Thracian Posted 24 March 2009 Posted 24 March 2009 http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090324/tuk-a...er-6323e80.html Questions: ======= a) Who let him into this country? b) On who's advice was he deemed safe to roam the streets? c) Will the people responsible for a and b be held responsible for their actions? d) Which country is going to keep him now for the next 25 years less remission (he was sentenced to life).
Finnegan Posted 24 March 2009 Posted 24 March 2009 The emphasis here should be on the fact he's a paranoid schitzophrenic, not that he's an assylum seeker. You can't ever condone what he's done but the man quite obviously needs help.
Finnegan Posted 24 March 2009 Posted 24 March 2009 Question:Are you emplyed by Yahoo or something? But why waste 50p every day when you can just read the Mail online?
Jon the Hat Posted 24 March 2009 Posted 24 March 2009 http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090324/tuk-a...er-6323e80.htmlQuestions: ======= a) Who let him into this country? b) On who's advice was he deemed safe to roam the streets? c) Will the people responsible for a and b be held responsible for their actions? d) Which country is going to keep him now for the next 25 years less remission (he was sentenced to life). You can't win them all.
Thracian Posted 24 March 2009 Author Posted 24 March 2009 The emphasis here should be on the fact he's a paranoid schitzophrenic, not that he's an assylum seeker.You can't ever condone what he's done but the man quite obviously needs help. A young policeman lies dead. His family are presumably devastated. A window cleaner was stabbed. Another might well have been stabbed (that's only relating to the incident considered by the court which I'd seriously doubt was the only one because...) The man was diagnosed with Schizophrenia in 2005. The guy's was free to wreak his havoc on our streets two years later. He shouldn't have been here. Doubtless, conveniently, no-one will genuiinely be made to answer for all the despair he's caused because of idiot decisions. And still you make excuses. No wonder this country's fecked.
Finnegan Posted 24 March 2009 Posted 24 March 2009 Which part of my post reads like an excuse? It's a sad, sad story on all accounts - I just really deplore the demonization of people who clearly, clearly have severe mental health problems.
purpleronnie Posted 24 March 2009 Posted 24 March 2009 A young policeman lies dead.His family are presumably devastated. A window cleaner was stabbed. Another might well have been stabbed (that's only relating to the incident considered by the court which I'd seriously doubt was the only one because...) The man was diagnosed with Schizophrenia in 2005. The guy's was free to wreak his havoc on our streets two years later. He shouldn't have been here. Doubtless, conveniently, no-one will genuiinely be made to answer for all the despair he's caused because of idiot decisions. And still you make excuses. No wonder this country's fecked. You seem to think these things only happen in england...they don't. Believe me having lived in lots of other countries england is a heck of a lot better than most.
Finnegan Posted 24 March 2009 Posted 24 March 2009 You seem to think these things only happen in england...they don't. Believe me having lived in lots of other countries england is a heck of a lot better than most. Also a fair point. While I agree that the health system has let not only the policeman down but the suspect himself, Lord only knows how much more damage he could have done in a less developed country before he was picked up.
Thracian Posted 24 March 2009 Author Posted 24 March 2009 Which part of my post reads like an excuse? It's a sad, sad story on all accounts - I just really deplore the demonization of people who clearly, clearly have severe mental health problems. a) All of it. b) There are a lot of sad stories in the world (my father was a male nurse at The Towers Hospital and spent years looking after schizo's) but we can't be responsible for them all and we do have a responsibility for the safety and welfare of the people who rightfully live here and belong here as you conveniently and consistently seem to ignore.
Finnegan Posted 24 March 2009 Posted 24 March 2009 He legally and rightfully lived here. There's a big difference between an assylum seeker (of which there are surprisingly few in this country) and an illegal immigrant. His illness shouldn't affect his eligibility to be a part of British society - in fact I'd personally be of the state of mind that, if we can give him better care than Nigeria, that's more reason for him to be here. I'm not arguing with you that this is an absolute travesty and that whatever authority diagnosed him and was supposed to be responcible for him have seriously misjudged his state of mind. My only point here, my only point is that this is a tragic story of a greatly mentally ill invidiaul and his victim and shouldn't become yet another right-wing shock story about foreigners and non-ethnic English.
Sir Fynwy Posted 24 March 2009 Posted 24 March 2009 a) All of it.b) There are a lot of sad stories in the world (my father was a male nurse at The Towers Hospital and spent years looking after schizo's) but we can't be responsible for them all and we do have a responsibility for the safety and welfare of the people who rightfully live here and belong here as you conveniently and consistently seem to ignore. The news story doesn't call him a failed asylum seeker so he may be in the country perfectly legally, ignoring the other facts of the case just because the words asylum seeker are used in the story is fair?
Thracian Posted 24 March 2009 Author Posted 24 March 2009 You seem to think these things only happen in england...they don't. Believe me having lived in lots of other countries england is a heck of a lot better than most. I don't think they only happen in England at all. But I do believe we have enough trouble looking after our own problems (Midlands Today this lunchtime features one lad allowed to die because of neglect) without taking on everyone else's problems.
Finnegan Posted 24 March 2009 Posted 24 March 2009 I don't think they only happen in England at all. But I do believe we have enough trouble looking after our own problems (Midlands Today this lunchtime features one lad allowed to die because of neglect) without taking on everyone else's problems. That's fundamentally the difference between you and I, Tony. Maybe I'm just young and naive - but I sincerely think that's just an awful attitude for any human being to have.
Thracian Posted 24 March 2009 Author Posted 24 March 2009 The news story doesn't call him a failed asylum seeker so he may be in the country perfectly legally, ignoring the other facts of the case just because the words asylum seeker are used in the story is fair? I didn't say he was a failed asylum seeker. I said he shouldn't have been here. He clearly wasn't a safe person to admit and the person who made that decision should answer for it.
Finnegan Posted 24 March 2009 Posted 24 March 2009 I didn't say he was a failed asylum seeker. I said he shouldn't have been here. He clearly wasn't a safe person to admit and the person who made that decision should answer for it. Well you have to assume he had no known history of violent outbreaks, they're hardly going to grant assylym to a violent criminal are they? And how do you know how long he's been here? I am prone to misread at times but I'm pretty sure it didn't say - he may not have even been diagnosed before his entry.
Edmund Posted 24 March 2009 Posted 24 March 2009 I didn't say he was a failed asylum seeker. I said he shouldn't have been here. He clearly wasn't a safe person to admit and the person who made that decision should answer for it. How would they know that he wasn't safe? Just because he suffers from schizophrenia doesn't mean he is going to be violent in the future. Ive said it once and il say it again, hindsight is such a wonderful thing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/213981.stm "Violence is not, in fact, a symptom of schizophrenia. People with the illness are more likely to become timid and withdrawn."Schizophrenia can be successfully managed and people can live in the community and work."
Thracian Posted 24 March 2009 Author Posted 24 March 2009 That's fundamentally the difference between you and I, Tony.Maybe I'm just young and naive - but I sincerely think that's just an awful attitude for any human being to have. In my view you are naive. Look around you. There are problems galore here that we don't have the resources to deal with properly as it is without taking on more and ending up causing more difficulties than we solve. As for my awful attitude well let's view that from a practical point of view: My mum was a remedial teacher who spent her years helping disadvantaged kids to read and write etc. In my view she was very good at it and extremely caring andconscientious. My father was a male nurse at a mental hosptial as I mentioned. I've spent many hours coaching disabled kids and borstal kids for free and going to riding for the disabled centres in places as far away as Swansea doing what little I can to helpfor seriously traumatised youngsters or teenagers dying from multiple sclerosis. If there wasn't so much form filling and officialdom now I'd do more. My sister is a trauma ounsellor who spends much of her spare time visiting people who've had their faces smashed in by their partners or their daughters buggered by their so-called guardians and all the other shit that humankind is capable of and my eldest son contributes a significant four-figure sum to the air ambulance every year as well as sponsoring all sorts and supporting any number of other charities. Whether we can deal with schizophrenia better than Nigeria I don't know and even if we can it's not necessarily best that we do it here for the long term anyway. I am sure it is not beyond the wit of man to treat someone here and then ensure he gets what he needs in his own country but one thing is for sure, if we keep nannying other countries they and their leaders won't ever learn or be forced to help themselves. Nigeria has vast resources and is well able to look after itself and its own. It's people are even reported to be the happiest according to a survey mentioned here which, in fact, sounds like as good an environment for a schizophrenic as any. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria As for illness, of course a person's state of health should be an important part of consideration for citizenship for the same reason I've mentioned in relation to other things, though I don't suppose it is. That is that we as a country are first and foremost responsible for the health and welfare of our citizens and it is hugely irresponsible to import such things as AIDS, TB and other infectious diseases when so many people are prepared to be irresponsible, some even have malicious intent and when we don't have to because most things can or should be treated in their own lands (and I have no objection to genuine exceptions, initially in the short term).
Thracian Posted 24 March 2009 Author Posted 24 March 2009 Well you have to assume he had no known history of violent outbreaks If true I am sure the persons responsible for granting asylum would be able to produce all the relevent proof necessary before an inquiry. Personally I don't believe a word of it and just believe it to be another excuse to justify your stance and that of others like you - a stance that has just cost someone their life, notwithstanding how the stabbed window cleaner fared.
Thracian Posted 24 March 2009 Author Posted 24 March 2009 Also a fair point.While I agree that the health system has let not only the policeman down but the suspect himself, Lord only knows how much more damage he could have done in a less developed country before he was picked up. Great, so human rightists like yourself would theoretically gather any arsehole in the world and settle them in England so they don''t harm anyone anywhere else. No wonder so many native people feel shit upon. j
Dr The Singh Posted 24 March 2009 Posted 24 March 2009 I have no issues on checking the mental health or physical heath of Assylum seekers but where it fits in there application is highly debateable. SHould an asylum seeker with AIDS be refused, or should that person be given the chance to live there life in the UK! Or in the case of a person with mental problems, are they capable of fighting there case for asylum in the first place!! I have very little knowledge on the subject, so I apologise in advance!!!
Alexikokopops Posted 24 March 2009 Posted 24 March 2009 Great, so human rightists like yourself would theoretically gather any arsehole in the world and settle them in England so they don''t harm anyone anywhere else. No wonder so many native people feel shit upon. j Where did he say that From that quote it appears he was just hypothetically musing about what could have happened.
Edmund Posted 24 March 2009 Posted 24 March 2009 Your anger is understandable tharcian but no where in the article does it say that they knew he was suffering from mental health problems before he came into the country. How are they suppose to know if they don't? If we knew Hitler was going to fook the world over before he did we would have stopped it. Get my point? Im not defending him and obviously it is very tragic but your comments blaming the system are based on nothing. You cant blame the system and assume they knew his state and what he was capable of. If there is another article backing your points fair enough but at the moment it's all assumptions.
Alexikokopops Posted 24 March 2009 Posted 24 March 2009 Your anger is understandable tharcian but no where in the article does it say that they knew he was suffering from mental health problems before he came into the country. How are they suppose to know if they don't?If we knew Hitler was going to fook the world over before he did we would have stopped it. Get my point? Im not defending him and obviously it is very tragic but your comments blaming the system are based on nothing. You cant blame the system and assume they knew his state and what he was capable of. If there is another article backing your points fair enough but at the moment it's all assumptions. It says in the article he was diagnosed in 2005, two years before the attack.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.