Shrimpsvoices

PC Rathband, shot by mixed up moat, is now confirmed to be permanently blind, anyone on here still feel moat was badly done to

Nope

mrpotatohead wrote:PC Rathband, shot by mixed up moat, is now confirmed to be permanently blind, anyone on here still feel moat was badly done to

Not for one minute, no.

Can't believe for one minute so many idiots have signed up on Facebook in support of Moat.

Unbelievable.

You can be pretty sure that those same people who are 'anti-police' and thought Moat was some kind of hero, would be dialling 999 if they were ever faced by a nutter with a gun.

Society should take the blame. We live in a cruel and unequal society. The authorities failed to help this desperate man.

What authorities? That's almost as bad as people apportioning blame to the mythical "they".

And how can they have failed to help him when he shot his first victim not long after coming out of jail, clearly intent on doing so, then disappearing for a week?

Suzi Quatro wrote:Society should take the blame. We live in a cruel and unequal society. The authorities failed to help this desperate man.

A desperate man who prior to prison humiliated his three year old child and assaulted his partner. He also maintained a social network where it was easy to obtain illegal weapons. Sympathy nil.

take it you signed the facebook tat then suzy, the man was a murderous bully and thug, the blind policemans children will not have signed it

Suzi Quatro wrote:Society should take the blame. We live in a cruel and unequal society. The authorities failed to help this desperate man.

At what point do individuals take responsibility for their own actions? This is a guy who mixed with the 'under-world' and drug dealers. A vicious thug who made his child stand on the street wearing a 'naughty hat' to embarrass her. A man arrested ten years ago for conspiracy to murder a drug dealer. Someone with a long history of violence.

At best he was a socio-path, more likely a psychopath, neither of which are treatable conditions under the terms of the Mental Health Act. So what could 'society' do for this 'poor desperate man'... who believed that killing people was acceptable?

Have a read:
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

then feel sorry for his victims, including his children.

He got reported to the police for abusing his dogs.
"He never fed them, they were underweight and you could see their ribs.
"He's got a vicious temper. When he's fallen out with neighbours in the past he's gone round and set fire to their cars. He's really nasty. We're all terrified of him.
"I wouldn't be surprised if he's got guns, he's got everything else. He was in jail for for assaulting the kids. His eldest, Chantelle, had gone to school with a big bruise on her back and the teachers had seen it.
"Then they found out it had been going on over a period of time. Sam had lived with him for a couple of years. But after Raoul was done for hitting his kids the two eldest were put into care.
"Sam was told by social services she'd have to leave him or she'd lose her little girl too. I think she moved out for good about four weeks ago. Sam was in tears and worried what Raoul might say.

But none of that is his fault or responsibility, it's all 'society's fault'?

Keith wrote:At best he was a socio-path, more likely a psychopath, neither of which are treatable conditions under the terms of the Mental Health Act. So what could 'society' do for this 'poor desperate man'... who believed that killing people was acceptable?

Sorry if I've missed something.
What happened to all the institutions (like the Moor and RAH) that Society had, to protect vulnerable people from 'us' and 'themselves'?
How do we know [for certain] that none of these people were as described above?
The streets are littered with 'aliens' who need to be semi-securely looked after, for their own benefit, welfare and safety, and that of ours.
It's The System's' fault, and who is the 'The System?'

...Yet one woman described Moat as a "gentle giant who was pushed over the edge".

Sounds to me like he was always scum.

Peter wrote:Sorry if I've missed something.

As usual Peter, you've missed anything between twenty & fifty years!

Peter wrote:What happened to all the institutions (like the Moor and RAH) that Society had, to protect vulnerable people from 'us' and 'themselves'?
How do we know [for certain] that none of these people were as described above?
The streets are littered with 'aliens' who need to be semi-securely looked after, for their own benefit, welfare and safety, and that of ours.
It's The System's' fault, and who is the 'The System?'

Without writing an essay, random killings by mentally ill people are incredibly rare. Out of 648 murders only about 50 would have been killed by people with a mental illness. There were people in The Royal Albert who lived their lives there because they were BORN THERE! Yup, pregnant, unmarried mothers were incarcerated and babies were born and lived there.

Should the institutions have been shut? Yes. Were they shut well? Definately not. Thatcher sold the land for housing estates and Sainsbury superstores rather than ring-fence the money to invest in psychiatric services in the community. Some structured community services would reduce the number of people inappropriately placed in prison for starters.

But that's irrelevant, as mentioned psychopathy/sociopathy is not (and never was) covered by the Mental Health Act, so The Moor was never going to keep 'society' safe from the likes of Moat (not that he's been diagnosed as such anyway).

Keith wrote:As usual Peter, you've missed anything between twenty & fifty years!

That's a bit unkind
Thickos like me don't understand, and jump to our own conclusions.
You're an expert on the subject, and being an idiot (me) helps to eke out that expertise for all our benefit.
What I can't understand though, is why there are so many potential 'Raoul Moat's' out there.
It could be your turn, my turn, or even darrenlock's turn next.
Are people born psychopathic/sociopathic ? Or is it something that has poisoned their bodies/minds over a number of years?
Something has got to be done to turn the tide, before these people become the norm, and it really does become dangerous to go out after dusk.

PS. What's the difference between a psychopath/sociopath and someone with paranoia? What's the treatment for paranoia, particularly for someone like the Moat's of this world?

Peter wrote:

Keith wrote:As usual Peter, you've missed anything between twenty & fifty years!

That's a bit unkind

Sorry!

Peter wrote:Thickos like me don't understand, and jump to our own conclusions.
You're an expert on the subject, and being an idiot (me) helps to eke out that expertise for all our benefit.
What I can't understand though, is why there are so many potential 'Raoul Moat's' out there.
It could be your turn, my turn, or even darrenlock's turn next.
Are people born psychopathic/sociopathic ? Or is it something that has poisoned their bodies/minds over a number of years?
Something has got to be done to turn the tide, before these people become the norm, and it really does become dangerous to go out after dusk.

PS. What's the difference between a psychopath/sociopath and someone with paranoia? What's the treatment for paranoia, particularly for someone like the Moat's of this world?

Okay, taking issues separately. First off, depending upon which studies you believe, there is a good chance that you know 'someone' who could broadly be classed as 'sociopathic'. This is a good description of what constitutes 'sociopathy'.
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html ("Conduct disorder" is basically persistent antisocial behaviours). It may even be that we should at times be thankful for them, it was shown that during the American Civil War only about one in ten soldiers aimed to kill.

Sociopaths created or nurtured? Don't actually know to be honest. I tend to err towards nurture but I don't know.

As for the 'potential killers', even expanding out beyond sociopaths to include schizophrenia etc you are still looking at less than fifty such murders per year. Factor in 'strangers murdering strangers' and you are probably looking at 20 to 30 at the very most. With more than twenty times as many people dying due to drink driving it's clear that there are other situations that are far more frightening. It really isn't a "tide" but it takes something 'extra' for the national press to focus on deaths due to drunk drivers (like them being a professional footballer for example).

Psychopath & sociopath are sometimes used interchangeably, sometimes psychopath is 'the next step up'. Paranoia is a 'state of mind', believing that other individuals, government police etc are 'out to get them' or cause harm. Paranoia can be 'mild' or severe and ingrained. So a 'paranoid schizophrenic' is likely to experience long term delusional ideas, coupled with hallucinations where as in personality disorders the paranoia may be more transient for example, related to stress levels.

Almost all situations are exacerbated by drug use, including both alcohol and illegal drug abuse.

Keith wrote:But that's irrelevant, as mentioned psychopathy/sociopathy is not (and never was) covered by the Mental Health Act, so The Moor was never going to keep 'society' safe from the likes of Moat (not that he's been diagnosed as such anyway).

Where do the likes of Peter Sutcliffe fit in?
Under the Mental Health Act isn't it?
So why is he being treated like a psychopath?
He might have murdered 13 women, but he could, and perhaps should, have been caught after his first murder. Chances are he'd be a free man now.
But because he carried on his sick crusade he isn't considered, even after 30 years in Broadmoor as fit for release, despite the fact that the Mental Health Act bods think he is 'cured'.

Then there is the Bulger case.
Both his murderers are outside, with new lives, and costing all of us a fortune.

Daft, or what?

And, are we in more danger in our daily lives walking the streets wearing a particular colour? I think red is safest.

Back to the original point

Anyone on here (apart from dawzie and suzie q) THINK MOAT IS BEST NOT BREATHING OUR AIR

The man was a waste of space. Was he pushed over the edge? Almost certainly yes. But he is the one who chose the lifestyle to take him to the edge.
He humiliated children, bullied adults and spent his time in Her Majesty's Hotel pointing the finger outwards for his actions, instead of pointing at himself.
Just as an observation, PC rathbone took a career option where now and then you get a bad Bobby. How often to you flip the coin and find a good criminal? I don't recall ever saying I'm glad someone is dead, but in this case I think of his kids and think that maybe they have a better chance now than before.

wijit wrote:... but in this case I think of his kids and think that maybe they have a better chance now than before.

At least they knew who their dad was, unlike 1000s of others.
I've forced myself to watch the Jeremy Kyle show recently. Absolutely unbelievable viewing. What comes after the 'Underclass', because we're fast approaching it?

mrpotatohead wrote:Back to the original point

Anyone on here (apart from dawzie and suzie q) THINK MOAT IS BEST NOT BREATHING OUR AIR

I'd rather he'd been caught alive and punished, but I'm not losing sleep or berating 'society' because he killed himself.

Peter wrote:Where do the likes of Peter Sutcliffe fit in?
Under the Mental Health Act isn't it?
So why is he being treated like a psychopath?

Because he's not.

He's a paranoid schizophrenic. As such he'll experience delusional ideas, paranoid ideas, grandiose ideas. He would have heard voices ('god' probably) telling him to carry out the acts. He really 'believed' that he was doing 'god's work' by killing prostitutes. Paranoid schizophrenia is a treatable condition hence why he went to a hospital rather than prison. I remember one occasion at The Moor Hospital, a 6ft+ bloke was gently 'going off it' sat in the lounge, looking skyward, 'chatting with god'. He was basically going through time, telling god where he'd "made mistakes". The staff were keeping a close eye on things when suddenly this little guy leapt up and shouted "WILL YOU SHUT UP!" He picked up a chair and threw it at the big chap. The staff were all on their feet ready to stop fisticuffs. The chair bounced off him and, still looking skyards he said to 'god' "do excuse me a moment" then addressing his assailant said "do you mind, I'm in conversation" before gazing once more to heaven and continuing "now, where were we? Ah yes 1812..." Someone put their arm around the little guy and guided him away for a walk in the grounds... The point is, he believed 100% that he was 'talking to god'. It would actually have been dangerous to try and convince him otherwise. The 'talking' isn't in-itself 'dangerous' and there are many schizophrenics who can live perfectly reasonably and valuably in society with just a little bit of support, who will never be a danger to themselves or others. One of the most loving families I've ever witnessed was in the community. Two people who were both schizophrenic had met in the hospital, got together, married and had a daughter. When I met them, she was about 14 yrs old. She helped them both manage their medication and they were both on fortnightly injections, one one week, the other the next, so a nurse went in to their home every week. They were all so supportive of each other and the young girl kept it all together but if you want to talk about the real crimes of society, look at how 'we' treat the tens of thousands of 'young carers'.

And as I said before, you should be far more worried about being wiped out and killed by a drunk driver who you never met than being killed by someone who has mental health problems who you never met.

mrpotatohead wrote:PC Rathband, shot by mixed up moat, is now confirmed to be permanently blind, anyone on here still feel moat was badly done to

Bit of a stupid question really. I think they'd have made their mind up after he'd killed a man and shot two other innocent people. Considering he's actually killed someone, the fact that one of the people who he has injured has worse injuries than initially thought isn't going to change anyone's mind.