the biggest keyboard warriors around (deliberate choice of words), that?s pretty funny - in a laughing at you, not with you, kind of way.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Look, I haven't commented again because (a) I've got enough to do prepping for a meeting tomorrow and (b) it's off-topic, but I'm not 'arguing for a more PC form of language' (rendelharris) or expressing 'a set view that conforms to the current PC brigade' (uncleglen, whatever that means). I'm talking about what we express when we use words.

My initial comment was actually tongue in cheek, but when rendel leapt with his boots on I thought it was worth defending. The word 'lunatic' may not be the best example, but it's still a valid one.

So here we go. Language is morally neutral. It has no value or fixed meaning of its own: it exists purely to express our ideas and pass them on to other people. We customise and reinvent it endlessly to do that.

All the excellent recent efforts to raise awareness and insight into mental health have gone some way to reduce stigma around mental health problems and people who live with them so that they can live their lives as people first and foremost, like everyone else, rather than be written off by virtue of a label (particularly one applied casually rather than a proper clinical diagnosis).

However, the same label (even an old-fashioned one that wouldn't have been part of a diagnosis 20 years ago) carries its bundle of original meanings with it, so they're still part of the resonance in the here and now. (It wouldn't work as a put-down if they weren't.) Using it in a different context - usually to dismiss something or someone you disagree with going to the effort of debating the topic - keeps alive the underlying attitudes and prejudices, and so the stigma of having a mental health problem. By arguing that it's in the dictionary / normal / the BBC does it, effectively you're defending the underlying attitude, perhaps unwittingly.

Race, gender, sexuality etc have made better progress in this; hopefully mental health will soon catch up. God knows I'm bored of the casual labelling we all use, usually to put down a person or an idea, or just to sound knowing (ever noticed how much we all speak for effect these days?). Even BBC presenters ask guests if they're 'OCD' to mean 'fussy' or 'obsessed', or 'schizophrenic' if there is more than one cultural identity in their life. We say 'on the spectrum'/'autistic' about someone who doesn't want to engage with us or who we find difficult or just different.

How much worse is that for people who live with the distressing reality of those conditions day in, day out, either themselves or in someone they care about?

I'm not going to dig out sources for you, rendel,(slightly bewildered as to why you think someone with access to the media writing about it is any more 'evidence' than us talking about it), but if you want to find out more you could google 'stigma, mental health and language'. Plenty of stuff out there.

Hope that explains and also answers JoeLeg's Q.

(PS: the traveller word wasn't the one rendel used.)

[rendelharris]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> when rendel leapt with his boots on

Just to remind you, as you seem to have built this up in your mind into some terrible personal attack, I politely disagreed with your statement regarding the word lunatic, thus:

It's not - for describing people with mental illness. As a common epithet for silly - "The lunatic plan for a garden bridge" - I've never seen it suggested before that it's wrong to use it. It's all context, one wouldn't call a child with learning difficulties stupid but that doesn't mean it's offensive to say "that's a stupid plan." Nor have I ever seen it suggested that the phrase "the lunatics have taken over the asylum" as used above is offensive, it's certainly still in common use. Bad news for Funboy Three residuals if it's wrong.

Language is morally neutral. It has

> no value or fixed meaning of its own: it exists

> purely to express our ideas and pass them on to

> other people. We customise and reinvent it

> endlessly to do that.

Exactly - so words which once held a stigma can, over time, become inoffensive when they take on a different use.

(slightly bewildered as to why you think

> someone with access to the media writing about it

> is any more 'evidence' than us talking about it),

I have no idea what that means.

> (PS: the traveller word wasn't the one rendel

> used.)

Whatever the word was, you still accused me, basically, of being as bad as someone using the word "Paki", and that was both rude and absurd.

ETA You are, seriously, the only person I've ever encountered who objects to the use of the word "lunatic" in a non-medical context, and I've worked with a number of mental health professionals and mental health charities. And I'm tiresomely politically correct...I think you're just wrong on this one. You haven't answered Joe's question at all, which was are we now not allowed to say something's crazy, mad, daft, stupid?

[poch]

Using the word 'lunatic' in a non-medical context is not as offensive as the using the word 'paki' (god, I remember that word swilling round London when I was a kid). The word 'paki' is a really nasty racist word used intentionally to diminish and belittle. Rendel's use of the word 'lunacy' had none of that malicious intent so I can understand why he'd be a little miffed about the comparison...

But I do get what you're saying, RPC, about certain types of language use adding to deeply ingrained prejudices (although I'd re-iterate that the intention of the user is important, and that wouldn't have been RH's intention).

ps. I'm a signed up member of the PC Brigade! James O'Brien (LBC) is very good on all of this. What's so wrong about not wanting to cause offence to others? Surely the benefits of that approach to life outweigh the potential harms (ie having to watch what comes out of your mouth occasionally...)